Is there Evil in the East End of London? If not, how come so many people are lumbered in ‘the most deprived’ area still ? Who made these people deprived? Where is the deprivation coming from? Is it genetic? Is it ethnic? Is it cultural? Or is it simply created by a morass of crooked individuals and self-seekers given public cash to parade as the approved ‘community organisations’? How many crooks in the East End have been feted and given platforms by the East London Idiotiser?

When a just-entered Tory ‘Tower Hamlets councillor’ [pause for additional thought here] finds it the most natural thing to gloat about the similarity in the names between himself and Blairing counterpart on the controlling side of the Tower Hopeless Council, it must be concluded that the Blairing immorality has gone too far!
The Tory Rupert was not just pointing out the nomenclatural similarity, he was positively gloating over the trend that he too had seen in the Rightward behaviour of the Blairing clique! But the Tory Rupert was uttering words of disdain at the expense of his Blairing counterpart!
So who was there to call a halt to the Blairing brazenness? An ‘Opposition’ councillor perhaps?
Not likely.
Not at least from those who formally formed the numerically largest grouping under one politically-linked electoral card, the grouping bearing the name of ‘Respect’.
Just how fragile that ‘grouping’ is as a coherent political opposition, became clear following the contribution made by a Lib Dems councillor on road safety.
Councillor Louise Alexander [from the Weavers ward, on the northern side of the Burgh in Bethnal green] had in her presentation of the case for an urgent Council action in making the traffic danger spot safe, stated, quite inoffensively and almost without any party political point scoring contents of rancour, that the people in the area under reference, the junction of Brick Lane Bethnal green Road and Red church street did not have to do a petition on their local council for the spot to be made safe. Cllr Alexander sat down after expressing words hoping that the Council would get on and make the spot safe for pedestrians. So what should have followed? Shouldn’t a series of sensibly supporting statements have followed? Not likely! Not in the very strange Council of Tower Hopeless Council. A speaker stood up and delivered a piece that could only have come from a very corrupt and very undemocratic controlling clique member! Lo and behold! It was not a controlling cliquester. Not on the face of it. It was a ‘Respect’ councillor making an assertion that we in the gallery had not been able to link with anything Councillor Louise Alexander had said!
Yet this ‘Respect’ councillor criticized Louise Alexander for allegedly attacking officers! Meaning council employees [in the road traffic section of the LBTH Council] who should have done the job by making the spot safe for pedestrians ages ago…
So why had that ‘RESPECT’ councillor done that ?
Where had he got the info that the ‘officers’ had been allegedly attacked in that contribution or indeed in the relevant petition put to the Council that several hundred local people had signed?
What was that ‘Respect’ councillor doing undermining so openly the contribution of another opposition councillor who on that occasion was not doing anything but making a very sensible, brief and to-the-point speech, one that any reasonable person would expect all decent councillors to be making on similar occasions and on similar topics?
[To be continued]

From the previous editions of AADHIKARonline as published on Saturday 16 September 2006

Khoodeelaar! Manifesto 2006 report by Muhammad Haque
at 2020 Hrs GMT Friday 15 September 2006

Thursday night’s ‘Strategic Development’ committee meeting was ‘observed’ by more than a 100 persons from the non-existent public gallery. The permanently make-shift arrangement to obstruct observation is a feature of a Blairing clique in control of the CrossRail hole-inviting Tower Hamlets Council.
A combination of factors caused the particular committee to say No [for the time being] to the proposed Tower 'development' in the north of the borough in Bethnal Green. A number of councillors are expected to give reasons for their refusal to accept the arguments put forward by the most active promoter of the project among the Council’s 'planning ' employees, a man called Stephen Irvine. It was him with the nasal delivery stuffed multiple illogicalities. And dire dire inconsistencies. Irvine delivered in a manner as if he were not being observed. That showed his apparent state of confidence. He came across as being in control of the council. As far as the development brief went. He did not show any remorse at being unable to argue a factually consistent case.
Let alone at being unable to make a democratically legitimate case.
As far as his output at that sitting of the meeting was concerned, Stephen Irvine was deigning being there.
He stated more than once words and sentences that gave away his true feelings about what he must have thought was a nuisance: a batch of non-officers sitting there asking him anything at all. Stephen Irvine, as he disclosed at a later stage in the same meeting [while promoting a bigger development application] must believe that he was a TV star!.
Far less to show any compunction at being unable to recognise the existence of the people that constitute the true bosses to whom he must answer via these councillors!
[To be continued]

Councillors are elected to REPRESENT the community and get the employees of the Council to do what the community needs. Did the behaviour of the employees [strangely referred to as 'officers'] advising councillors and the conduct of the councillors so advised at the two meetings held on 13 and 14 September 2006 meet that requirement? - A Khoodeelaar! manifesto report on those two meetings addressing the above question will be published here during Saturday 16 September 2006

From the previous editions of AADHIKARonline as published from London on Friday 15 September 2006

1. Return to the campaign trail' - a 'gob smacked' Lib Dems councillor on Tower Hamlets Council Louise Alexander greets a rare but desirable outcome at the 'Strategic Development' committee meeting
   
   
   
2. CROSSRAIL hole Tower Hamlets Council IS being operated under agenda being set by criminally installed elements who are agents of Big Business and active opponents of the society as we knew it in any legitimate, pre-Blairing, sense of a democratic society

By Muhammad Haque 1415 Hrs GMT London Friday 15 September 2006

The room in the ‘Mulberry Place’ building where last night’s ‘strategic development’ committee meeting was held, is small. As compared to the room that it should be if it is to accommodate the numbers of people who would like to observe the meetings that take place in it. The room is called ‘Council Chamber’. But as with everything to with Tower Hamlets Council, it is not anywhere near spacious enough to deserve to be called that. The result is, as with everything to do with Tower Hopeless Council, there is always a spill over into the next room which is a space that test endurance of a saint to the limits. There is alleged IT at work. No. The IT does not work. Information technology is malfunctioning. So where there should be vision, there is blur. Where there should be sound, there is a faint noise. Or drones. Unless you press your ears to the ceiling! So there is an all pervasive expression of unease, embarrassment and feeling of being foolish. For being there. What on earth am I doing in this stupid room which has vision but nothing can be recognised? Like the truth. Tower Hamlets Council and the truth don’t mix. And so it proved last night during the attempt to observe the Strategic Development committee’s ‘proceedings’.


There was a series of quite unpleasant exchanges between one speaker and at least two other speakers. The crux seemed to be the manner of speech of the first one. The other two in their different ways, got across the point that they were councillors and deserved to be addressed politely.

That was not an accident.
On the previous night, Wednesday 13 September 2006, in the same room, people trying to hear the words or see the images of the alleged full Council meeting were frustrated. They could not hear anything. When they complained, they were offensively treated and stared at by Council staff… As if to say that why are people from the community here! Why don’t they go away!


Thursday night’s session of the ‘Strategic Development’ committee was in the main addressed by someone who sounded like an aspiring actor who had overreached his ratites pretensions. He sounded at times as a groaning cousin ten times removed who had staggered back to the family estate only to be ignored by the clan. Desperately trying to maintain the nasally delivered sound of composure, the speaker was devoid of all logic and was unable to provide straight forward answers to the minimal numbers of questions that ‘councillors’ on the committee did manage to ask him.
Another speaker, speaking almost like the nasally delivered one, was illogically seeking to get the councillors to not ask questions at all. It transpired towards the end of the ‘meeting’ that BOTH of those belong to employees of the Tower Hamlets Council .
Those employees were in place to give councillors – or to be strictly formal, the committee, - impartial but accurate and competent advice on the law and on the full details of the subject under discussion. They BOTH failed. I shall examine their failures in the next parts.

CROSSRAIL hole Tower Hamlets Council IS being operated under agenda being set by criminally installed elements who are agents of Big Business and active opponents of the society as we knew it in any legitimate, pre-Blairing, sense of a democratic society

By Muhammad Haque 0920 Hrs GMT London Friday 15 September 2006
The evidence of that was on display at the meeting of the ‘Strategic Planning’ committee of the ‘London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council’ last night [Thursday 14 September 2006]. A reliable piece of evidence was displayed in the shape of the ‘question and answer’ held during the formal discussion of a ‘development’ item located in the Aldgate East. to be continued]

How the City of London interests have got agents in key planning positions in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council - exclusive reports here during Friday 15 September 2006

Why is it bad for the East End of London to have so many councillors with direct interests in outfits that are causing damage to the community in the East End?

Why Christine Gilbert should be retired, not given any space in the OFSTED quango that affects the validation of so many schools and so many children's and young peoples lives

East End of London is being made POORER by the East End of London Council - the Tower Hamlets Council is betraying the community at the bidding of Big Business: the Aldgate Gyratory planning consent: a report will be published here about the Crossrail hole link with this planning package which is likely to get the go-ahead from the corrupt clique in control of Tower Hamlets Council this evening or in the near future.
The implications for this for the Brick Lane and Whitechapel London E1 area are enormous. – a KHOODEELAAR! examination of the history and the size of this problem being imposed on the East End via the ‘Tower Hamlets’ ‘local’ Council which is acting on the instructions of Big Business and against the local community

How Blair has made us poorer in the inner cities:
How the Blairing East End borough of Tower Hamlets Council has been allowed to bring the Crossrail hole disaster to the East End - by the absence of an active, demanding and thoughtful opposition.
As the events of last night's 'full Council' meeting confirmed yet again, the people of the East End are not being served well by the clique that is controlling the Council.
And the words of undeserved praise that the alleged opposition council grouplettes leaders made for soon-to-be-leaving 'chief executive' Christine Gilbert' there is no evidence that the formal in-Council opposition is any way to defend the people and the community in the East End of London borough

By Muhammad Haque


1130 Hrs GMT

London Thursday 14 September 2006

"You are a liar. You are a liar. You are a liar" came the refrain.

Not literally from the Khoodeelaar! the Brick Lane and the Whitechapel London E1 Area campaign against Crossrail hole plot assault Bill. Not from the Khoodeelaar! organiser. Not from the Khoodeelaar! campaign members and supporters who were in the ‘public gallery’. But from a person who has no known links with the Khoodeelaar! Campaign.
It is the fact that the Khoodeelaar! Campaign has been the only one that has in public called Christine Gilbert a liar. On the records. For the records. Because Christine Gilbert has lied.
And she is one of the main defendants in the Khoodeelaar! Legal action that is currently being prepared as part of the Campaign against Crossrail.
The series of legal actions includes the aim to defend the East End of London from economic and socially exclusive attacks. It is also to stop the Crossrail hole attacks on the East End.

The speaker who called Christine Gilbert a liar in the ‘Tower Hamlets Council chamber’ on Wednesday 13 September 2006 was an experienced looking Eastender in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
He was addressing Christine Gilbert, the chief executive in the Tower Hopeless Council. She was the focus of the ‘proceedings’ for a few minutes. The ‘tributes and praise’ to Christine Gilbert were opened by the chair of the meeting, ‘Councillor Shafiqul’. She was leaving her job effectively at the end of this month, September 2006.
To take up a ‘higher’ one that has been fixed for her by the Tony Blair regime. She is set to take up the post of ‘chief inspector at OFSTED’, the formal bureaucracy allegedly in place to inspect the schools in England and Wales.
That outfit is being made even bigger by the Blair regime for Christine Gilbert to be formally ‘heading’ a much bigger unaccountable bureaucracy than OFSTED had been hitherto. The reason for her departure was not discussed in the Tower Hopeless Council chamber on Wednesday 13 September 2006. . Or mentioned. Or hinted at by any of the scripted utterances as made by the chair [‘mayor’] of the meeting, Shafiqul. That reason is that had she not ‘opted’ to resign now, she would have been forced out and ousted in a blaze of scandal….But this fact was not included in the utterances concerning her departure that were made in the Council chamber last night…The routine utterances made in praise of Christine Gilbert by current ‘leader’ on Tower Hamlets Council Denise Jones were followed by the pieces by those apparently included in the slot on the basis of ‘party or group’ ‘leaderships’ on the ‘opposition’ groups of councillors [totalling 25 made up of 12 from the ‘Respect’ grouping, 7 from the Conservatives’ and 6 from the Lib Dems].
Those utterances by the ‘opposition’ ‘groups leaders’ were dismayingly [!] blank and or untrue and or untruthful about whatever role they were set to be addressing about Christine Gilbert’s occupation of the post of chief executive in the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
Two of the three that fitted into that slot epitomised in their conduct evidence of just how unfit that Council environment is to establish the truth about why there is a council in place in the first place. Or why the people are supposed to have trust and confidence in that allegedly democratic institution for the Tower Hamlets area.
The ‘two years a councillor in Tower Hamlets’ Conservative Simon Rouse and the ‘four months a councillor in Tower Hamlets’ Lib Dems Stephanie Eaton were embarrassingly full of praise for Christine Gilbert.
The FACTS of Christine Gilbert’s role in Tower Hamlets Do NOT support any of the praise heaped on her in those publicly made utterances.
Simon Rouse was not qualified to give the certificate to Christine Gilbert that he uttered in the Council chamber. Why then would he utter those inane words of absolute untruth? He said words to the effect that he could not think of anyone better qualified for the job than Christine Gilbert.
The job being the OFSTED one that she has been provided with as her face-saving rescue. Although the ‘Respect’ group’s Abjol Miah did not speak in praise of Christine Gilbert in quite the way that the other two did, he too failed to register any observation of substance against Christine Gilbert’s role.
What Abjol Miah did say about alleged desirability for diversity [!] in fact confirmed the operation of the wrong direction in further diluting, undermining, weakening the alleged opposition on Tower Hamlets Council that the ‘Respect’ group’s ‘political’ agenda setters are moving towards. That is a subject that is hall be examining in a separate series of reports.
Back to the praise of Christine Gilbert as uttered by alleged opposition groups leaders in Tower Hamlets Council ‘chamber’ on Wednesday 13 September 2006.
In fact none of the ‘opposition’ speakers needed to say anything in praise of Christine Gilbert. They should have given priority to their duties: the duties included the fact of asking questions that will bring out the truth about what the Council did on the issues that affect the lives of the community. The ‘full council’ meeting was turned into a FOOL Council by the contents of those contributions as delivered by Simon Rouse and Stephanie Eaton.
They were being foolish at best and untruthful at worst and were uttering untruths for Christine Gilbert. And in doing so they were4 acting as poodles to the bureaucracy that Christine Gilbert has been formally heading over the past four years. They did not get to be speaking in that 'Council chamber' because of what their names were.
Or because of what personal links or affiliations they might be able to rely on or cite.
They were speaking there because they had got elected on 4 May 2006. And they got elected by campaigning or canvassing to campaign on issues that mattered to the people of Tower Hamlets. They failed to live up to those pleas and promises as they spoke in praise of Christine Gilbert. They could have said things that related to the lives of thousands of people in the Borough who had been violated by Tower Hamlets Council.
They could have made their spiels by keeping each of their pieces to a single, simple reference to Christine Gilbert. Like ‘wish you well’. Or if they really had moral courage, ‘Good riddance!’ Or if they had both courage and affinity with the people that Christine Gilbert had caused so much loss and suffering to over the past four years, “Give us our money back, Christine”!
Of course there was none of those.


Thousands of families in the East End borough struggle daily with poverty that Christine Gilbert helped to add to or helped to exacerbate.
By their own claims, Tower Hamlets Council make one of the UK’s most persistently demanding bids for Central Government funding based on POVERTY in Tower Hamlets.
It has therefore e been Christine Gilbert’s outrage against the people she has helped to push into poverty that she has been participating in an agenda to CREATE poverty as a if not the ‘capital’ resources [!] for the highly corrupt Tower Hamlets Council.
She has aided and abetted the mass looting by Big Business and their located sited agents and agencies [including the corrupt bureaucracy in Tower Hamlets Council headed so far by Christine Gilbert] of whatever remained of public housing stock in Tower Hamlets until her entrance into the office of Chief executive.
She has set in line the destruction of the livelihoods of people struggling to keep their own lives an their families just above the line of destruction in of some of the most deprived parts of the East End.
She has paved the way for the devastation of those parts under the pretext of CrossRail. Christine Gilbert has..... And the public gallery, the three rows of chairs that should be called a restricted sitting structure instead, was the only part of the ‘chamber’ from which any morality was to be shouted from. And the man doing the shouting was quite audible. Even though he was not supported by a microphone …

. [To be continued].