KHOODEELAAR! constitutional law commentary and update - Questions to Tower Hamlets Council [32]

This page was last edited at 1630 GMT
1730 UK Wednesday 13 August 2008:


CONTINUING the KHOODEELAAR! Questions to Tower Hamlets Council


1630 GMT
1730 UK
Wednesday 13 August 2008:

In October 2004, there was a formal meeting of the Tower Hamlets Council’s cabinet, which did refer to the Council’s role in the Crossrail hole plot.

Based on the evidence of what was observed by members of the community present at the meeting, a statement was published by KHOODEELAAR! asserting - repeat ASSERTING - that the then councillor Michael Keith had failed to represent the whole community’s position in his uttered remarks at that cabinet meeting.


This was disputed by Christine Gilbert, then still in post as the Council’s chief executive and Christine Gilbert wrote to CBRUKcentral as part of the KHOODEELAAR! campaign [sponsored by and is in partnership with the wholly voluntary, non-profit, non-careerist ethical and political campaign CBRUK] ASSERTING THAT SHE, Christine Gilbert, had attended the same meeting and that HER RECOLLECTION WAS different from what Khoodeelaar! had published on the utterances by Michael Keith.

To add apparent substance to her assertion, Christine Gilbert wrote to CBRUK stating that she had also seen the minutes of the ‘cabinet’ meeting concerned and that the minutes proved her assertion.

Logically, the KHOODEELAAR! campaign wrote to  Christine Gilbert and asked to be given a copy of the minutes which she had asserted to have seen. She never did. There have been over a dozen separate requests or formal demands for the Council to substantiate Christine Gilbert’s assertion in backing Michael Keith.

There has been no substantiation.

The key matter in the Michael Keith utterance was that he had referred to a very small - “numerically, politically, campaign-wise and in terms of local or indeed 'professional' relevance or presence” grouping. He made NOT one single reference to any other organisation. Many exist or were in existence in October 2004 in the same area which have [and di have in October 2004] a bigger and more popular and populous relevance than the one Michael Keith referred to.

Why did Christine Gilbert make that misleading statement?
Why did she fail to substantiate her assertion when asked to do so?
Why had Michael Keith made the reference leaving out all the other groups?


[To be continued]