Crossrail 'bias' of 'East London Advertiser' causing undermining local people
© THE AUTHOR / KHOODEELAAR/CBRUK/LAWMEDIA 2006 | 20.02.2006 12:38
The political struggle to defend the community across the East End borough of Tower Hamlets, starting with the Brick Lane London E1 area and taking in and stretching through Stepney, Mile End Park and Bow, is jotting up in a way that ahs not been seen in the East End for a very long time. In fact the role of the local Tower Hamlets council is increasingly coming under serious scrutiny from local campaigners headed by the khoodeelaar movement. The resulting pressure that the Borough has been undergoing has not been known since Tower Hamlets was created in the 1960s replacing and amalgamating the former smaller boroughs of Stepney, Bethnal Green, Poplar, plus. Yet the ‘local weekly’ the ‘East London Advertiser’ is not willing to reflect the political battler. It is only ever interested in serving as a secondary propaganda rag for the CrossRail-backing ruling clique on Tower Hamlets Council. This is depriving the local community the access to the facts that the local paper must provide if it is to escape being consigned to the dustbin by the sheer power of community action against CrossRail in the East End.
The Khoodeelaar campaign against the Crossrail hole plan scheme Bill and the ‘position’ of the ‘RESPECT’ coalition and George Galloway, MP as reported [or NOT] by the East London Advertiser
What is the ‘position’?
This question should not even be asked, because George Galloway MP has made his position abundantly clear.
In case there had been any doubt or confusion about where George Galloway the RESPECT Coalition’s leader and their only Member of Parliament stood on Crossrail, the statement he made at the public meeting on Saturday 11 February 2006 left no room for any doubt or confusion. Khoodeelaar web site has already reported the substance of Galloway’s statement on 11 February 2006.
But the ‘local rag’ the East London Advertiser, which does its business as the main Borough-wide ‘commercial’ ‘newspaper’ in Tower Hamlets, has been depriving its readers of the facts of the main movement that is vigorously active against the Crossrail hole attacks on the East End.
An item in the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ [138 Cambridge heath road, London E1 6QJ] [dated thursday 16 February 2006], headlined, “I’m coming to get you’ [“Galloway’s warning as he launches respect election campaign”] by-lined to ted jeory, includes this: “but when quizzed by the advertiser at Monday’s press conference, Rees outlined a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”
The reference to “Rees” is to john Rees the UK ‘national secretary’ of the Respect coalition, represented in the UK House of Commons by George Galloway mp.
The ‘east London advertiser’ item does not refer to the comprehensive position of the respect coalition on the crossrail project that had been set out by George Galloway at a special public meeting against the crossrail hole’ bill held on Saturday 11 February 2006. at the Brady centre in Hanbury street which is at the centre of the khoodeelaar! Campaign against the crossrail hole plan-project-scheme bill in the brick lane London e1 area
In that statement George Galloway was unequivocal in his opposition to Crossrail and he pledged that if the respect coalition won control of TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL following the scheduled 4 May 2006 council election then the Respect coalition would scrap the agreement made by the current TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. Galloway stated empathic support for the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project scheme Bill. In addition to that Galloway said that the Respect coalition would do everything to delay and to defeat Crossrail. He made extensive references in his speech to the keynote speech that had been delivered at the meeting by Muhammad Haque, the Khoodeelaar organiser. Galloway endorsed the khoodeelaar position and reiterated his previous commitment to oppose Crossrail on every aspect of the planned attack on the East End.
Galloway said that they [he and RESPERCT] would take judicial review actions and other measures to delay Crossrail, towards defeating the Crossrail attacks on the East End.
Given that the same meeting was addressed by john Rees himself and given that George Galloway gave the closing speech containing very detailed policy commitments about what he [George |Galloway] and the RESPECT coalition would be doing about the Crossrail attacks when he spoke against Crossrail on Saturday 11 February 2006, it is significant that the ‘east london advertiser’ item makes no reference to any of these facts.
The , “I’m coming to get you’ headline is given to the item which apparently is based on the Respect coalition’s news conference held on Monday 13 February 2006 at which event the group announced the majority of their selected candidates for the 4 May 2006 local council election.
It is very strange that the ‘east london advertiser’ item does not make any reference to the George Galloway / respect position against crossrail as set out by Galloway on Saturday 11 February 2006.
Instead there is the reference to [John] Rees outlining ‘a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury Street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”.
What were the details of that reported position of the Respect coalition as attributed to John Rees by the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’?
The ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ ‘report’ [“I’m coming to get you’] does not give any answers or clues.
Instead, the title explains that the local election battle for control of the Tower Hamlets Council between the different parties and groups “would be fought over Labour’s housing choice programme, the proposed revamp of the royal london hospital and, crucially, issues surrounding crossrail.”
which makes the absence of any details about what the respect coalition’s ‘national secretary’ had allegedly stated to the reporter ted jeory that justified the assertion that the respect position on Crossrail’s proposal was ‘strikingly similar to labour’s” even more curious and odd.
Furthermore, the TED JEORY piece does not contain any reference to any facts that would justify his inclusion of the words ‘strikingly similar to Labour’s’.
Reasonable standards of journalism would require that any reference to competing groups should be accompanied by a reasonable amount of information or evidence to support any opinion.
The TED JEORY statement reads like an opinion rather than fact. And that opinion is the real clue as to what the agenda of the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER must be.
They [the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER] are operating in their ‘reporting’ of the campaign against the Crossrail attacks on the EAST END borough on assumptions that are linked with their commercial dealings with the controlling clique on TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. They are deliberately suppressing the key facts and are misleading those who read their publication about what is actually going on about crossrail in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
In the same issue as they carry the Ted Jeory statement, the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER also publish [PAGES 18-19] an unprecedented feature page that gives the impression that it contains the key facts. It does not. In fact, it is yet another excuse for the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER to run a plastic-faced picture of Crossrail-plugging ‘Tower Hamlets Council leader’’ Michael Keith.
In the accompanying item the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER repeats a pack of untruths about alleged Tower Hamlets Council ‘actions’ on Crossrail that once again is devoid of the crucial facts.
The EAST LONDON ADVERTISER prints a double falsehood in describing ‘Arup’ as merely‘engineering giant’ who had been ‘commissioned by’ Tower Hamlets Council. ARUP are very deeply involved in the multinational looting of the public purse scams that actually underlies the mad propaganda for Crossrail.
That they also operate as an allegedly independent expert is not separate from their overall role in the Big Business agenda.
Only last week they were again linked with reports concernig the latest parasitic activities of Crossrail chair Adrian Montague who is fronting the Big Busie4nss agencies current bid to effectively grab the multi£Billion Channel Tunnel railway company.
But the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER paints Arup as an almost pure, academic outfit doing the honest slog for the cause of truth and local environment.
That ARUP was at all commissioned by by the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets |Council is also linked with the deeply dubious and unrepresentative role played by Michael Keith in bringing the Crossrail problems to the East. Keith is now ‘leader’ of Tower Hamkest Council. And the position of ‘leader’ is linked with the internecine, racist power-game that he has been indulging in. He has been doing so
The item makes references to
The controlling clique does not represent the views of the labour party membership in the borough. The vast majority of the labour party in tower hamlets have not been asked their views on any issue or any alleged manifesto
What is the ‘position’?
This question should not even be asked, because George Galloway MP has made his position abundantly clear.
In case there had been any doubt or confusion about where George Galloway the RESPECT Coalition’s leader and their only Member of Parliament stood on Crossrail, the statement he made at the public meeting on Saturday 11 February 2006 left no room for any doubt or confusion. Khoodeelaar web site has already reported the substance of Galloway’s statement on 11 February 2006.
But the ‘local rag’ the East London Advertiser, which does its business as the main Borough-wide ‘commercial’ ‘newspaper’ in Tower Hamlets, has been depriving its readers of the facts of the main movement that is vigorously active against the Crossrail hole attacks on the East End.
An item in the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ [138 Cambridge heath road, London E1 6QJ] [dated thursday 16 February 2006], headlined, “I’m coming to get you’ [“Galloway’s warning as he launches respect election campaign”] by-lined to ted jeory, includes this: “but when quizzed by the advertiser at Monday’s press conference, Rees outlined a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”
The reference to “Rees” is to john Rees the UK ‘national secretary’ of the Respect coalition, represented in the UK House of Commons by George Galloway mp.
The ‘east London advertiser’ item does not refer to the comprehensive position of the respect coalition on the crossrail project that had been set out by George Galloway at a special public meeting against the crossrail hole’ bill held on Saturday 11 February 2006. at the Brady centre in Hanbury street which is at the centre of the khoodeelaar! Campaign against the crossrail hole plan-project-scheme bill in the brick lane London e1 area
In that statement George Galloway was unequivocal in his opposition to Crossrail and he pledged that if the respect coalition won control of TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL following the scheduled 4 May 2006 council election then the Respect coalition would scrap the agreement made by the current TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. Galloway stated empathic support for the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project scheme Bill. In addition to that Galloway said that the Respect coalition would do everything to delay and to defeat Crossrail. He made extensive references in his speech to the keynote speech that had been delivered at the meeting by Muhammad Haque, the Khoodeelaar organiser. Galloway endorsed the khoodeelaar position and reiterated his previous commitment to oppose Crossrail on every aspect of the planned attack on the East End.
Galloway said that they [he and RESPERCT] would take judicial review actions and other measures to delay Crossrail, towards defeating the Crossrail attacks on the East End.
Given that the same meeting was addressed by john Rees himself and given that George Galloway gave the closing speech containing very detailed policy commitments about what he [George |Galloway] and the RESPECT coalition would be doing about the Crossrail attacks when he spoke against Crossrail on Saturday 11 February 2006, it is significant that the ‘east london advertiser’ item makes no reference to any of these facts.
The , “I’m coming to get you’ headline is given to the item which apparently is based on the Respect coalition’s news conference held on Monday 13 February 2006 at which event the group announced the majority of their selected candidates for the 4 May 2006 local council election.
It is very strange that the ‘east london advertiser’ item does not make any reference to the George Galloway / respect position against crossrail as set out by Galloway on Saturday 11 February 2006.
Instead there is the reference to [John] Rees outlining ‘a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury Street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”.
What were the details of that reported position of the Respect coalition as attributed to John Rees by the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’?
The ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ ‘report’ [“I’m coming to get you’] does not give any answers or clues.
Instead, the title explains that the local election battle for control of the Tower Hamlets Council between the different parties and groups “would be fought over Labour’s housing choice programme, the proposed revamp of the royal london hospital and, crucially, issues surrounding crossrail.”
which makes the absence of any details about what the respect coalition’s ‘national secretary’ had allegedly stated to the reporter ted jeory that justified the assertion that the respect position on Crossrail’s proposal was ‘strikingly similar to labour’s” even more curious and odd.
Furthermore, the TED JEORY piece does not contain any reference to any facts that would justify his inclusion of the words ‘strikingly similar to Labour’s’.
Reasonable standards of journalism would require that any reference to competing groups should be accompanied by a reasonable amount of information or evidence to support any opinion.
The TED JEORY statement reads like an opinion rather than fact. And that opinion is the real clue as to what the agenda of the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER must be.
They [the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER] are operating in their ‘reporting’ of the campaign against the Crossrail attacks on the EAST END borough on assumptions that are linked with their commercial dealings with the controlling clique on TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. They are deliberately suppressing the key facts and are misleading those who read their publication about what is actually going on about crossrail in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
In the same issue as they carry the Ted Jeory statement, the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER also publish [PAGES 18-19] an unprecedented feature page that gives the impression that it contains the key facts. It does not. In fact, it is yet another excuse for the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER to run a plastic-faced picture of Crossrail-plugging ‘Tower Hamlets Council leader’’ Michael Keith.
In the accompanying item the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER repeats a pack of untruths about alleged Tower Hamlets Council ‘actions’ on Crossrail that once again is devoid of the crucial facts.
The EAST LONDON ADVERTISER prints a double falsehood in describing ‘Arup’ as merely‘engineering giant’ who had been ‘commissioned by’ Tower Hamlets Council. ARUP are very deeply involved in the multinational looting of the public purse scams that actually underlies the mad propaganda for Crossrail.
That they also operate as an allegedly independent expert is not separate from their overall role in the Big Business agenda.
Only last week they were again linked with reports concernig the latest parasitic activities of Crossrail chair Adrian Montague who is fronting the Big Busie4nss agencies current bid to effectively grab the multi£Billion Channel Tunnel railway company.
But the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER paints Arup as an almost pure, academic outfit doing the honest slog for the cause of truth and local environment.
That ARUP was at all commissioned by by the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets |Council is also linked with the deeply dubious and unrepresentative role played by Michael Keith in bringing the Crossrail problems to the East. Keith is now ‘leader’ of Tower Hamkest Council. And the position of ‘leader’ is linked with the internecine, racist power-game that he has been indulging in. He has been doing so
The item makes references to
The controlling clique does not represent the views of the labour party membership in the borough. The vast majority of the labour party in tower hamlets have not been asked their views on any issue or any alleged manifesto
© THE AUTHOR / KHOODEELAAR/CBRUK/LAWMEDIA 2006
e-mail:
lawmedia@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.khoodeelaar.com
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Who is sinking the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets? Michael Keith
20.02.2006 15:48
We must stop the slide that may end up with Labour Party being reduced to a fractious minority faction on the Tower Hamlets Council after the 4 May local elections
Bethnal Green and Bow Constituency Labour Party member
e-mail:
bgbcache@yahoo.co.uk
Miiaoow
21.02.2006 14:08
This would work better as a criticism of the East London advertiser if it actually made sense. The bizarre over-use of quotation marks does not help.
Why is it a "falsehood" to say that Arup is an engineering giant, for instance? Erm, that's what it is.
Could you explain what the Respect plans for the bore hole actually are and what makes them different from Labour's?
And is Gorgeous George going to bother turning up to vote the next time there's a serious debate on Crossrail?
Or will he only be there if there's a feline whip?
Norville B
Khoodeelaar response to comment about George Galloway
22.02.2006 09:32
2. on a date in the near future, we are publishing a chapter and verse factual record of the actual contents of the east london advertiser on crossrail over the past 2 years.
3. that will appear first on our web site
4. ‘Gorgeous George’ is not a person we can recognise.
5. Hoverer, there is a George that we do recognise in the context and he is, on a reasonable interpretation, George Galloway the MP for the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency.
6. Our comments and online analyses of George Galloway’s relevant conduct TO DATE are open for anyone to check and check again. We have not spoken for George Galloway nor do we presume or wish to do at any time.
7. What we have aimed to do is to catalogue his relevant conduct and to place the independently verifiable evidence of his conduct in context.
8. To our knowledge in the matter of the CROSSRAIL HOLE BILL, George Galloway’s stance has been less forthright than we would have liked it to have been.
9. But then, his has been the most forthright stance of any MP in opposition to the Crossrail Bill.
10. Galloway showed his opposition to the crossrail hole plan-scheme-project as contained the current hybrid Crossrail Bill when he took part in the substantive debate on the Bill that was held in the UK HOUSE OF COMMONS on 19 July 2005.
11. None of these facts has been correctly put in the reporting pieces that the East London Advertiser has published on the matter.
12. It is hardly surprising therefore that the East London Advertiser totally failed to report the most significant event about Crassrail hole that took place on Saturday 11 February 2006. At that meeting - which George Galloway had himself jointly sponsored and addressed – the constitutional, the democratic and the economic and social implications of the Crossrail hole Bill were evidentially linked with the role of Tower Hamlets Council by the Khoodeelaar campaign organiser Muhammad Haque. But then, the East London Advertiser cannot admit to the truth about that. For to do so would be to incur the financial backing of the pro-Crossrail interests. And that is not what the East London Advertiser is in business to do! Even though the East London Advertiser has itself admitted [during the past 8 weeks] that the Khoodeelaar! movement is the grassroots movement in the community against the Crossrail hole attacks, the rag can twist its own ‘neutral position’ and abide by the corrupting lying line that would suit the careers and the career needs of the touts for Crossrail who have been in control of the key decision making pwer5s on Tower Hamkest Council over the past four years.
13. As Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque told the no-to-crossrail-hole meeting held in the Hanbury Street, Brick Lane London E1 area, on Saturday 11 February 2006, he and Khoodeelaar! have every confidence that George Galloway would be there in the Hosue of Commons whenever the next significant debate or vote on Crossrail takes place where MPs have a say and have the chance to cast their vote ands to express their views.
0920 Hrs GMT Wednesday 22 February 2006
Khoodeelaar! the Brick Lane London E1 Area No to Xrail hole
e-mail:
lawmedia@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.khoodeelaar.com
Respect
16.03.2006 16:25
Even as a Respect supporter, was obvious to me Rees was not sure what his policy would be and the Reporter more sure of his ground.
Rees said he was not opposed to Crossrail in principle, but did not want hole in Hanbury Street.
But when reporter said wasn't a smaller hole needed somewhere else in area, he agreed but didn't know where and said they'd have to look into it.
Reporter said Labour council also did not want hole in Hanbury, and they need a smaller one in Woodseer Street.
Thats why the local rag said they were strikingly similar because Reeses confused answer was similar to Keiths.
Since then Respect have clarified their policy and are opposed to Crossrail totally.
You have to be fair to teh local rag.
ali
AADHIKARonline reporting straight from inner city East London
10.11.2006 08:28
Those reports are to the point and about the defence of the community in the East End at a time when the biggest businesses in the country are vying with each other for a plot of the East End land... at the expense of the people.
By far the biggest organised physical threat now is the Crossrail hole plot. But as the news headlines created under the auspices of the sponsors of the Terrorizing legacy of Tony Blair, evident on all the tabloid press and tabled TV and broadcasting front pages and headlines this morning, the attack on ordinary people in society is only getting worse by the hour.
AADHIKARonline is continuing to the record the ordinary life as it attempts to remain in the inner cities in the Blaired Britain
0828 Hrs GMT
London
Friday 10 November 2006
AADHIKARonline
e-mail:
aadhikarlaw@yahoo.co.uk
Homepage:
http://uk.geocities.com/aadhikarnews/today.html