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