1120 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 7 April 2009
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/136446/a-flying-start-for-boris.thtml
By©Muhammad Haque
1550 GMT
London Wednesday 5 September 2007
It is very wrong of anyone to even suggest that Crossrail equals solution to the people of London’s transport needs.
The Crossrail hole Bill as it is in the UK House of Commons, lacks relevance and is in essence a hugely hyped up too for profit-grabbing Big Business to grab hold of public cash for private looting.
The transport needs do deserve serious attention.
The Crossrail Bill does not contain the answers.
It is irresponsible of anyone to claim that making a stand as a poodle for the Big Business lobby for Crossrail amounts to evidence that we need for suitability to seek election as mayor of onion.
There are far too many examples of huge sums of public money being wasted on grand plans that come unstuck. Boris Johnson will be discredited even before he starts the campaign proper if he cannot show that he is up to the task.
I will debate CrossRail and London transport needs with him on any platform. Does Boris possess enough gravitas and thought to care and to respond?
And what is Matthew doing allowing banal plugs for Crossrail to be posted on the Spectator web site without rigorous responses?
33rd year AADHIKAR
0225 GMT Thursday 06 June 2013
AADHIKAR Media Foundation Editor © Muhammad Haque
Founding News Editor
Shah M Azizul Haque
AADHIKAR Media Foundation established with the publication of AADHIKAR the weekly on Monday 19 December 1980 from London E1 UK.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
KHOODEELAAR! Action flashback to December 2007 - KHOODEELAAR! diagnosing the RACIST unconstitutionality of conduct in the UK Parliament - 18 December
KHOODEELAAR! Action flashback to December 2007 - KHOODEELAAR! diagnosing the RACIST unconstitutionality of conduct in the UK Parliament - 18 December
Extracts below from Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque's communication to the House of Lords personnel concerned 18 December 2007
"
As I stated to Ms ['surname'] this morning, the obstructions we had encountered from the bureaucracy of the 'select committee' [that had existed under the 'CrossRail Bill'] during the 'select committee' stage at the House of Commons included serious racist obstructions, insults and violations and other ploys which together produced the effect of frustrating us from exercising our constitutional rights.
The preceding statement is not intended to set out here the details of the impact that series of racist conduct caused.
The point is to make a distinction between the obstructions put in our way to prevent us or frustrate us from presenting the constitutional objections during the House of Commons 'consideration and or scrutiny' of the 'CrossRail Bill' AND the actual contents of any objections that we would have put to that formally set up ‘select committee’.
The obstructions were different from the contents of any objections that we might have put or would have put or certainly would have put to that select committee.
We have communicated to the office of the speaker of the House of Commons as well as to others concerned and the state of response is not one that is final, let alone conclusive, far less acceptable, as I write this.
We would not accept similar or any obstructions that may come preventing our exercising the rights to register our opposition to the particular contents, implications and consequences of the CrossRail Bill to the ‘select committee’ in the House of Lords.
If there is any obstruction/s, we shall treat those as being designed or intended to deny us the due, the constitutional the legal and the proper say on the contents, the implications and the consequences of the CrossRail Bill as it currently is or will be at the time scheduled for the presentation of any objections.
As far as the obstructions we encountered from the bureaucracy concerned in the House of Commons select committee, we did register our detailed complaints AT THE TIME and immediately after the incidents and we are, have been and shall be pursuing the outstanding aspects of those accordingly.
The point of the references here to the racist components of those obstructions is that should we encounter any similar obstruction or violation at this stage [and onwards and IN THE CONTEXT of our intended and proposed and relevant say on the present ‘Crossrail Bill’ from any part of the establishment that is collectively known as or is referred to as the ‘Houses of Parliament’] then we shall seek to undermine the very foundation of any claim that the promoters or any of their agencies or backers or approvers or propagandists may seek to make that the relevant ‘process’ of parliamentary scrutiny was fair or was conducted duly and in accordance with the rights of the people, the area, the community affected by the Crossrail Bill.
I must also include a note of appreciation for your own e-mail following our last telephone conversation and for Ms Cathy Jones for having allowed me to elaborate on some aspects of the matter this morning.
Yours sincerely
Muhammad Haque
Khoodeelaar! The campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill [‘the Crossrail Bill’, now in the UK House of Lords]
1416 Hrs GMT
Tuesday 18 December 2007
"
Extracts below from Khoodeelaar! Organiser Muhammad Haque's communication to the House of Lords personnel concerned 18 December 2007
"
As I stated to Ms ['surname'] this morning, the obstructions we had encountered from the bureaucracy of the 'select committee' [that had existed under the 'CrossRail Bill'] during the 'select committee' stage at the House of Commons included serious racist obstructions, insults and violations and other ploys which together produced the effect of frustrating us from exercising our constitutional rights.
The preceding statement is not intended to set out here the details of the impact that series of racist conduct caused.
The point is to make a distinction between the obstructions put in our way to prevent us or frustrate us from presenting the constitutional objections during the House of Commons 'consideration and or scrutiny' of the 'CrossRail Bill' AND the actual contents of any objections that we would have put to that formally set up ‘select committee’.
The obstructions were different from the contents of any objections that we might have put or would have put or certainly would have put to that select committee.
We have communicated to the office of the speaker of the House of Commons as well as to others concerned and the state of response is not one that is final, let alone conclusive, far less acceptable, as I write this.
We would not accept similar or any obstructions that may come preventing our exercising the rights to register our opposition to the particular contents, implications and consequences of the CrossRail Bill to the ‘select committee’ in the House of Lords.
If there is any obstruction/s, we shall treat those as being designed or intended to deny us the due, the constitutional the legal and the proper say on the contents, the implications and the consequences of the CrossRail Bill as it currently is or will be at the time scheduled for the presentation of any objections.
As far as the obstructions we encountered from the bureaucracy concerned in the House of Commons select committee, we did register our detailed complaints AT THE TIME and immediately after the incidents and we are, have been and shall be pursuing the outstanding aspects of those accordingly.
The point of the references here to the racist components of those obstructions is that should we encounter any similar obstruction or violation at this stage [and onwards and IN THE CONTEXT of our intended and proposed and relevant say on the present ‘Crossrail Bill’ from any part of the establishment that is collectively known as or is referred to as the ‘Houses of Parliament’] then we shall seek to undermine the very foundation of any claim that the promoters or any of their agencies or backers or approvers or propagandists may seek to make that the relevant ‘process’ of parliamentary scrutiny was fair or was conducted duly and in accordance with the rights of the people, the area, the community affected by the Crossrail Bill.
I must also include a note of appreciation for your own e-mail following our last telephone conversation and for Ms Cathy Jones for having allowed me to elaborate on some aspects of the matter this morning.
Yours sincerely
Muhammad Haque
Khoodeelaar! The campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill [‘the Crossrail Bill’, now in the UK House of Lords]
1416 Hrs GMT
Tuesday 18 December 2007
"
KHOODEELAAR! Action flashback ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF campaign SUPPORTERS against Crossrail hole: Johanna Kaschke
0845 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 7 April 2009
This linked site on the No 10 Downing Street internet portal was created at the initiative of Johanna Kaschke. Khoodeelaar! did not either ask for it nor make any contribution to it. But the fact that Ms Johanna Kaschke thought about creating the petition site showed that she had intended to help the campaign.
A note on why KHOODEELAAR! did not initiate the same ourselves:
Such efforts are often consumed and appropriated by the No 10 Downing Street propaganda machine and the assorted spies that get engaged...
We have found that use of the internet is best done by rejecting the spinmeisters more often than accepting their lures...and traps
However, we thank Ms Kaschke on the record once again for trying to help.
[To be continued]
This linked site on the No 10 Downing Street internet portal was created at the initiative of Johanna Kaschke. Khoodeelaar! did not either ask for it nor make any contribution to it. But the fact that Ms Johanna Kaschke thought about creating the petition site showed that she had intended to help the campaign.
A note on why KHOODEELAAR! did not initiate the same ourselves:
Such efforts are often consumed and appropriated by the No 10 Downing Street propaganda machine and the assorted spies that get engaged...
We have found that use of the internet is best done by rejecting the spinmeisters more often than accepting their lures...and traps
However, we thank Ms Kaschke on the record once again for trying to help.
[To be continued]
KHOODEELAAR! Action flashback to Wednesday 1 March 2006: No to Crossrail hole-inviting Tower Hamlets Council
0735 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 7 April 2009: KHOODEELAAR! Continuing the documentary tributes to Daniel ‘Dennis’ Flood.
Bringing up to date the events of Wednesday 1 March 2006. A KHOODEELAAR No to Crossrail hole SERIES of events took place on that day against the Tower Hamlets Council’s Crossrail hole-attacks-inviting role..
By © Muhammad Haque
0655 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 7 April 2009
One of the items contained in the folder of leaflets and related papers which Carole Swords passed on to me as having been found among Dennis’ ‘wealth’, was a KHOODEELAAR! leaflet. Number 1002 [b] 2040 Hrs GMT Tuesday 21 February 2006. Today is another Tuesday but Dennis is not with us physically. He would have chuckled at the idea that what he thought of the scumbags that had brought the threat of Crossrail hole attacks on his beloved East End has come true.. They have been ‘shafted’. ‘Cos the shaft that Crossrail had plotted against us is not to be imposed after all. Instead, those who had decried the campaign against that shaft and related other plotted assaults of the community, have themselves been shafted. Exposed. put to shame. if they have any sense of that as well.. No digging! No hole. Not in the Brick Lane London E1 area.…After FIVE years and THREE months of demanding that they did exactly that, we can now say that the shafters have been shafted... And across the top of that KHOODEELAAR! leaflet is a hand-written expression of condensed rage: OUR MONEY IS FILLING THIS PIT. Just to make sure, the ’PIT’ is pointed at with a directional arrow. And that KHOODEELAAR! Leaflet heading was “NO CROSSRAIL HOLE! KHOODEELAAR! DEMO AGAINST TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL” “Wednesday 1 March 2006 6PM.”
What then took place at that demo and the relevance and the IMPLICATIONS of those events for both the future of the community in inner city East End as well as for wider “constitutional democracy” [if Blaired Brown et al let any of that to remain!] in the UK and beyond, will be updated here .. [To be continued ]
Bringing up to date the events of Wednesday 1 March 2006. A KHOODEELAAR No to Crossrail hole SERIES of events took place on that day against the Tower Hamlets Council’s Crossrail hole-attacks-inviting role..
By © Muhammad Haque
0655 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 7 April 2009
One of the items contained in the folder of leaflets and related papers which Carole Swords passed on to me as having been found among Dennis’ ‘wealth’, was a KHOODEELAAR! leaflet. Number 1002 [b] 2040 Hrs GMT Tuesday 21 February 2006. Today is another Tuesday but Dennis is not with us physically. He would have chuckled at the idea that what he thought of the scumbags that had brought the threat of Crossrail hole attacks on his beloved East End has come true.. They have been ‘shafted’. ‘Cos the shaft that Crossrail had plotted against us is not to be imposed after all. Instead, those who had decried the campaign against that shaft and related other plotted assaults of the community, have themselves been shafted. Exposed. put to shame. if they have any sense of that as well.. No digging! No hole. Not in the Brick Lane London E1 area.…After FIVE years and THREE months of demanding that they did exactly that, we can now say that the shafters have been shafted... And across the top of that KHOODEELAAR! leaflet is a hand-written expression of condensed rage: OUR MONEY IS FILLING THIS PIT. Just to make sure, the ’PIT’ is pointed at with a directional arrow. And that KHOODEELAAR! Leaflet heading was “NO CROSSRAIL HOLE! KHOODEELAAR! DEMO AGAINST TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL” “Wednesday 1 March 2006 6PM.”
What then took place at that demo and the relevance and the IMPLICATIONS of those events for both the future of the community in inner city East End as well as for wider “constitutional democracy” [if Blaired Brown et al let any of that to remain!] in the UK and beyond, will be updated here .. [To be continued ]
KHOODEELAAR! action archive and update on the corrupt role played by the 'East London Advertiser' falsifying the records on CROSSRAIL hole
Crossrail 'bias' of 'East London Advertiser' causing undermining local people
By © Muhammad Haque
1100 Hrs GMT
London
Monday 20 February 2006
The political struggle to defend the community across the East End borough of Tower Hamlets, starting with the Brick Lane London E1 area and taking in and stretching through Stepney, Mile End Park and Bow, is hotting up in a way that has not been seen in the East End for a very long time.
In fact the role of the local Tower Hamlets council is increasingly coming under serious scrutiny from local campaigners headed by the khoodeelaar movement. The resulting pressure that the Borough has been undergoing has not been known since Tower Hamlets was created in the 1960s replacing and amalgamating the former smaller boroughs of Stepney, Bethnal Green, Poplar, plus. Yet the ‘local weekly’ the ‘East London Advertiser’ is not willing to reflect the political battler. It is only ever interested in serving as a secondary propaganda rag for the CrossRail-backing ruling clique on Tower Hamlets Council. This is depriving the local community the access to the facts that the local paper must provide if it is to escape being consigned to the dustbin by the sheer power of community action against CrossRail in the East End.
The Khoodeelaar campaign against the Crossrail hole plan scheme Bill and the ‘position’ of the ‘RESPECT’ coalition and George Galloway, MP as reported [or NOT] by the East London Advertiser
What is the ‘position’?
This question should not even be asked, because George Galloway MP has made his position abundantly clear.
In case there had been any doubt or confusion about where George Galloway the RESPECT Coalition’s leader and their only Member of Parliament stood on Crossrail, the statement he made at the public meeting on Saturday 11 February 2006 left no room for any doubt or confusion. Khoodeelaar web site has already reported the substance of Galloway’s statement on 11 February 2006.
But the ‘local rag’ the East London Advertiser, which does its business as the main Borough-wide ‘commercial’ ‘newspaper’ in Tower Hamlets, has been depriving its readers of the facts of the main movement that is vigorously active against the Crossrail hole attacks on the East End.
An item in the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ [138 Cambridge heath road, London E1 6QJ] [dated thursday 16 February 2006], headlined, “I’m coming to get you’ [“Galloway’s warning as he launches respect election campaign”] by-lined to ted jeory, includes this: “but when quizzed by the advertiser at Monday’s press conference, Rees outlined a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”
The reference to “Rees” is to john Rees the UK ‘national secretary’ of the Respect coalition, represented in the UK House of Commons by George Galloway MP.
The ‘east London advertiser’ item does not refer to the comprehensive position of the respect coalition on the crossrail project that had been set out by George Galloway at a special public meeting against the crossrail hole’ bill held on Saturday 11 February 2006. at the Brady centre in Hanbury street which is at the centre of the khoodeelaar! Campaign against the crossrail hole plan-project-scheme bill in the brick lane London e1 area
In that statement George Galloway was unequivocal in his opposition to Crossrail and he pledged that if the respect coalition won control of TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL following the scheduled 4 May 2006 council election then the Respect coalition would scrap the agreement made by the current TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. Galloway stated empathic support for the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project scheme Bill. In addition to that Galloway said that the Respect coalition would do everything to delay and to defeat Crossrail. He made extensive references in his speech to the keynote speech that had been delivered at the meeting by Muhammad Haque, the Khoodeelaar organiser. Galloway endorsed the khoodeelaar position and reiterated his previous commitment to oppose Crossrail on every aspect of the planned attack on the East End.
Galloway said that they [he and RESPECT] would take judicial review actions and other measures to delay Crossrail, towards defeating the Crossrail attacks on the East End.
Given that the same meeting was addressed by john Rees himself and given that George Galloway gave the closing speech containing very detailed policy commitments about what he [George |Galloway] and the RESPECT coalition would be doing about the Crossrail attacks when he spoke against Crossrail on Saturday 11 February 2006, it is significant that the ‘east london advertiser’ item makes no reference to any of these facts.
The , “I’m coming to get you’ headline is given to the item which apparently is based on the Respect coalition’s news conference held on Monday 13 February 2006 at which event the group announced the majority of their selected candidates for the 4 May 2006 local council election.
It is very strange that the ‘east london advertiser’ item does not make any reference to the George Galloway / respect position against crossrail as set out by Galloway on Saturday 11 February 2006.
Instead there is the reference to [John] Rees outlining ‘a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury Street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”.
What were the details of that reported position of the Respect coalition as attributed to John Rees by the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’?
The ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ ‘report’ [“I’m coming to get you’] does not give any answers or clues.
Instead, the title explains that the local election battle for control of the Tower Hamlets Council between the different parties and groups “would be fought over Labour’s housing choice programme, the proposed revamp of the royal london hospital and, crucially, issues surrounding crossrail.”
which makes the absence of any details about what the respect coalition’s ‘national secretary’ had allegedly stated to the reporter ted jeory that justified the assertion that the respect position on Crossrail’s proposal was ‘strikingly similar to labour’s” even more curious and odd.
Furthermore, the TED JEORY piece does not contain any reference to any facts that would justify his inclusion of the words ‘strikingly similar to Labour’s’.
Reasonable standards of journalism would require that any reference to competing groups should be accompanied by a reasonable amount of information or evidence to support any opinion.
The TED JEORY statement reads like an opinion rather than fact. And that opinion is the real clue as to what the agenda of the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER must be.
They [the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER] are operating in their ‘reporting’ of the campaign against the Crossrail attacks on the EAST END borough on assumptions that are linked with their commercial dealings with the controlling clique on TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. They are deliberately suppressing the key facts and are misleading those who read their publication about what is actually going on about crossrail in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
In the same issue as they carry the Ted Jeory statement, the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER also publish [PAGES 18-19] an unprecedented feature page that gives the impression that it contains the key facts. It does not. In fact, it is yet another excuse for the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER to run a plastic-faced picture of Crossrail-plugging ‘Tower Hamlets Council leader’’ Michael Keith.
In the accompanying item the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER repeats a pack of untruths about alleged Tower Hamlets Council ‘actions’ on Crossrail that once again is devoid of the crucial facts.
The EAST LONDON ADVERTISER prints a double falsehood in describing ‘Arup’ as merely ‘engineering giant’ who had been ‘commissioned by’ Tower Hamlets Council. ARUP are very deeply involved in the multinational looting of the public purse scams that actually underlies the mad propaganda for Crossrail.
That they also operate as an allegedly independent expert is not separate from their overall role in the Big Business agenda.
Only last week they were again linked with reports concerning the latest parasitic activities of Crossrail chair Adrian Montague who is fronting the Big Business agencies current bid to effectively grab the multi£Billion Channel Tunnel railway company.
But the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER paints Arup as an almost pure, academic outfit doing the honest slog for the cause of truth and local environment.
That ARUP was at all commissioned by the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets |Council is also linked with the deeply dubious and unrepresentative role played by Michael Keith in bringing the Crossrail problems to the East. Keith is now ‘leader’ of Tower Hamlets Council. And the position of ‘leader’ is linked with the internecine, racist power-game that he has been indulging in. He has been doing so
The item makes references to
The controlling clique does not represent the views of the labour party membership in the borough.
The vast majority of the labour party in tower hamlets have not been asked their views on any issue or any alleged manifesto
By © Muhammad Haque
1100 Hrs GMT
London
Monday 20 February 2006
The political struggle to defend the community across the East End borough of Tower Hamlets, starting with the Brick Lane London E1 area and taking in and stretching through Stepney, Mile End Park and Bow, is hotting up in a way that has not been seen in the East End for a very long time.
In fact the role of the local Tower Hamlets council is increasingly coming under serious scrutiny from local campaigners headed by the khoodeelaar movement. The resulting pressure that the Borough has been undergoing has not been known since Tower Hamlets was created in the 1960s replacing and amalgamating the former smaller boroughs of Stepney, Bethnal Green, Poplar, plus. Yet the ‘local weekly’ the ‘East London Advertiser’ is not willing to reflect the political battler. It is only ever interested in serving as a secondary propaganda rag for the CrossRail-backing ruling clique on Tower Hamlets Council. This is depriving the local community the access to the facts that the local paper must provide if it is to escape being consigned to the dustbin by the sheer power of community action against CrossRail in the East End.
The Khoodeelaar campaign against the Crossrail hole plan scheme Bill and the ‘position’ of the ‘RESPECT’ coalition and George Galloway, MP as reported [or NOT] by the East London Advertiser
What is the ‘position’?
This question should not even be asked, because George Galloway MP has made his position abundantly clear.
In case there had been any doubt or confusion about where George Galloway the RESPECT Coalition’s leader and their only Member of Parliament stood on Crossrail, the statement he made at the public meeting on Saturday 11 February 2006 left no room for any doubt or confusion. Khoodeelaar web site has already reported the substance of Galloway’s statement on 11 February 2006.
But the ‘local rag’ the East London Advertiser, which does its business as the main Borough-wide ‘commercial’ ‘newspaper’ in Tower Hamlets, has been depriving its readers of the facts of the main movement that is vigorously active against the Crossrail hole attacks on the East End.
An item in the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ [138 Cambridge heath road, London E1 6QJ] [dated thursday 16 February 2006], headlined, “I’m coming to get you’ [“Galloway’s warning as he launches respect election campaign”] by-lined to ted jeory, includes this: “but when quizzed by the advertiser at Monday’s press conference, Rees outlined a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”
The reference to “Rees” is to john Rees the UK ‘national secretary’ of the Respect coalition, represented in the UK House of Commons by George Galloway MP.
The ‘east London advertiser’ item does not refer to the comprehensive position of the respect coalition on the crossrail project that had been set out by George Galloway at a special public meeting against the crossrail hole’ bill held on Saturday 11 February 2006. at the Brady centre in Hanbury street which is at the centre of the khoodeelaar! Campaign against the crossrail hole plan-project-scheme bill in the brick lane London e1 area
In that statement George Galloway was unequivocal in his opposition to Crossrail and he pledged that if the respect coalition won control of TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL following the scheduled 4 May 2006 council election then the Respect coalition would scrap the agreement made by the current TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. Galloway stated empathic support for the KHOODEELAAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE project scheme Bill. In addition to that Galloway said that the Respect coalition would do everything to delay and to defeat Crossrail. He made extensive references in his speech to the keynote speech that had been delivered at the meeting by Muhammad Haque, the Khoodeelaar organiser. Galloway endorsed the khoodeelaar position and reiterated his previous commitment to oppose Crossrail on every aspect of the planned attack on the East End.
Galloway said that they [he and RESPECT] would take judicial review actions and other measures to delay Crossrail, towards defeating the Crossrail attacks on the East End.
Given that the same meeting was addressed by john Rees himself and given that George Galloway gave the closing speech containing very detailed policy commitments about what he [George |Galloway] and the RESPECT coalition would be doing about the Crossrail attacks when he spoke against Crossrail on Saturday 11 February 2006, it is significant that the ‘east london advertiser’ item makes no reference to any of these facts.
The , “I’m coming to get you’ headline is given to the item which apparently is based on the Respect coalition’s news conference held on Monday 13 February 2006 at which event the group announced the majority of their selected candidates for the 4 May 2006 local council election.
It is very strange that the ‘east london advertiser’ item does not make any reference to the George Galloway / respect position against crossrail as set out by Galloway on Saturday 11 February 2006.
Instead there is the reference to [John] Rees outlining ‘a position on Crossrail’s proposal to bore under Hanbury Street that was strikingly similar to Labour’s”.
What were the details of that reported position of the Respect coalition as attributed to John Rees by the ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’?
The ‘EAST LONDON ADVERTISER’ ‘report’ [“I’m coming to get you’] does not give any answers or clues.
Instead, the title explains that the local election battle for control of the Tower Hamlets Council between the different parties and groups “would be fought over Labour’s housing choice programme, the proposed revamp of the royal london hospital and, crucially, issues surrounding crossrail.”
which makes the absence of any details about what the respect coalition’s ‘national secretary’ had allegedly stated to the reporter ted jeory that justified the assertion that the respect position on Crossrail’s proposal was ‘strikingly similar to labour’s” even more curious and odd.
Furthermore, the TED JEORY piece does not contain any reference to any facts that would justify his inclusion of the words ‘strikingly similar to Labour’s’.
Reasonable standards of journalism would require that any reference to competing groups should be accompanied by a reasonable amount of information or evidence to support any opinion.
The TED JEORY statement reads like an opinion rather than fact. And that opinion is the real clue as to what the agenda of the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER must be.
They [the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER] are operating in their ‘reporting’ of the campaign against the Crossrail attacks on the EAST END borough on assumptions that are linked with their commercial dealings with the controlling clique on TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL. They are deliberately suppressing the key facts and are misleading those who read their publication about what is actually going on about crossrail in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.
In the same issue as they carry the Ted Jeory statement, the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER also publish [PAGES 18-19] an unprecedented feature page that gives the impression that it contains the key facts. It does not. In fact, it is yet another excuse for the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER to run a plastic-faced picture of Crossrail-plugging ‘Tower Hamlets Council leader’’ Michael Keith.
In the accompanying item the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER repeats a pack of untruths about alleged Tower Hamlets Council ‘actions’ on Crossrail that once again is devoid of the crucial facts.
The EAST LONDON ADVERTISER prints a double falsehood in describing ‘Arup’ as merely ‘engineering giant’ who had been ‘commissioned by’ Tower Hamlets Council. ARUP are very deeply involved in the multinational looting of the public purse scams that actually underlies the mad propaganda for Crossrail.
That they also operate as an allegedly independent expert is not separate from their overall role in the Big Business agenda.
Only last week they were again linked with reports concerning the latest parasitic activities of Crossrail chair Adrian Montague who is fronting the Big Business agencies current bid to effectively grab the multi£Billion Channel Tunnel railway company.
But the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER paints Arup as an almost pure, academic outfit doing the honest slog for the cause of truth and local environment.
That ARUP was at all commissioned by the controlling clique on Tower Hamlets |Council is also linked with the deeply dubious and unrepresentative role played by Michael Keith in bringing the Crossrail problems to the East. Keith is now ‘leader’ of Tower Hamlets Council. And the position of ‘leader’ is linked with the internecine, racist power-game that he has been indulging in. He has been doing so
The item makes references to
The controlling clique does not represent the views of the labour party membership in the borough.
The vast majority of the labour party in tower hamlets have not been asked their views on any issue or any alleged manifesto