ChatterBank1 min ago
Police Investigate 28 New Claims Of Vote Fraud In Tower Hamlets.
20 Answers
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fraud pretty widespread in "certain areas" according to the Pickles Report of 2014, although the M word is used only once and in relation specifically to Tower Hamlets.
https:/
https:/
Despite being thrown out as mayor and barred from standing for, or holding office for five years as a result of this judgement in 2014
(200 pages, but a fascinating and very enlightening read if you have the time. If not, just read the conclusions from para 672 onwards):
http://
In January Lutfur Rahman launched a new independent party, Aspire. Standing for the office of Mayor on behalf of that party is Rahman's stooge, Councillor Ohid Ahmed.
It seems the good burghers of Tower Hamlets might again need to go to the Electoral Court (risking their own funds to do so) as the authorities were, shall we say, less than eager to bring the matter before a court following Mr Rahman's last foray into local politics.
(200 pages, but a fascinating and very enlightening read if you have the time. If not, just read the conclusions from para 672 onwards):
http://
In January Lutfur Rahman launched a new independent party, Aspire. Standing for the office of Mayor on behalf of that party is Rahman's stooge, Councillor Ohid Ahmed.
It seems the good burghers of Tower Hamlets might again need to go to the Electoral Court (risking their own funds to do so) as the authorities were, shall we say, less than eager to bring the matter before a court following Mr Rahman's last foray into local politics.
Its not just Tower Hamlets but also Sandwell where dodgy dealings go on.
This councillor tried to cancel parking tickets for family members and sold a building (a toilet block) to a family member at a knock down price.
Riddled with fraud the lot of them.
http://
This councillor tried to cancel parking tickets for family members and sold a building (a toilet block) to a family member at a knock down price.
Riddled with fraud the lot of them.
http://
There's good news for connoisseurs of spin and multiculturalists everywhere in their Lordships' judgment (this from NJ's link and with a bit of raised eyebrow editing added by me):
"681 The evidence laid before this court... has disclosed an alarming state of affairs in Tower Hamlets. This is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population , nor is it linked to any ascertainable pattern of social or other deprivation. It is the result of the ruthless ambition of one man.
682 The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular[!] , the Bangladeshi community. Their natural and laudable sense of solidarity has been cynically perverted into a sense of isolation and victimhood, and their devotion to their religion has been manipulated – all for the aggrandisement of Mr Rahman. The result has been to alienate them from ... and to create resentment in ... other communities...
683 The Bangladeshi community might[?] have thought itself fortunate to have been the recipient of the Mayor’s lavish spending but in the end the benefits were small and temporary and the ill effects long-lasting. It was fool’s gold."
I think the original revelations were that Rahman had the support of most of the local imams, which makes me ask on what grounds their Lordships are as certain about the relevance of religion as thy assert in paragraph 681 of the judgment?
Perhaps you can clarify, NJ?
"681 The evidence laid before this court... has disclosed an alarming state of affairs in Tower Hamlets. This is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population , nor is it linked to any ascertainable pattern of social or other deprivation. It is the result of the ruthless ambition of one man.
682 The real losers in this case are the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular[!] , the Bangladeshi community. Their natural and laudable sense of solidarity has been cynically perverted into a sense of isolation and victimhood, and their devotion to their religion has been manipulated – all for the aggrandisement of Mr Rahman. The result has been to alienate them from ... and to create resentment in ... other communities...
683 The Bangladeshi community might[?] have thought itself fortunate to have been the recipient of the Mayor’s lavish spending but in the end the benefits were small and temporary and the ill effects long-lasting. It was fool’s gold."
I think the original revelations were that Rahman had the support of most of the local imams, which makes me ask on what grounds their Lordships are as certain about the relevance of religion as thy assert in paragraph 681 of the judgment?
Perhaps you can clarify, NJ?
Haven't read the full document, but there's abundant reference in the judgment to religious influence in Rahman's election.
Additionally, there are the following judicial observations in early paragraphs (supplied with a bit more VE editing) which, some might think, would challenge, if not contradict the certainties expressed in para 681:
"182 ... a very substantial proportion of the Bangladeshi community is ... devoutly religious, certainly to a far greater extent that would be found in most non-Muslim communities. The court was told that there were some 45 mosques... a letter was written to the press ... signed by no fewer than 101 imams and religious teachers [supporting Rahman's candidacy].
...
183 On this topic, it is again right to say that Islam ... places considerable emphasis on loyalty and obedience: disloyalty to the faith – a fortiori apostasy – is treated with great seriousness. [i]It would be wrong, therefore, to treat Tower Hamlets’ Muslim community by the standards of a secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite[i] .
184 The result of all this is that ... politicians in Tower Hamlets have tended to regard the Muslim community in general and the Bangladeshi community in particular as potentially forming a relatively coherent voting bloc. A politician who ‘secures the Muslim vote’ may consider himself well on the way to being elected by an electorate where Muslims represent the largest religious group and account for over one in three of the population ..."
Additionally, there are the following judicial observations in early paragraphs (supplied with a bit more VE editing) which, some might think, would challenge, if not contradict the certainties expressed in para 681:
"182 ... a very substantial proportion of the Bangladeshi community is ... devoutly religious, certainly to a far greater extent that would be found in most non-Muslim communities. The court was told that there were some 45 mosques... a letter was written to the press ... signed by no fewer than 101 imams and religious teachers [supporting Rahman's candidacy].
...
183 On this topic, it is again right to say that Islam ... places considerable emphasis on loyalty and obedience: disloyalty to the faith – a fortiori apostasy – is treated with great seriousness. [i]It would be wrong, therefore, to treat Tower Hamlets’ Muslim community by the standards of a secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite[i] .
184 The result of all this is that ... politicians in Tower Hamlets have tended to regard the Muslim community in general and the Bangladeshi community in particular as potentially forming a relatively coherent voting bloc. A politician who ‘secures the Muslim vote’ may consider himself well on the way to being elected by an electorate where Muslims represent the largest religious group and account for over one in three of the population ..."
To repeat the (to me) most interesting comment by the judges in para 183:
"[i]It would be wrong, therefore, to treat Tower Hamlets’ Muslim community by the standards of a secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite[i]"
An interesting conclusion by their Lordships: the Bengali Muslims have different standard from most of the rest of us, and must therefore be treated differently.
I suppose most of us agreee to the first part of that.
"[i]It would be wrong, therefore, to treat Tower Hamlets’ Muslim community by the standards of a secular and largely agnostic metropolitan elite[i]"
An interesting conclusion by their Lordships: the Bengali Muslims have different standard from most of the rest of us, and must therefore be treated differently.
I suppose most of us agreee to the first part of that.
There’s not really much for me to clarify is there, v_e?
The Election Court’s chairman was quite clear in his judgement that Mr Rahman (and some of his associates) indulged in corrupt electoral practices on quite a scale. Indeed the victims of his malpractice were the voters of Tower Hamlets, a large proportion of whom were Bangladeshi Muslims. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Rahman was able to manipulate them because of their mutual religion and there are numerous references to this throughout the judgement.
The trouble is that unless they are careful they may face a second dose of Mr Rahman’s dodgy dealings.
The Election Court’s chairman was quite clear in his judgement that Mr Rahman (and some of his associates) indulged in corrupt electoral practices on quite a scale. Indeed the victims of his malpractice were the voters of Tower Hamlets, a large proportion of whom were Bangladeshi Muslims. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Rahman was able to manipulate them because of their mutual religion and there are numerous references to this throughout the judgement.
The trouble is that unless they are careful they may face a second dose of Mr Rahman’s dodgy dealings.
I was question the assertion "This is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population".
This conclusion, it seems to me, doesn't stack up with the evidence presented and commented on earlier by the judges. It's a PC influenced judiciary repeating current dogma. In different contexts: "Nothing to do with Islam"
This conclusion, it seems to me, doesn't stack up with the evidence presented and commented on earlier by the judges. It's a PC influenced judiciary repeating current dogma. In different contexts: "Nothing to do with Islam"
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Jobs & Education2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Technology7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.