Who to Trust when it comes to Reporting Anti Social Behaviour in Tower Hamlets?

Posted on | Monday, 28 May 2012 | No Comments

This week's East End Lies (EEL) reports (page 2), 'Anti Social Behaviour falls by a third in a year'. On the face of it, this is excellent news, notwithstanding the fact that credit for this is exclusively given to Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets's THEO's. No mention is made of the Met's Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT), but we have to remember this is EEL reporting..

It's worth highlighting this EEL report as, coincidently, a recently released statistic under FoI tells us that an associated statistic for Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC's) shows an overall fall of just 13%. Accepted that an ABC is distinct from Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) incidents, but nevertheless they are very closely linked.

What is also revealed by the FoI file is the worrying trend that ABC's have increased almost 4 fold for individuals under 18 Years of Age. An unpalatable reality for both Lutfur Rahman and his rag. Here's an extract from the FoI:

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC's)


Request
1. In the past 24 months, from 14th January 2010 to 13th January
2012, how many Acceptable Behaviour Contracts were signed at the
station or in its operational area? How many refused to sign? (the request was for Bow Police Station, but the Met provided stats for the whole of Tower Hamlets)

2. Of those, how many were issued to people aged under 18 years of
age?

3. What is the male/female ratio?

4. In the case of under-18s, were all parents sent a letter asking
them to attend with their children to discuss signing an ABC?


Response
During the financial year 2010-2011, Tower Hamlets had 55 ABCs signed. Of

these ABCs:
44 of those were signed by MALES
11 of those were signed by FEMALES
6 of them were signed by individuals under 18 Years of Age.
In 100% of those cases where the individual was under 18, parents received
letters asking for them to attend.

During the financial year 2011-2012, Tower Hamlets had 48 ABCs signed. Of
these ABCs:
43 of those were signed by MALES
5 of those were signed by FEMALES
23 of them were signed by individuals under 18 Years of Age
Again, in 100% of those cases where the individual was under 18, parents
received letters asking for them to attend.

As usual, you are left to draw your own conclusions on the veracity of EEL's reporting..

The Shame of Tower Hamlets' East End Life

No Comments

And the shame of all those directly associated with this publication. It's a sham and we all know that, but what I find particularly distasteful and loathsome is the editorial staff's bootlicking subservience to this third world political regime, so clearly steeped in cheap propaganda, accusations of corruption and racial disharmony. It's quisling editor applies a third world meaning to the paper's byline, 'News from Tower Hamlets Council'. Let's all understand what the editor means by this, i.e., 'What Tower Hamlets Council Want You to Know'. Familiar propaganda stuff isn't it?!

Real Council News this last week would have been, as every other local 'news'paper reported - 'Councillor Arrested for after Brawl and Death Threats in the Council Chamber'. But, no, not a mention in East End Lies!

And what of the illegally hung portrait of the Führer Mayor in Brick Lane - where the planning Application was never granted and the Banner swiftly removed after unprecedented opposition. Not even a back column mention.

Clearly these newsworthy events were of a type that Mayor Lutfur Rahman and his multicultural quislings consider politically too damaging to the Mayor's image. Honest News from Tower Hamlets Council will have to wait until honest people take the helm - and write the log.

Lutfur Rahman - a step too far

Posted on | Monday, 21 May 2012 | No Comments

Left Futures, describes itself as dedicated to socialism and democracy but endorses derogatory reporting, calling a respected Tower Hamlets' Councillor a 'gay Jew', and comfortably aligning itself with the belief that biased reporting and censoring out criticism of its political drivel is all part of left wing democratic principles. Take a look at this article, published on the 19th May, and lapped up and Tweeted by Tower Hamlets' Mayor Lutfur Rahman, 'Time for Ed to apply the lessons of Bradford to Tower Hamlets'.

It seethes with the dogma of personal abuse and ignorance. And to make matters worse it moderated out critical comment. Here's their response to my comment:

.....Your comment at Left Futures is abusive and will not be published.


This is rich from an article labelling a Councillor as a gay Jew. Like me, you may ask yourself why make issue of sexual orientation and religious belief? would a celibate Christian or a heterosexual Muslim carry the same prejudiced undercurrent?  Against this offensive piece of 'journalism', what did I say that they considered so abusive....just this:


"An inept, bigoted article that has found a follower in a similarly minded (here today, gone tomorrow) politician".

Hardly abusive in my humble view, critical yes, but 'abusive' no, and definitely not by their own low standards. No surprise that Lutfur Rahman's own publication, East End Lies, suffers from a similar aversion to criticism.

It's interesting, and potentially explosive to note that Mayor Rahman applauds through Twitter this article, labelling one of his own Councillors as a gay Jew! And this from a man gripping an anti-racism gun with a feather trigger!

Thank goodness for the open debate of blogs, and the freedom a good spanking allows us through Tweeting the truth.








Believe it or not: Britain Chooses a Dog as Kingdom's Top Talent!

Posted on | Sunday, 13 May 2012 | No Comments

With all the cheap glitzy superficiality of a modern day amusement side show together with its chintzy presenters, the TV extravaganza 'Britain's Got Talent' provided some insight into our (voting) psyche.

At a time when voter turnout at local and national elections remains low, it strikes me as extraordinary that people actually paid, yes paid, to vote for a dog.

Can politicians learn from this? - probably yes. I'm not suggesting they urinate on lamp posts or defecate on pavements, although jumping over peoples backs and licking their benefactors is already par for the course in career terms. No, more than this, they can now be assured that voting in this country in no longer seen by the electorate as a duty born out of national pride - its become a side show capable of selecting the most unsuitable  candidates based purely on novelty value.

Take for instance, Boris Johnson; definitely a novelty, though to be fair there was really no effective alternative, but we nevertheless have a tendency to settle for circus acts. Better a clown than a dourer faced socialist you might say: a dog rather than a spectacular opera duo.

Police arrest 6 as Postal Poll Fraud Investigation gets underway

Posted on | Sunday, 6 May 2012 | No Comments

The Sunday Times today reports, 'Six people have been arrested and appeals have been made for suspects allegedly impersonating voters. Police inquiries are under way in Kirklees in West Yorkshire, Peterborough and London.'


How many of the 6 arrests were made in Tower Hamlets is still unclear, but indications are that the Met has responded decisively in the case of the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election.

It remains to be seen whether the arrests will result in a new Tower Hamlets bi-election.......

A Closer Analysis of Postal Voting in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Wednesday, 2 May 2012 | No Comments

I have previously blogged that 41% of votes cast in the recent Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election were postal. This staggeringly high figure included all postal votes received, including those subsequently rejected. The reason we need to focus on total postal votes received as a percentage (of all votes cast), rather than the lesser percentage after correcting for rejects, is because the rejected figure is a subjective one. To explain, received postal votes and enclosures are checked and counted numerous times under dual control to verify the number of postal votes received - 956 in this case - were correct.  However, the 'rejected' count on the other hand, is arrived at through a process of subjective judgements, not necessarily conducted under dual control, and that is why the figure of 135 rejects is unreliable. As I'll explain, the already high reject rate of 14% (135/956) could well have been considerably higher if for instance a more stringent, professional judgement had been made on signature irregularities. Alarmed yet? You should be, because this raises serious doubts over the validity of Gullam Robbani's marginal win by only 43 votes.

I'm not unfamiliar with either the business process or technology of voter registration, including voting and signature recognition/verification systems. And that's why I wanted to see first hand, as an observer, how Tower Hamlets were managing the postal vote processing for the forthcoming 3 May elections. My observations also provide an insight into the reliability of the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election (reject) figures above.

Over a 2 day period I randomly observed the processing of 20 batches each of 50 Postal Vote Statements (PVS) at Tower Hamlets Town Hall. To explain, a PVS accompanies each ballot paper and is used to verify the authenticity of each postal vote by comparing address, date of birth and signature against details held on the electoral register. Each batch of 50 PVS's is fed into an automated recognition system and irregularities are highlighted on screen to be accepted or rejected by a council official. Approximately 50% of PVS result in some form of mismatch against the electoral register (47% in the sample I observed). Of these mismatches, approximately 10% are subsequently rejected by the council official (7% in the sample I observed). In summary, of the 1,000 PVS I observed, 35 or 3.5% were rejected. Significantly lower than the figures produced for the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election. I should add that in my opinion, a higher  percentage of signatures appeared fraudulent. The implication being that the Spitalfields figure of 14% was probably also too low. 

In conclusion, in light of the exceptionally high and unprecedented postal vote and rejection rate during the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election, there is ample justification for the Metropolitan Police to:

1. Interview each of the 956 constituents who submitted a postal vote to establish whether any were forced to vote under duress (a clear risk in postal voting). 

2. Examine each of the 135 rejected PVS and in the case of fraudulent signatures/submissions, prosecute as appropriate.

I should add that I have now written to Tower Hamlets' Metropolitan Police Commander twice on this issue but have so far received no response. None of our 2 local parliamentarians have shown the courage to comment on the issue.

Unless robust Police action is taken, and seen to have been taken, the very basis of our democratic electoral system will continue to be undermined.





Appalling Lies from Tower Hamlets Council Over Police Investigation

Posted on | Tuesday, 1 May 2012 | No Comments

As related in yesterday's blog on alleged postal voting fraud, East End Life categorically stated, 'The police have also confirmed that there is no substance to allegations made so far'.

Fast forward to the BBC news here which states, 'Metropolitan Police probes Tower Hamlets fraud claims'.

It goes on to say:


"We are currently investigating this allegation plus a further allegation of offences linked to a recent by-election in Tower Hamlets received on 28 April.


"All allegations of electoral fraud are assessed, and where appropriate, thoroughly investigated by officers from MPS Specialist Operations, in close liaison with local authorities, the CPS and other relevant agencies."


What trust can we have in a Council and 'newspaper' that so blatantly lie to residents and readers?

They are a disgrace!

Search This Blog

Categories

Recent Posts

Grenville Mills