Subject:

CBRUK UPDATE on Tower Hamlets Council in exposing the racist lies by the EXPRESS

The racist Daily /Sunday Express web piece and the ignorant East London Advertiser web pieces about Tower Hamlets Council Meeting of Wednesday 18 September 2013:

Reason for this UPDATE: ; This CBRUK UPDATE is to make known the truth about the extensive communications that had been ongoing for four and half months precisely about the PRESENTATION of the Petition to a Meeting of the Tower Hamlets Council and to show that the racist EXPRESS group and its racist sources have got their ‘facts’ utterly wrong. Again.

UPDATE 1:

The CBRUK Campaign has received confirmation from the Head of the Tower Hamlets council's Democratic services at 0810 GMT today that the Public Petition that was presented in part in Seelotee (Sylhetti) language had been the subject of preparations and communications with the Petition Organisers for months, dating back to 30 April 2013 when the actual petition had been formally submitted to the Council.

By “the Council” here is meant both the Council’s “Democratic Services” and the “Executive Mayor”.

The fact of that submission can be verified independently and extensively by independent means and sourcing.

The Council’s “Democratic Services” spokesperson agreed this morning that the media outlets that had published the items/a had got the facts wrong.

OTHER aspects of the Communications will be further investigated and checked this afternoon and UPDATE or UPDATEs posted here and on associated CBRUK campaign sites during the day and at the weekend.

2. Contents of one Communications sent to the Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH) - the subject of the Petition as presented to Tower Hamlets Council on Wednesday 18 September 2013 - in May 2013, more than FOPUR months before the date of the Council Meting where the Petition about the THCH was actually presented due to internal Tower Hamlets Council bureaucracy



To

[THCH employee named]


Thank you for your reply dated 13 May 2013.
Since your item concerns the representation of the residents, I have now received their first reply to your commutation [dated 13 May 2013] and would be grateful for your immediate attention and response on each of the points they make.

1. The residents totally dispute your claim at number 2 of your reply.
There is no evidence, the residents maintain, to substantiate that claim.

There has been no meeting, the residents further claim,  where residents have asked for let alone agreed the work you refer to.

2. The allegations may not have been detailed  in my [Cllr named] Member Enquiry addressed to you [Mr name identified]  but you should have been aware of the many Communications sent to your organisation by the residents and on their behalf. One of the communications is acknowledged by your relevant colleague  in your organisation's letter dated 30 April 2013 to Mr [name and address] 
The OTHER is your detailed conversations and text messages exchanged between yourself and Cllr [named] earlier this month. This information has been confirmed more than once by Cllr [named] to the residents via one of the residents in [street named] with whom Cllr [named] has been known to be in contact.
Item 5 in your reply is also not addressing the residents’ Constitutional law point.
They did not specify (street named)in the context of the reference to the Tower Hamlets Council’s transfer of the Council’s housing stock to THCH. What the residents said and are maintaining and will insist on doing in the foreseeable future in this context is this: the series of promises that Tower Hamlets Council at the time of the “ballots” had made included the undertakings that ALL REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS would honour and uphold and deliver the same social and communal and civic provision and amenities that residents were enjoying under the Council. The residents are asking for THOSE PLEDGES to be honoured in (street named) as well. 
Item 6 in your reply is a contradiction of the known facts concerned. If THCH “have not overridden what residents want” then  why are the residents making this very serious representation claiming that THCH has [‘have’]  done so?  Why was there a letter from THCH .. dated 30 April 2013?
(resident named) has repeatedly asserted that one of the employees of THCH had misled residents in relation to two specific facts.
You have the details of those allegations.
And yet you are stating that the “decision was made by our Area Residents Board which is only made up of residents”.
The residents do not agree that they - the residents - made any such request or that the stated “Area Residents Board” made any decision that truthfully reflected the residents preference, let alone any express demand for what you say is going to be done very soon.

The REPRESENTATION of the rights, the say of the residents concerned in the Street/estate in the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets was at the centre of the SERIES of Questions and Petitions put to the local LBTH, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.

The lead organiser of these representations has been the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign.

The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser was APPROACHED by the residents themselves in February 2013 with a list of requests for help with the residents' attempts to get across their say to the Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH).

The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign organised a series of Constitutional law and democratic activities to get the residents needs established and recognised.

But that first set of actions was abandoned because the residents were sent a misleading message by someone who claimed to be close to the Council’s “leadership”.

When this was discovered as a diversion that it in fact was, the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign spent another two months in rearranging and restarting the processes.

One of those processes concerned the behaviour of the Crossrail contractors in the area.

It was Crossrail that had been the reason for the residents approaching the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign in the first place.

Because the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign had been active since 2006 in helping the same Streets deal with the then planned attack on their environment, health by the Crossrail plans.

The KHOODEELAAR! Campaign demonstrated against the Crossrail plans in May 2006 in Whitechapel when a group of Crossrail Committee MPs visited the area.

One of the reports published about that KHOODEELAAR! demonstration was in the then EAST LONDON ADVERTISER print edition.

That title wasn’t known at that time to have any internet site of its own.

(This may be checked and verified)

The UPDATED reports on the Crossrail digging and noise disruption carried out for three years and how those affected the residents in the streets concerned were then posted by KHOODEELAAR! online and on youtube.

The remaining issues about Crossrail affecting the residents in the particular area are under campaign review at present and will be published in separately.

Back to the Petition to the Council about the residents demand for recognition of their right to have say on all aspects of THCH’s involvement nt in their streets on 18 September 2013.

As the contents of the communications of the past nearly five months between the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign and the Council’s “Democratic Services” (that deals with the Council’s Meetings and related matters) make clear, there never was any intention by the organisers of the representation to allow the appearance of a diversionary pretext that the racists could then use at all.

The racists (at the Archant-owned ‘East London Advertiser” web site and at the DAILY EXPRESS Group, so far) have miscalculated with their rush to depict a small part of the presentation of that item (at 5.2 on the Agenda at the Tower Hamlets Council meeting on 18 September 2013) as another ‘takeover by the Bengalis’.

Some of the racists involved in the propaganda being dissected here in these UPDATES know that they have got all of that utterly wrong.

Far from the item being anything of the sort that the racists have untruthfully portrayed it to be, it was about the democratic values that CBRUK and KHOODEELAAR! Campaigns have been advocating for a very long time in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere in the UK.

The racists’ decision to abuse the information and to do a racist propaganda will come back to hit them with a series of rigorous exposé’s.

Those racists should not doubt this at all

Certain racists operating via the Richard Desmond DAILY EXPRESS Group and their clandestine allies on the peripheries of the ‘mainstream’ INTERNET war on universality and human rights are not only very well known to the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign and to the MOVEMENT DEFENDING THE COMMUNITY in the East End of London, these racists will themselves be personally treated to provisions of the the existing laws and legal processes in due course.


Here is the letter from Tower Hamlets Council’s Head of Democratic Services to the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser dated 7 August 2013, that is more than FIVE weeks before the 18 September 2013 Council Meeting.


7 August 2013


Dear Mr Haque,
 
Further to previous e-mail correspondence, I received on 30th April 2013 a petition from yourself and other residents regarding THCH [certain words deleted].
 
The petition could not be presented to the Council meeting on 26th June because all of the available slots for petitions at that meeting were already filled.  It was therefore held over for the next meeting.
 
The next Council meeting will take place on 18th September 2013 and I write to ask whether the petitioners still wish the petition to be included on the agenda for that meeting? 
 
If so, I should be grateful if you could let me have the name and contact details for the lead petitioner.
 
Please note that it will not be possible for you to present the petition personally at the meeting because you asked a question at the June meeting and the Council's Constitution states:' "An individual or group may submit either a petition or a question to the Council at any given meeting, not both.  In addition, an individual or group may not submit a petition to a meeting of the Council if that individual or group has previously submitted a question or a petition to either of the previous two Council meetings." (Council Procedure Rule 19.9)
 
Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.
 
John S. Williams
Service Head, Democratic Services
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Town Hall, Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent
London, E14 2BG
Tel:  020 7364 4204
Fax:  020 7364 3232
e-mail:  JohnS.Williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk
www.towerhamlets.gov.uk

From KHOODEELAAR! Campaign Organiser to Tower Hamlets Council's Head of Democratic Services

12 September 2013:





Dear Mr Williams

For now the best contact is via this one.
The person's home address is as follows
(address)
I have spoken in the past 30 minutes with him and he is prepared for the presentation.

Thank you.
Muhammad Haque

From:  JohnS.Williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk
To: (two email addresses)
Subject: Petition to Council Meeting, 18th September -
THCH (two words)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:11:44 +0000

Dear Mr Haque,
 
Further to previous correspondence, please find attached a letter regarding the arrangements for the above petitioners to attend the Council Meeting on Wednesday 18th September 2013.    
I should be grateful if you could pass the letter on to the person who will present the petition and let me know their contact details. 
 
Many thanks,

John S. Williams
Service Head, Democratic Services
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Town Hall, Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent
London, E14 2BG
Tel:  020 7364 4204
Fax:  020 7364 3232
e-mail:  JohnS.Williams@towerhamlets.gov.uk
www.towerhamlets.gov.uk
 
PA Lynne Spillett
Tel:  020 7364 4205

THIS CBRUK UPDATE is being posted at 2050 Hrs GMT on Thursday 26 September 2013 after
the Speaker (formerly known as 'ceremonial' Mayor) of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council communicate her thanks to Muhammad Haque for his help in the presentation of the Public Petition (at Agenda item 5.2) at the Council’s Meeting held on 18 September 2013.
In the Communication sent to Muhammad Haque on behalf of Tower Hamlets Councillor Lesley Pavitt (the Speaker) the Head of Tower Hamlets Council’s Democratic Services, John S Williams in effect and expressly acknowledges the significantly detailed and long running communications that he had had with Muhammad Haque over a period prior to that meeting and about THAT VERY ITEM on the Council’s Agenda (5.2) on the date (18 September 2013)

That acknowledgement exposes as a lie the claim contained in the East London Advertiser website piece (asserting the following)
"Town hall officers told him the council would have provided an interpreter had they been notified of the problem.
But as no notice was given, another member of the audience in the public gallery was given permission to ask the question on his behalf"

Tower Hamlets Council's Head of Democratic Services does not back up the East London Advertiser's lie that "no notice was given" by the Petitioners and it is clear that he (the Head of Democratic Services) is addressing Muhammad Haque as one of the Organisers of the Petition, a very significantly key locus than that being stated in the East London Advertiser.
Thirdly, there was no "question" that Muhammad Haque given permission toast.
It was the presentation of the Petition and the argument and as it tuned out the answering of detailed quietens with detailed evidence.
Finally, it was not a permission but a MOVE initiated by a number of Councillors
to suspend any bureaucratic bit in the “Standing Orders’ and to hear the petition from
Muhammad Haque.
That is a very different event than the one being “given permission” which implies that
a favour was done anonymously which is how the lying East London Advertiser website item describes the events.
That initiatives by several Councillors to hold a VOTE for Muhammad Haque to present the Petition was made in front of the Public Gallery so anyone sitting there for the East London Advertiser could not have missed that.
And it was a step that was taken by the matter being put to a vote at the Meeting.
Councillors did VOTE for the Petition to be continued by the remainder of the presentation being done presented by Muhammad Haque.
Both Council Officers and the executive Mayor and the overwhelming majority of Councillors present in the Council Chamber from all “Parties and none” knew Muhammad Haque.
ALSO John Williams himself said to the Meting, just after Lesley pavitt had stopped the Petitioners’ representative concerned from speaking in the Seelotee language that Muhammad Haque ALREADY offered to help with the presentation IN ENGLISH!

So what was (remains) the excuse for the ARCHANT- owned East London Advertiser publishing a lying piece that later got mace worse by Richard Desmond allowing a blatantly racist decision of the events on Desmond’s Express Group website?

What possible link night there be between the lying East London Advertiser and the racist DAILY EXPRESS ?

CBRUK UPDATE POSTED at 2120 GMT Thursday 26 September 2013

THE Substantive texts of the email of 26 September 2013 addressing Muhammad Haque
and sent by the Tower Hamlets Council's Head of Democratic Services on behalf of the Tower Hamlets Council’s Speaker Lesley Pavitt:


“Dear Mr Haque,
The Speaker of the Council has asked me to thank you for your e-mail below and for copying her into other e-mails on this subject.
The Speaker also thanks you for assisting with the presentation of the (Street name) residents’ petition at the Council meeting.  She is pleased that a way was ultimately found for the petition to be presented with the consent of the Council. 
I confirm that the Speaker and I discussed before the meeting your offer to provide a translation and that you had raised this with me in the weeks leading up to the meeting. 
Unfortunately as I explained to you because of the Council’s rule preventing a person from presenting an item at two consecutive Council meetings, it was not possible to confirm that this would be allowed until a Member had moved the suspension of that rule, and the Council had so agreed, at the meeting itself. 
Best regards
John S. Williams
Service Head, Democratic Services
London Borough Of Tower Hamlets
Town Hall, Mulberry Place
5 Clove Crescent
London, E14 2BG
Tel:  020 7364 4204
Fax:  020 7364 3232



So what was (remains) the excuse for the ARCHANT- owned East London Advertiser publishing a lying piece that later got made worse by Richard Desmond allowing a blatantly racist description and and an inciting, hateful depiction of the (same!) events on Desmond’s Express Group website?

What possible link night there





____________________________________________

Attending to a few of the TYPOS in the last post:

So what was (remains) the excuse for the ARCHANT- owned East London Advertiser publishing a lying piece that later got made worse by Richard Desmond allowing a blatantly racist description and and an inciting, hateful depiction of the (same!) events on Desmond’s Express Group website?

What possible link night there be between the lying East London Advertiser and the racist DAILY EXPRESS ?

1600 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 09 April 2014

CBRUK
Committee for Bangladeshis’ Rights in the UK

The Committee for Bangladeshis’ Rights in the UK (CBRUK) has today Wednesday 09 April 2014 issued the following statement about Tower Hamlets:

The collective image of the UK Bangladeshis has been attacked in the past four years by the vast majority of the people visiting the websites carrying news of the following:

1. Polla Uddin’s expenses claims as reported extensively by the Mail on Sunday (which first carried the reports almost ten years ago) and then by the Sunday Times and other British papers.
2. Mahi/Mahee Ferdhaus Jolil’s convictions for fraud and imprisonment (twice so far)
3. Lutfur Rahman’s references for a minicab driver who was convicted of sexual assault and for Mahi/Mahee Ferdhaus Jolil during 2013.

CBRUK is totally amazed to note that there is not a single Bangladeshi “leader” or “Bangladeshi community organisation” that has expressed any concern about any of these adverse comments.

CBRUK also notes that there is not a single Bangladeshi community group - in receipt of public funding from any public body - which has stated any concern or comment about this state of affairs.

CBRUK is also amazed to find that print publications claiming to be representing the interests of the UK Bangladeshi community and the satellite TV channels and other “media” outlets have maintained in effect a deliberate silence on the fast deteriorating certain where the collective image of the UK Bangladeshis is going down in the context of the UK general public.

CBRUK finds that there are many reasons why this type of poor image of the UK Bangladeshis will be used to further violate the human rights of the UK