The Crossrail hole plot agenda-inviting clique on Tower Hamlets Council is habitually disrespectful of human rights, and legal rights...

By©Muhammad Haque
2045 GMT
London
Monday 14 July 2008

How lawbreaking is the controlling clique on and in the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council?

Very.

By ‘law’ of course, I here refer to those sets of laws about which there is universal or near universal agreement. Unlike laws and proposals about which there is little or no agreement.

Two undesirable laws are now in the pipeline. One about the Crossrail hole plot [the ‘Crossrail Bill’] and the other one of course is the 42 day detention without charge ploy, contained in the ‘Counter -Terrorism Bill’ and in associated pieces of draft legislation....

The context of this commentary is defined by the movement for human rights that the KHOODEELAAR! campaign is part of.

The KHOODEELAAR! campaign against “the Tower Hamlets Council’s collusion with the Crossrail hole attacks agenda against the East end of London ...” has always stated, on the relevant evidence, that the clique that controls Tower Hamlets Council, is a corrupt clique.

And we have always published the evidence on each occasion of what forms the basis for our saying that the Tower Hamlets Council is controlled by a clique that is corrupt.

In the case of the recent John Wooster employment tribunal finding, the clique has again confirmed that our analysis is accurate and up to date.


That Tower Hamlets Council is controlled by a corrupt clique.
That it is prepared to rake wrongful decisions in order to maintain its corrupt hold. As in this case, they are making a pathetic bid to come across as if they are the clique of conscientiousness! What a blazing, Blairing lie.

Conscientiousness never enters into the behaviour the claque that is in control precisely because it is devoid of conscientiousness, ethics and morality.

What is that evidence now?

That evidence is contained in Tower Hamlets Council's various statements.

We here quote from the one that they have published on their web site and dated 9 july 2008. It contains the following gem:



“
refusal to extend the notice period to allow an employee to benefit from enhanced pension was right and proper.

“

Why is it a gem?

It is a gem as evidence. Not a gem as the effect on the targets of the Council’s wrongdoing of what the question contains.

The Council clique is here admitting that the Employment tribunal’s finding that Tower Hamlets Council had refused to extend the notice period to the complainant John Wooster did take place, did occur. did happen But in typically corrupt way, the Tower Hamlets Council clique has here twisted its ‘motivation’ and the real reason why it had gone ahead and terminated his employment.


The real reasoning and reason why it had refused to extend the notice period was so that the Council could deprive or help to deprive the employee of the pensions benefits that he would have been entitled to ...

They are also covering up the fact that it was THEY, the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets Council, who TOOK the initiative and terminated the man’s opportunity... When it was literally months away from coming into active play...

So the initiative to destroy his legal entitlement t was taken by the Council. Not by the claimant John Wooster. So, how many levels is that twisting on?

Read that quotation from the statement issued in the name of the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets Council:




“
refusal to extend the notice period to allow an employee to benefit from enhanced pension was right and proper.”

They are falsifying the facts and they are doing so by confusing cause and effect .....


They are saying here that the NOTICE period was some sort of a device or an excuse that the claimant had himself invented. They are saying that he must have invented it to benefit from ‘enhanced pretension’...


They are not saying that the man was entitled to enhanced pension as the law provided he was and that they knew it and in order to deprive him of what he was entitled to they took the wrongful acton knowing full well that by doing so they would be braking their obligations and thus deny the man what he was entitled to or would be entitled to in a matter of months...


[To be continued]