The community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area demonstrated against teh Crossrail hoel attack Bill in London’s East End on Tuesday 17 January 2006. That was to mark the start of the MPs ‘scrutiny’ of the Bill on that same day.
Organised by KHOOODEELAAR the demonstrators demanded the Crossrail hole Bill be redrafted by dropping the direct and indirect provisions for the hole and related attacks asa contained in the Bill.
The KHOODEELAAR campaign described Tower Hamlets Council and its controlling group as mainly responsible for bringing the Crossrail hole attacks upon the community. KHOODEELAAR has issued a final legal demand on the Council today Wednesday 18 January 2006
Organised by KHOOODEELAAR the demonstrators demanded the Crossrail hole Bill be redrafted by dropping the direct and indirect provisions for the hole and related attacks asa contained in the Bill.
The KHOODEELAAR campaign described Tower Hamlets Council and its controlling group as mainly responsible for bringing the Crossrail hole attacks upon the community. KHOODEELAAR has issued a final legal demand on the Council today Wednesday 18 January 2006
© The AUTHOR / CBRUK / KHOODEELAAR / LAWMEDIA 2006
The community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area demonstrated against teh Crossrail hoel attack Bill in London’s East End on Tuesday 17 January 2006. That was to mark the start of the MPs ‘scrutiny’ of the Bill on that same day.
Organised by KHOOODEELAAR the demonstrators demanded the Crossrail hole Bill be redrafted by dropping the direct and indirect provisions for the hole and related attacks asa contained in the Bill.
The KHOODEELAAR campaign described Tower Hamlets Council and its controlling group as mainly responsible for bringing the Crossrail hole attacks upon the community. KHOODEELAAR has issued a final legal demand on the Council today Wednesday 18 January 2006
KHOODEELAAR! THE Brick Lane London E1 Area campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill has today issued the relevant official in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council with fin al legal notice on their relevant conduct over their role to date in the promotion in the name of the legal and corporate entity of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council of the lies for the Crossrail hole attacks plan on the Brick Lane London E1 area community in the past four years.
The notice sent today is described as ‘the very final reminder to you of all the questions put to you by CBRUK ….. KHOODEELAAR THE BRICK LANE LONDON E1 AREA CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project /scheme and Bill, between March 2004 and this month and upto and including Tuesday 17 January 2006’.
Here are the edited texts of the rest of the questions
2. You must realise – or your ‘advisors’ whether they be in place as ‘legal advisors’ or as other types of ‘advisors’ must know a realise – that you cannot indefinitely be in denial over those questions and get exemption from liability to legally account for your conduct.
3. You must provide the answers and make them available to this email address and do so without any further delay.
4. If you are in doubt or if you are under any of the many dubious ‘advice’ regimes to the effect that service by e-mail may not be acceptable, let this be made very clear to you: service by email on this occasion and on this matter is acceptable to the questioners.
5. You must be very careful when you next engage – if you are so ill-advised to wish to so engage – in issuing or backing or approving the issuing of misinformation on behalf of any of the current ‘controlling clique’ of councillors that legal liability will rest on you.
6. What is legal liability and what is it about here?
7. Answer: Legal liability is as defined by the law and legal liability here is in relation to the relevant use (that includes abuse) of all the actual and formal powers that the holder of the post of [the named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council (LBTH) has access to and or has used in the conception of or in the perpetration of or in the perpetuation of any falsehoods, misstatements or lies.
8. Those statements that you have issued, such as … communications which you eventually sent to CBRUKCENTRAL in October-November 2004, will be tested as extensively and as comprehensively forensically as it is physically and procedurally possible to do in the UK at the present time.
9. What is being meant by ‘untrue statements’?
10. Answer: When you were asked by CBRUKCENTRAL to provide the full contents of the notes of the meeting (held during the first half of October 2004 in the room next to the Council chamber at Mulberry Place E14 2BG) you failed to provide those.
11. You had been asked to provide those because in your earlier relevant email to CBRUKCENTRAL you had asserted that your recollection and the notes of the meeting concerned contradicted the assertions made by the CBRUKCENTRAL and by implication as had been made by the KHOODEELAAR campaign on the role played by the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
12. Your statement as sent TO CBRUKCENTRAL IN 2004 asserted that named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council had not misrepresented the facts or the role he had played and that he had not misled the community.
13. You were then sent additional details and amplifications.
14. Those details were of the actual proceedings concerned and they quoted from the statements concerned that had been made by [the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council] at the relevant meetings and events and as published.
15. You were then asked to comment on those and to show precisely where the KHOODEELAAR campaign assertions about the untruthful statements, the misleading assertions, insinuations, suggestions and conduct of the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council could be challenged on the facts and on the evidence.
16. You did not comment and you did not point out ANY
17. word let alone any sentence let alone any paragraph in anything that had been put by the CBRUKCENTRAL committee or by the CBRUK Chair or by the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN to you as the [named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] postholder in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council .
18. We are asking you again and finally today Wednesday 18 January 2006 to do so and to do so in the knowledge – and we hereby make that knowledge emphatically clear to you – that CBRUK CENTRAL AND KHOODEELAAR shall seek the intervention of a court of law to review your own conduct as well as the conduct of every single one of the ‘controlling’ clique or group of councillors that has played any part or made any decision or conceived of any course of action that has misled - or that would reasonably foreseeably have the potential to mislead - any part or membership of the community in the Brick Lane London E1 area or in the population ordinarily resident and situated and based within the UK constitutional boundaries of the London borough of Tower Hamlets Council and on the matter of what you … advised the controlling member or members of the Tower Hamlets Council at the relevant time and in the relevant promotion of the Crossrail hole scheme or project or Bill to do and to go ahead as far as your legal duties were concerned.
End of the very final legal reminder on behalf of cbrukcentral, cbruk chair, and KHOODEELAAR BRICK LANE LONDON E1 AREA campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill to [the named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] 1100 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 18 January 2006
The community in the Brick Lane London E1 Area demonstrated against teh Crossrail hoel attack Bill in London’s East End on Tuesday 17 January 2006. That was to mark the start of the MPs ‘scrutiny’ of the Bill on that same day.
Organised by KHOOODEELAAR the demonstrators demanded the Crossrail hole Bill be redrafted by dropping the direct and indirect provisions for the hole and related attacks asa contained in the Bill.
The KHOODEELAAR campaign described Tower Hamlets Council and its controlling group as mainly responsible for bringing the Crossrail hole attacks upon the community. KHOODEELAAR has issued a final legal demand on the Council today Wednesday 18 January 2006
KHOODEELAAR! THE Brick Lane London E1 Area campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill has today issued the relevant official in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council with fin al legal notice on their relevant conduct over their role to date in the promotion in the name of the legal and corporate entity of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council of the lies for the Crossrail hole attacks plan on the Brick Lane London E1 area community in the past four years.
The notice sent today is described as ‘the very final reminder to you of all the questions put to you by CBRUK ….. KHOODEELAAR THE BRICK LANE LONDON E1 AREA CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project /scheme and Bill, between March 2004 and this month and upto and including Tuesday 17 January 2006’.
Here are the edited texts of the rest of the questions
2. You must realise – or your ‘advisors’ whether they be in place as ‘legal advisors’ or as other types of ‘advisors’ must know a realise – that you cannot indefinitely be in denial over those questions and get exemption from liability to legally account for your conduct.
3. You must provide the answers and make them available to this email address and do so without any further delay.
4. If you are in doubt or if you are under any of the many dubious ‘advice’ regimes to the effect that service by e-mail may not be acceptable, let this be made very clear to you: service by email on this occasion and on this matter is acceptable to the questioners.
5. You must be very careful when you next engage – if you are so ill-advised to wish to so engage – in issuing or backing or approving the issuing of misinformation on behalf of any of the current ‘controlling clique’ of councillors that legal liability will rest on you.
6. What is legal liability and what is it about here?
7. Answer: Legal liability is as defined by the law and legal liability here is in relation to the relevant use (that includes abuse) of all the actual and formal powers that the holder of the post of [the named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council (LBTH) has access to and or has used in the conception of or in the perpetration of or in the perpetuation of any falsehoods, misstatements or lies.
8. Those statements that you have issued, such as … communications which you eventually sent to CBRUKCENTRAL in October-November 2004, will be tested as extensively and as comprehensively forensically as it is physically and procedurally possible to do in the UK at the present time.
9. What is being meant by ‘untrue statements’?
10. Answer: When you were asked by CBRUKCENTRAL to provide the full contents of the notes of the meeting (held during the first half of October 2004 in the room next to the Council chamber at Mulberry Place E14 2BG) you failed to provide those.
11. You had been asked to provide those because in your earlier relevant email to CBRUKCENTRAL you had asserted that your recollection and the notes of the meeting concerned contradicted the assertions made by the CBRUKCENTRAL and by implication as had been made by the KHOODEELAAR campaign on the role played by the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
12. Your statement as sent TO CBRUKCENTRAL IN 2004 asserted that named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council had not misrepresented the facts or the role he had played and that he had not misled the community.
13. You were then sent additional details and amplifications.
14. Those details were of the actual proceedings concerned and they quoted from the statements concerned that had been made by [the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council] at the relevant meetings and events and as published.
15. You were then asked to comment on those and to show precisely where the KHOODEELAAR campaign assertions about the untruthful statements, the misleading assertions, insinuations, suggestions and conduct of the named councillor on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council could be challenged on the facts and on the evidence.
16. You did not comment and you did not point out ANY
17. word let alone any sentence let alone any paragraph in anything that had been put by the CBRUKCENTRAL committee or by the CBRUK Chair or by the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN to you as the [named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] postholder in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council .
18. We are asking you again and finally today Wednesday 18 January 2006 to do so and to do so in the knowledge – and we hereby make that knowledge emphatically clear to you – that CBRUK CENTRAL AND KHOODEELAAR shall seek the intervention of a court of law to review your own conduct as well as the conduct of every single one of the ‘controlling’ clique or group of councillors that has played any part or made any decision or conceived of any course of action that has misled - or that would reasonably foreseeably have the potential to mislead - any part or membership of the community in the Brick Lane London E1 area or in the population ordinarily resident and situated and based within the UK constitutional boundaries of the London borough of Tower Hamlets Council and on the matter of what you … advised the controlling member or members of the Tower Hamlets Council at the relevant time and in the relevant promotion of the Crossrail hole scheme or project or Bill to do and to go ahead as far as your legal duties were concerned.
End of the very final legal reminder on behalf of cbrukcentral, cbruk chair, and KHOODEELAAR BRICK LANE LONDON E1 AREA campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill to [the named officer employed in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets council] 1100 Hrs GMT London Wednesday 18 January 2006
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 7 comments