The London EVENING STANDARD is denounced by London mayor Ken Livingstone as a crass, racist paper. In fact the hatred between Ken Livingstone and the EVENING STANDARD has been rendered unforgettable now by the Nazi jibe affair.
So where does the EVENING STANDARD ‘disagree’ with Ken Livingstone
over the Crossrail Bill ?
Nowhere!
Not really. They are BOTH madly fanatical about Crossrail.
So much so that the EVENING STANDARD has published some rare pro-Ken Livingstone pieces in the past three years which can only have been so because both the Standard Livingstone utterly agrees on the Crossrail plan.
How come?
Because Ken Livingstone endered the interests the people affected by Big Business plan in return for ‘tolerance’ by the Blair regime. And in doing so, Livingstone has helped to discredit the office of Mayor in a more permanent way than is realised by any of the ‘mainstream commentators. Least of all by Livingstone himself.
In this discrediting of public office, the local Councils are not far behind Livingstone.
The role played by one London local Council, Tower Hamlets in London’s
East End, in allowing the Crossrail hole project to be prepared in the way that it ahs been so far as its contents affect m large parts of the community in the East End, has been the subject of ever heightening political tension in the area. With the scheduled local council elections on 4 May 2006, that role is expected e to be the cause of the loss of political Control by the Blair-loyalist Tower Hamlets Council But what will be the difference if an alliance of Opposition candidates is in a position the next tower Hamlertsncil? Will that Council make any significant will the people East be able to fend off the Crossrail attacks?
So where does the EVENING STANDARD ‘disagree’ with Ken Livingstone
over the Crossrail Bill ?
Nowhere!
Not really. They are BOTH madly fanatical about Crossrail.
So much so that the EVENING STANDARD has published some rare pro-Ken Livingstone pieces in the past three years which can only have been so because both the Standard Livingstone utterly agrees on the Crossrail plan.
How come?
Because Ken Livingstone endered the interests the people affected by Big Business plan in return for ‘tolerance’ by the Blair regime. And in doing so, Livingstone has helped to discredit the office of Mayor in a more permanent way than is realised by any of the ‘mainstream commentators. Least of all by Livingstone himself.
In this discrediting of public office, the local Councils are not far behind Livingstone.
The role played by one London local Council, Tower Hamlets in London’s
East End, in allowing the Crossrail hole project to be prepared in the way that it ahs been so far as its contents affect m large parts of the community in the East End, has been the subject of ever heightening political tension in the area. With the scheduled local council elections on 4 May 2006, that role is expected e to be the cause of the loss of political Control by the Blair-loyalist Tower Hamlets Council But what will be the difference if an alliance of Opposition candidates is in a position the next tower Hamlertsncil? Will that Council make any significant will the people East be able to fend off the Crossrail attacks?
Khoodeelaar Manifesto 2006
Part L
Published here first at 2300 Hrs GMT London Saturday 11 March 2006
The notion that a movement to defend the local area in the East End of London against the oncoming Big Business assault in the guise ofsosraiol hole plan is pubhsinbg a very detailed manifesto is not one that is based on the known tradition here.
The tradition is more linked with the seekers of elected office to publish manifesto
The tradition is more like the ‘governed’, the ‘subject’s to be told what will be done in their name by the ‘governors’. Those seeking election. So irrational is the behaviour that the ONLY time when those seeking election bother to even communicate to the 'voters' - the fodder for election - is at times of election. The day of reckoning day when the votes are cast. Once that is done, everything gets back to normal. bar the celebrations. And the recriminations inside and by the losers of the votes.
We have already identified in the specially commissioned Khoodeelaar investigations published on the Crassrail hole plan in the period January 2004 to now [March 11, 2006] that the role in promoting the Crossrail assault plan on the East End of London played by Tower Hamlets Councillor Michael Keith – who has been ‘leader’, for the second time round, since May 2005- has been a worryingly involved one.
So much so that on the facts and on the evidence, we have been describing him as the key tout on Tower Hamlets Council for the Crossrail interests.
We have now come to a stage in our investigate reporting – both on the Khoodeelaardotcom web site as well as on several dozen other internet sites – where it is necessary to ask some new questions about the ‘democratic’ process that has been relevant in the attack plan that has been devised against the East End of London.
We have also published after the 22 January 2006 meeting held at the Brady Centre in the Hanbury Street [off Brick Lane, London E1] more than 14 questions addressed to Keith’s predecessor in post, Helal Uddin ‘Abbas’ as ‘leader’ of Tower Hamlets Council.
We have shown that BOTH of them have been promoting the Crossrail package, in clear violation of the wishes of the local community.
1. How is it that Tower Hamlets Council became so deeply involved in promoting the Crossrail attacks plan on the East End?
2. What happened to the ‘other’ councillors, other than Michael Keith who was plugging for Crossrail for years on the Council?
3. What did the ‘other’ members of the numerical majority group of councillors do between 2000 – 2005 [inclusive] which is the main period during which all the secret talks and the deals between the Tower Hamlets council and the promoters of Crossrail took place?
4. Whatever had the numerically second largest group of councillors, the Liberal Democrats, on Tower Hamlets Council do to identify with the local community and to oppose the Crossrail attacks plan?
5. What evidence is there to locate what each individual councillor did – or did not – do over Crossrail?
6. What happens now that the ‘last full Council meeting’ before the 4 May 2006 elections has taken place?
7. What is the relevance of the community paying any attention any candidate for election to Tower Hamkest Council at the scheduled 4 May 2006 election?
8. What is the significance for the community of the superfluity of communications from?
9. Do these candidates mean what they say?
10. What is the Crossrail-threatened community in the East End of London to make of the absence of any ‘election manifesto’ over Crossrail from any of the main Parties?
11. What is to be made of the relegation of the Crossrail threat, in ‘Respect’ coalition’s leaflet circulated in the Brick Lane London E1 area in the last 3 days?
12. Do the Blair Party [=’New’ Labour ! Party] Liberal Democratic Party, Conservative Party deserve to be trusted by the community to oppose the Crossrail attacks plan against the East End?
13. If they do deserve the trust of the community on that, is that
14. is that trust to be linked with the record of these Parties on the Crossrail Bill, the Crossrail plan, the Crossrail package so far in the UK Hosue of Commons, in the UK Hosue of Lords and on the ‘regional’ Greater London Assembly?
15. If not, what other credible, reliable evidence sis could be found and or cited to found any case for trusting any of eth three Parties about defending the community against the Crossrail attack plan against the East End of Lo0ndon?
16. Have the three Parties through whatever spokespeople they have had on the Greater London Assembly made any significant case in defence of the East End of London over the Crossrail attacks plane in the last four years? Or in the last three years? Or in the last two years?
KHOODEELAAR!
The Brick Lane London E1 Area campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill [UK Parliament]
London E1 UK
London
UK
Part L
Published here first at 2300 Hrs GMT London Saturday 11 March 2006
The notion that a movement to defend the local area in the East End of London against the oncoming Big Business assault in the guise ofsosraiol hole plan is pubhsinbg a very detailed manifesto is not one that is based on the known tradition here.
The tradition is more linked with the seekers of elected office to publish manifesto
The tradition is more like the ‘governed’, the ‘subject’s to be told what will be done in their name by the ‘governors’. Those seeking election. So irrational is the behaviour that the ONLY time when those seeking election bother to even communicate to the 'voters' - the fodder for election - is at times of election. The day of reckoning day when the votes are cast. Once that is done, everything gets back to normal. bar the celebrations. And the recriminations inside and by the losers of the votes.
We have already identified in the specially commissioned Khoodeelaar investigations published on the Crassrail hole plan in the period January 2004 to now [March 11, 2006] that the role in promoting the Crossrail assault plan on the East End of London played by Tower Hamlets Councillor Michael Keith – who has been ‘leader’, for the second time round, since May 2005- has been a worryingly involved one.
So much so that on the facts and on the evidence, we have been describing him as the key tout on Tower Hamlets Council for the Crossrail interests.
We have now come to a stage in our investigate reporting – both on the Khoodeelaardotcom web site as well as on several dozen other internet sites – where it is necessary to ask some new questions about the ‘democratic’ process that has been relevant in the attack plan that has been devised against the East End of London.
We have also published after the 22 January 2006 meeting held at the Brady Centre in the Hanbury Street [off Brick Lane, London E1] more than 14 questions addressed to Keith’s predecessor in post, Helal Uddin ‘Abbas’ as ‘leader’ of Tower Hamlets Council.
We have shown that BOTH of them have been promoting the Crossrail package, in clear violation of the wishes of the local community.
1. How is it that Tower Hamlets Council became so deeply involved in promoting the Crossrail attacks plan on the East End?
2. What happened to the ‘other’ councillors, other than Michael Keith who was plugging for Crossrail for years on the Council?
3. What did the ‘other’ members of the numerical majority group of councillors do between 2000 – 2005 [inclusive] which is the main period during which all the secret talks and the deals between the Tower Hamlets council and the promoters of Crossrail took place?
4. Whatever had the numerically second largest group of councillors, the Liberal Democrats, on Tower Hamlets Council do to identify with the local community and to oppose the Crossrail attacks plan?
5. What evidence is there to locate what each individual councillor did – or did not – do over Crossrail?
6. What happens now that the ‘last full Council meeting’ before the 4 May 2006 elections has taken place?
7. What is the relevance of the community paying any attention any candidate for election to Tower Hamkest Council at the scheduled 4 May 2006 election?
8. What is the significance for the community of the superfluity of communications from?
9. Do these candidates mean what they say?
10. What is the Crossrail-threatened community in the East End of London to make of the absence of any ‘election manifesto’ over Crossrail from any of the main Parties?
11. What is to be made of the relegation of the Crossrail threat, in ‘Respect’ coalition’s leaflet circulated in the Brick Lane London E1 area in the last 3 days?
12. Do the Blair Party [=’New’ Labour ! Party] Liberal Democratic Party, Conservative Party deserve to be trusted by the community to oppose the Crossrail attacks plan against the East End?
13. If they do deserve the trust of the community on that, is that
14. is that trust to be linked with the record of these Parties on the Crossrail Bill, the Crossrail plan, the Crossrail package so far in the UK Hosue of Commons, in the UK Hosue of Lords and on the ‘regional’ Greater London Assembly?
15. If not, what other credible, reliable evidence sis could be found and or cited to found any case for trusting any of eth three Parties about defending the community against the Crossrail attack plan against the East End of Lo0ndon?
16. Have the three Parties through whatever spokespeople they have had on the Greater London Assembly made any significant case in defence of the East End of London over the Crossrail attacks plane in the last four years? Or in the last three years? Or in the last two years?
KHOODEELAAR!
The Brick Lane London E1 Area campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill [UK Parliament]
London E1 UK
London
UK
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 4 comments