It has been a busy few months on the extremism front in Waltham Forest, so here is a short roundup of the major stories that have been featured on this blog (links to the full versions are pasted beneath).

The material of course largely speaks for itself.

One point is important though.

LBWF Chief Executive Martin Esom claims some expertise in counter-extremism work, and chairs the London Prevent Board.

Perhaps he should spend more time looking at what is right under his nose.

January 2015

Investigative reporter Andrew Gilligan recounts the following:

‘Last November, in Leyton, east London, there was a public reading of the creed of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, founder of the ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism – seen by many as a wellspring of terror. The event took place at the Active Change Foundation, one of the Government’s key partners in Channel [a component, like Prevent, of the government’s anti-terrorism strategy]. Men and women were ordered to enter the building by separate doors. Hanif Qadir, founder of the Active Change Foundation, is not viewed as an extremist by other providers. “It’s just a business for him,” said one. But speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Qadir vigorously defended the Wahhabi event and the segregation. “Separate entrances for men and women is part of our religion. That just tells you how ignorant you are in understanding our religion,” he said, before putting down the phone’.

February 2015

During a late night Facebook exchange, a Labour councillor uses intemperate language, but claims it is because one of his colleagues has just posted what is ‘clearly an attempt to justify the murders of the Charlie hebdo [sic] cartoonists in Paris’.

Pointedly, the former – but not the latter – is subsequently suspended from the party.

However, after an inquiry, he is fully exonerated, being found to have ‘no case to answer’.

May 2015

Martin Esom tells a hearing at City Hall: ‘before Christmas I had a deputation of councillors that came to see me about Prevent and how uneasy they felt about the whole programme in the borough’.

One reputable source claims that this neutral sounding description hides a less palatable truth. The deputation is exclusively Muslim, and the ‘uneasiness’ is tinged with sectarianism, the objective of which is to persuade Mr. Esom that Prevent should be re-focused, principally at Shia sects, and Ahmadis.

December 2015

Shortly after the Paris murders, a Channel 4 documentary Isis: The British Women Supporters Unveiled reveals that for the past two years a room at the LBWF-owned Waltham Forest Community Hub (previously called the Asian Centre) has been hired for ‘ladies’ tea afternoons’ which are a cover for a weekly Isis supporters’ discussion group.

January 2016

Academic Machteld Zee’s carefully researched book Choosing Sharia? turns the spotlight on, amongst others, the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, and concludes that the male judges’ ‘“principle focus”’ is ‘“making women dependent on their husbands and clerics”’.

April 2016 (1) 

It is revealed that an organisation promoting conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and separation from ‘the West’ and its values has been regularly running events at Lea Bridge Rd. Mosque – a place of worship that has historic links with both several LBWF Labour councillors, and the Active Change Foundation (for which see above).

April 2016 (2)

The Evening Standard alleges that Cllr. Ahsan Khan and Cllr. Saima Mahmud, Madam Mayor, have participated in an award ceremony honouring a former imam, again connected to the Lea Bridge Rd. Mosque, who is on record as fulsomely praising Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of liberal Punjab governor and critic of religious intolerance, Salman Taseer.

To make matters worse, it then emerges that a film of the ceremony is being promoted by one Khalid Iqbal Malik, described as a ‘local Islamic social media activist’, who also turns out to be a Qadri fan, and has some extremely dubious material on his Facebook page.

LBWF mounts an inquiry, but predictably, all those named are quick to deny any ill judgment, explaining that they do not share extremist views, have been taken out of context etc.

I have periodically joked that, so rarely is John Cryer seen or heard locally, he must love his sleep.

Now the website They Work For You provides some hard data to chew upon, and largely confirms my suspicions: Mr. Cryer’s Parliamentary record is indeed lacklustre.

The bare bones are as follows. Mr. Cryer, it turns out:

‘Has spoken in 15 debates in the last year — well below average amongst MPs.

Has received answers to 4 written questions in the last year — below average amongst MPs.

Replied with 2 or 3 weeks to a low number of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2014, according to his constituents.

Has voted in 65.40 % of votes in this Parliament with this affiliation — below average amongst MPs’.

(see http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10143/john_cryer/leyton_and_wanstead; emphasis added)

Mr. Cryer’s friends will no doubt plead that sleep has nothing to do with it, and if Mr. Cryer has performed indifferently in Parliament, we must remember that his role in the Corbynista struggle for the soul of the Labour Party has been little short of heroic.

Yet for those of us outside the political bubble, this matters not a jot. We pay Mr. Cryer to represent us, and moreover provide him with an office and five staff costing £170,00 per year so that he can do so.

One wonders what the young Turks of Momentum will make of all this? In a sense, it is a litmus test. They claim to espouse a new, open, and democratic politics. But will Mr. Cryer’s value to them in internal party squabbles – the cachet of his trade union affiliation, his contacts book, and so on – persuade them to overlook his less than impressive record in terms of the ordinary voter?

I know where my money is.

UPDATE

I have been advised that my use of the phrase ‘young Turks’ is potentially ageist, and, as ‘Disgusted of Leyton’ points out, ‘most of L&W’s Turks are [anyway] hardly young but are of mature years’ (‘L&W’ being Leyton and Wanstead Labour Party).

I stand corrected.

The Waltham Forest Guardian is reporting that the Labour Party has suspended Walthamstow activist David Watson, with a statement reading: ‘“An individual member of Walthamstow Labour Party has been suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation by the national party. We condemn anti-Semitism and racism of all kinds but cannot comment further until the Party investigation has concluded.”’

 Predictably, Mr. Watson denies any link to anti-Semitism, and believes that the charges are wholly without justification (mercifully, he spared us the ‘I’ve been quoted out of context’ routine).

(see

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/14485879.New_anti_Semitism_row_for_Labour_as_Walthamstow_activist_suspended/)

Those who wish to delve deeper into the curious workings of Mr. Watson’s mind are able to do so courtesy of Harry’s Place:

http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/27/meet-david-watson-of-walthamstow-labour/

Whether his ramblings add up to anti-Semitism is open to question.

For my own part, I am struck by the fact that the one thing which unites virtually all the Leftists that I meet locally is their obsession with Israel. Talk to them about LBWF mis-managing millions of pounds meant to alleviate poverty in the poorer wards, and depending on their manners, they will more, or less, openly yawn. Seek to discuss something a little more esoteric – say the issues generated by local gangs – and ditto. But criticise Hamas, or defend Israel in any way, and you risk being sent post haste to Room 101.

I’ve often asked, ‘Why no concern with North Korea, then?’, but that just kills the conversation stone dead, amidst disdainful glares. 

Of course, one commonly accepted definition of anti-Semitism includes precisely the holding of Israel to standards that are not applied elsewhere.

I post Mr. Esom’s responses below.

Much of what he writes is self-evidently vague, and seems to have been written with the explicit aim of avoiding giving anything away, hardly appropriate in the light of the seriousness of both the events in question and the wider situation that we find ourselves in.

Regarding the ‘community award’, I understand that LBWF is claiming that every visitor to the Mayor’s parlour is given the same ‘memento’ or ‘keepsake’. I wonder how it is then that the Evening Standard came to use the phrase ‘community award’, particularly since the paper certainly would have consulted the council’s press office before using such terminology?

As to the ‘independent investigation’ into the social media site which I drew attention to, I understand that barrister Jonathan Auburn has been retained as the lead. Whether this is an effective way of spending public money remains to be seen. I repost below the cartoon which I previously cited to Mr. Esom, and readers can decide for themselves if judging whether it is anti-Semitic or not really requires the input of a such a learned, though no doubt expensive, outside party.

‘Dear Mr Tiratsoo,

Thank you for your correspondence of Thursday 7th April, Friday 15th April and Tuesday 19th April.

Please accept our apologies for the delay and lack of acknowledgement of your last email of Tuesday 19th April. In response to your queries:

Re: Lea Bridge Road Mosque – Thursday 7th April, 
In response to your letter of Thursday 7th April regarding groups hosted by Lea Bridge Road mosque, I would note that the Waltham Forest Islamic Association organise and host events at this site and that this is not the remit of Waltham Forest Councillors.

As a Council we continue to work with Councillors and local groups to ensure that the events that are hosted in the Borough are not contrary to good community cohesion and community integration. Where concerns are raised about the legality of certain events held in the Borough, these are referred to the relevant authorities for investigation.

Re: Story in today’s Evening Standard – Friday 15th April

Your letter of Friday 15th April requested information on the giving of a ‘community award’ and the ‘criteria that govern its administration’.

Khalid Iqbal Malik attended the Mayor’s parlour on 28 January 2016, at which he was given a memento depicting the Borough’s crest. I would like to clarify that this was not a formally recognised community award. The Council’s programme of community awards is administered through our “Love Your Borough” programme or formal civic awards (ordinarily presented at Full Council following recommendation by the civic awards panel). The memento given to Mr Malik was a keepsake. The Council is currently reviewing such matters as part of its independent investigation.

Re: LBWF ‘community awards’ – Tuesday 19th April

In response to your letter of Thursday 7^th April regarding the content of a social media site, I would stress that we take these incidents seriously and are we are in the process of an independent investigation into this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Esom’

In what surely must be the biggest surprise since Leicester won the Premiership, it appears that barrister Jonathan Auburn’s no doubt thorough review has cleared Cllr. Ahsan Khan of any wrongdoing, and he is to be restored to the Cabinet shortly.

Cllr. Khan’s adventures in bestowing ‘community awards’ are thus vindicated.

In a related development, I understand that the Cabinet has been increased in size, with the unimpressive Grace Williams and the Pilgrim Sharon Waldron joining, and the dispeptic Mark Rusling leaving – a development that of course makes a further call on the public purse.

More amusingly, it is said that Cllr. Wheeler’s bid to become chief whip narrowly failed, leaving the ageing Wood Street Lothario outside the Leader’s big tent, and likely to return to his old pastime of making mischief.

Finally, the local Momentum surge continues to make waves, with some previously quiescent councillors desperately trying to rebadge themselves as ‘lefter than thou’, and dire warnings being issues about the fate of many of the rest. Indeed, according to one source, the new crowd are intent on de-selecting virtually all of the current Labour incumbents.

Talking of which, it will be interesting to see what Momentum actually plans in terms of a local agenda.

The practical steps necessary to achieve its stated aims of openness and democracy in terms of the Town Hall are pretty obvious, and range from a substantive strengthening of Scrutiny; through reform of the Council’s PR machine (to banish spin); to the re-introcduction of neighbourhood engines of popular participation, such as community council’s; and finally the less tangible but in the end key objective of persuading both councillors and the Council as a whole to engage in genuine debate with residents (as opposed to stage managed ‘conversations’, with pre-determined outcomes) .

The question, then, is will Momentum have the courage of its convictions?

Or will one bunch of control freaks simply be replaced by another?

The recent fuss about Cllr. Ahsan Khan has revealed that the 2015-16 Mayor, Cllr. Saima Mahmud, habitually hosted receptions in the Town Hall, at which supposedly distinguished visitors were honoured with ‘mementoes’.

There are several questions that arise.

One is about whether this practice accords with basic democratic principles.

It would be nice to think that those enjoying Mayoral honour were chosen openly and without favour. But it transpires that this was far from the case, with one or two ordinary citizens arranging a large number of the events, and little or no input from anyone on the council staff.

Relatedly, it is reasonable to ask too whether – however they were chosen – Cllr. Mahmud’s guests were necessarily appropriate and deserving.

Here is a picture of one of these happy occasions, and the caption that accompanies it:

‘Mayor, Madam Saima Mahmud of London Borough of Waltham Forest  hosted a reception in honour of Senator Sirajul Haq and presented souvenir on behalf of Council of London Borough of Waltham Forest. Deputy Secretary General JIP Muhammad Asghar, Spokesperson JIP in Britain Syed Shoukat Ali and Councillors Ahsan, Allah Ditta, Shabana, Liaqat Malik, Johar khan, Nadeem Malik, Masood, Dr Shiukat, vilaiyat khokhar, ILyas and other community leaders were also present at the occasion’ (Cllrs.Liaquat Ali, Ahsan Khan, and Shabana Dhedi are actually pictured, left, right second row, and right front).

So who exactly is the lucky Sirajul Haq?

Well it turns out that he is leader of a Pakistani political party called Jamaat-e-Islami, and holds views that are, to put it bluntly, rather unsavoury.

For instance, a quick Google search reveals that he believes ‘Jews’ are controlling the UN, rants about the ‘blasphemous acts and conspiracies of Christians and Jews’, and in relation to proposed laws aimed at protecticting women from violence, advances the bizarre theory that ‘the West’ has an ‘agenda to destroy the family system in Pakistan’.

As for Jamaat-e-Islami as a whole, a reasonable encapsulation of its world view is that it desires a state governed by Islamic law; opposes ‘Westernisation’ in any form, whether capitalist or socialist;  abhors birth control, and relaxed social mores in general; and is even against images of Christmas trees appearing in schoolbooks.

It is also fair to say that Jamaat-e-Islam’s past record is in part rather sinister. For during Bangladesh’s struggle for independence, Jamat-e-Islami irregulars sided with the Pakistan army and inflicted horrendous torture and large-scale casualties. The account in Wikipedia is a reliable summation:

‘As an Islamist party JI was uninterested in ethnic issues or local languages but strongly supported Islamic unity, and so supported the Pakistani military in their campaign. East Pakistan JI head Ghulam Azam coordinated the development and operation of paramilitary forces during the war, including Razakar, Al-shams, Al-badr for collaboration with the Pakistan Army. These units committed genocide and other war crimes at the time, most notorious of which was the systematic execution of Bengali pro-liberation intellectuals on 14 December 1971. As the war neared its end, a final effort to wipe off as many intellectuals as possible took place, to eliminate the future leaders of the new nation. On 14 December 1971, over 200 of East Pakistan’s intellectuals including professors, journalists, doctors, artists, engineers, and writers were picked up from their homes in Dhaka by the Al-Badr militias. Notable novelist Shahidullah Kaiser and playwright Munier Choudhury were among the victims. They were taken blindfolded to torture cells in Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Nakhalpara, Rajarbagh and other locations in different sections of the city. Later they were executed en masse, most notably at Rayerbazar and Mirpur. Estimates of those East Pakistanis massacred throughout the war range from thirty thousand to three million’.

Of course, Cllr. Mahmud has a perfect right to entertain whosoever she wants in her own home, or at events organised by parties or societies that she is involved with.

But the meeting with Sirajul Haq was on council property, and she attended in her official capacity as Mayor, someone representing the whole borough.

In that context, inviting in, and to an extent celebrating, someone from such a controversial background, appears to be – at the very least – a significant lapse of judgement, and moreover one that is in contravention of LBWF’s wider policies promoting community cohesion.

A final observation. It appears that the councillors who attended the Sirajul Haq event were all members of the Labour Party. It is reasonable to assume that they understand Labour’s ethos and past record. It must also be obvious to them that Jamaat-e-Islami comes from a radically different tradition, and espouses far-right values that are anathema to the democratic Left. One wonders how they live with this unbridgeable dissonance, and what their colleagues in the party think of it.

Back in October 2015, the Leader of LBWF, Cllr. Chris Robbins, went public with a pledge to house Syrian refugees. The Waltham Forest Guardian story started with his picture in large format -

- and then included the following specifics:

‘Ten refugee families fleeing Syria will be housed in Waltham Forest…The council have promised to provide decent homes “wherever possible” and provide access to health care, education and local job opportunities’.

Many readers no doubt reasonably concluded that this humanitarian gesture was immanent, and attributed credit to Cllr. Robbins for his concern.

So what has happened subsequently? Are ten families fleeing terror now happily living amongst us?

Unfortunately not.

A recent LBWF statement reads as follows:

‘Waltham Forest have not taken in refugees via the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement programme in its current form. As a Council we have indicated we intend to house ten Syrian refugee families ahead of 2020, provided that Government allocate adequate funding to allow us to do this. We are working closely with the Greater London Authority, Mayor of London’s Office and other London Boroughs to take in refugees under the revised Syrian Refugee Resettlement Programme.

Following a summit of London Leaders chaired by the London Mayor at City Hall in February, it is now our intention to work with the LGA and Mayor of London’s office to develop a London-wide approach to housing refugees in the city. Through this approach we will ensure a regional London approach to resettlement which draws in contributions from communities and the voluntary and private sectors. This will be enabled by a new, enhanced funding offer from Government, to enable London boroughs to play a role in resettlement of Syrian refugees’.

Stripping out the jargon, evasion, and responsibility-shifting, the truth is clear.

As a  Labour member with a conscience puts it to me: ‘It’s 10 families by 2020, provided funding is available. By then, presumably, most Syrians will be dead, so may not need accommodation’.

And Cllr. Robbins? He should check out the definition of ‘virtue signalling’.

Browsing YouTube at the weekend, I was amused to come across this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9fLay0VLbE

It is a short film shot in the Town Hall, at which Waltham Forest’s Mayor honours a guest.

One interesting thing is that the Mayor in question is not Cllr. Saima Mahmud, bur Cllr. Terry Wheeler, her predecessor – suggesting that the practice of Mayoral honouring which has recently caused such controversy is nothing new.

In addition, the first few seconds of the film are very illuminating.

Cllr. Khan introduces the event, and states that it is being held to honour ‘the recipient’ of  ‘a special award’, someone who turns out to be (as he puts it) ‘a friend of mine’.

As readers of this blog will know, when LBWF Chief Executive Martin Esom recently commented on Cllr. Khan’s antics, he told me that on these occasions the only thing handed over was a ‘memento’.

It is interesting that Cllr. Khan seems to have a rather different view of the proceedings’ significance.

No doubt, too, ordinary residents will query why Cllr. Khan has been allowed to honour his friends in the Town Hall (with the Mayor present, and at public expense) when they are not; and also wonder at the various references in the recipient’s speech to the Labour Party.

UPDATE

This is also relevant:

http://www.mypothwar.com/2015/05/16/walthamforest-mayors-parlour-awards-distribution-by-mayor-terry-wheeler/

So, an award ceremony, where both shields and watches were presented.

I wonder who paid for those?

According to a document made public at Companies House, reproduced below, the E11 BID Co. is now threatened with being compulsorily struck off and dissolved.

This blog has covered the troubled and troubling E11 BID Co. before (see links below).

The issue now seems to be that the company missed the deadline for filing its 2014-15 accounts, which was 31 March 2016.

It really does seem extraordinary that directors who are entirely dependent on other people’s money cannot manage the elementary step of filing properly.

Little wonder that those traders in Leytonstone who are forced to financed the E11 BID Co. via a levy are so disenchanted.

One wonders what Michael Polledri’s Waltham Forest Business Board, which was charged with supervising the E11 BID Co., and LBWF, which collects the levy, make of all this. The E11 BID Co. just never seems to learn. That it promotes itself as some kind of beacon of enlightenment adds an element of farce.

Word reaches me that Cllr. Tim Bennett-Goodman has resigned the Labour Whip, for reasons spelt out in his letter, below.

It is a sad day for the Labour Party.

Prior to becoming a councillor, Tim Bennett-Goodman had a long history of community-based activity in Waltham Forest, and was widely recognised for both his integrity and his commitment to improving the area.

It says much about the current state of the Labour Party that he no longer feels comfortable in its ranks.

’14 June 2016

Dear Paul

Resignation of Party Whip

Thank you for acknowledging and accepting my resignation.

It as with deep regret and personal sadness that I leave the Party I joined in London in 1986 and the Group I joined in 2014. Having worked for both a Labour MP and a Labour Assembly Member, my connections with the party are longstanding and deep-rooted. Indeed, a great uncle, Percy Holman, was a post-war Labour MP for the constituency in which I joined the Party and where I later worked for the sitting MP. You may imagine, therefore, that this was not a step I took lightly.

At a Party level, my disenchantment, since the Blair days, with its failure to act in a way I considered a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist party should act was allayed to a degree by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Party Leader. However, that project appears to be trickling into the sand and has led to my losing faith in the direction the Party is taking at national level.

However, it was the appalling and distressing scenes at the West Branch meeting last night that for me proved the final straw.

My action in resigning now can hardly be construed as hasty or ill-considered. As far back as 5 September 2014 I mentioned to you as Chief Whip the risk of my sitting as an Independent councillor if the culture within the Group did not improve. I repeated this to the Leader himself at a meeting in his office on 2 October 2014. The Group culture failed to improve after this but had recently been showing signs of improvement. Sadly, it reached a new nadir at last night’s West Branch meeting.

With our residents suffering ILF cuts, Council Tax Benefit cuts, dubious ESA decisions and benefits sanctions, bedroom tax imposition and a range of other pernicious government policies, plus a looming refugee crisis and possible Brexit, detaining Branch with a perfectly worthy but ill-considered motion and then being subjected to displays of petulance and personal attacks when it failed to be accepted unamended is unconscionable. What has the Labour Party and Group descended to if this is the culture it is now prepared to accept as the norm?

I am simply no longer willing to struggle to accommodate myself to a culture which runs so entirely counter to all the values I hold dear and which I believed the Labour Party espoused – that is: democracy, inclusivity, empathy, openness, transparency, compassion and comradeliness – none of which now manifest themselves strongly enough (or at all) in the transactions of the current Labour Party or local Group.

Kind regards

Tim

Cllr Tim Bennett-Goodman (Independent)’

Some years ago, the average resident of Cann Hall (where I live) who aspired to have a say in how the neighbourhood developed could do so via the local ward forum, and also the Leytonstone Community Council (which embraced Cathall and Leytonstone wards, as well).

Both bodies had official status, were serviced by LBWF officers, and received finance from the Town Hall to support modest measures of amelioration. But, crucially, they were also independently chaired, and not in thrall to councillors; had agendas which were determined bi-laterally (i.e. fashioned by the chair, vice-chair, and officers); offered plenty of opportunity for residents with particular concerns to raise them; and controlled how their budgets were spent, with an annual round of suggested projects being voted upon by the floor.

Nowadays, the situation is very different. Community Councils are long gone. And the ward forum is changed out of all recognition. Councillors chair the meetings, determine the agenda, and decide between themselves how the budget is to be spent. The item ‘Any Other Business/Community Discussion’ still exists on paper, but in reality is often squeezed, even bumped altogether.

The impression given is that these are essentially political meetings, not democratic gatherings of equals. The councillors pontificate, explaining at length what they think of each issue, while the residents by and large are expected to look grateful. Anything potentially awkward or controversial – particularly if it relates to finance – is avoided like the plague. History has been erased. The general assumption is that life started at the last local election.

These developments illuminate a curious paradox. Labour rarely has been stronger, both in Cann Hall specifically and Waltham Forest more generally. Yet as the party has grown in size and power, so has it become less and less amenable to democratic argument and participation.

Part of the explanation for this is that most councillors are themselves marginalised, victims of the fact that important decisions are taken by a small inner circle. But it is also true that Labour in Waltham Forest too often has come to see popular politics as principally about the exertion of control. The world is viewed as a very inhospitable place. ‘Consumerism’, UKIP, racism, ‘fascism’, the evil Tories and a host of other temptations are ever-present. The right-wing media endlessly misleads. For their own good, it is concluded, the people must be guided.

What the Cobynista influx will make of all this is anyone’s guess. However, it will certainly be an acid test. Will local Labour regain its appetite for substantive debate? Or will it continue as before?

My assessment? Don’t hold your breath. But I’m always ready to be proved wrong…

The Evening Standard yesterday rendered a public service by publishing further information about Cllr. Ahsan Khan’s proclivity for surepticiously handing out community ‘awards’ (as he describes them), using the Mayor’s Parlour, with the Mayor of course present.

The full story is here:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-london-council-gives-award-to-leader-of-extreme-islamist-party-a3284671.html

The headline and first paragraph give a flavour:

So the full truth is gradually beginning to emerge.

Cllr. Khan’s beneficiaries included the repulsive, the undeserving, and on occasion people who were simply his friends.

However, we now learn that, though Cllr. Khan was the front man in this circus, the two individuals who were doing the leg work, lining up the recipients, were, on the one hand, his father and, on the other, the convicted fraudster and ex-Sherriff of Nottingham, Mr. (sometimes ‘Lord’) Shaukat Khan.

When the Evening Standard first broke this story in April, LBWF’s Chief Executive Martin Esom hired the barrister Jonathan Auburn to investigate and make recommendations.

Mr. Auburn’s report for the time being remains secret.

But the revelation that Mr. Shaukat Khan was involved clearly raises new questions.

For Mr. Shaukat Khan’s story is well documented, having been covered in the national and local media, while he is also an ex-employee of LBWF, who departed the Town Hall in controversial circumstances.

Yesterday, I wrote to Mr. Esom as follows:

‘Dear Mr. Esom,

I draw your attention to the following:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-london-council-gives-award-to-leader-of-extreme-islamist-party-a3284671.html

Mr. Shaukat Khan’s antics across the years of course will be well-known to you, encompassing as they do, beyond his conviction for fraud in Nottingham, inter alia disclosures in a Dispatches investigation, and an unfortunate episode at the Town Hall which was subsequently used by your erstwhile audit and anti-fraud colleague Rachael Tiffen as a case study in disaster-management (‘The day Khan was employed by Tiffen’s Borough is probably one she’d rather forget…It merely reinforces the fact that employers need to be so, so careful these days. Even City Sheriffs may not be what they seem’).

Against this background, please will you reassure me that:

(a) you made Mr. Auburn aware of this history during the course of his recent investigation; and

(b) Mr. Auburn subsequently established beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Shaukat Khan’s ‘arranging’ of events in the Mayor’s Parlour for Chinese ‘visitors’ did not result in personal gain for any of the parties who were involved?

Yours sincerely,

Nick Tiratsoo’

I will post his reply.

UPDATE

And here is his reply. In full.

‘Dear Mr Tiratsoo,

Thank you for your email dated 30th June. This request falls under our freedom of information procedures and your email has therefore been forwarded to the relevant department. To speed up responses to your future enquiries, I recommend that you use our online portal https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/content/make-freedom-information-request.

Best wishes,
Hannah

Hannah Ram
National Management Trainee, Chief Executive’s Office
Room 111, Waltham Forest Town Hall
Forest Road, Walthamstow, E17 4JF’

A previous post (see link below) raises concerns about LBWF’s plans to rebuild Selwyn Primary School in Highams Park.

Now SAVE Britain’s Heritage (‘a group of architectural historians, writers, journalists and planners’ which aims to provide ‘a strong, independent voice in conservation, free to respond rapidly to emergencies and to speak out loud for the historic built environment’) has entered the fray, and written to LBWF with a forceful and considered case for a re-think.

The accompanying press release is as follows:

‘SAVE…[objects] to the demolition of a charming Edwardian primary school in Waltham Forest, for replacement with a new school building…

Built in 1904 to the designs of H Prosser, the architect to Walthamstow Education Committee, Selwyn Primary School is a handsome group of buildings, each with considerable architectural merit. The buildings appear to be in good condition, and we have seen no evidence to indicate they cannot be maintained and adapted for continued use.

In contrast, the proposed replacement is stark and out of keeping with the surrounding area, which is predominantly Victorian and Edwardian in character with brick and stone being the prevailing building materials.

Marcus Binney, Executive President of SAVE said: “It is heartbreaking to face a demolition proposal for such a delightful school building which has been well looked after and retains its original attractive detail and proportions. It is built of good materials and would clearly outlast any replacement by many years.

The Edwardian era was a golden age of good architecture and craftsmanship and the loss of this school will be tragedy”’.

And here is the letter in full:

4 May 2016

Dear planning officer,

Planning Application ID: 153749 – Selwyn Primary School, 102 Cavendish Road, Chingford, London, E4 9NG – Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a two storey building to provide a new primary school. Provision of outdoor play facilities, access works, car parking and landscaping

SAVE Britain’s Heritage writes to object in the strongest possible terms to this application, which proposes the demolition of Selwyn Primary School.

Selwyn Primary School is a particularly handsome group of buildings dating from 1904 by H Prosser, architect to Walthamstow Education Committee. Prosser designed all three blocks, originally separate infants and juniors, in a festive Queen Anne style; symmetrical, with curly gables, octagonal cupolas, and stone dressings. The blocks are subtly different but are very much in the same style, and appear largely unaltered from their original construction. The school merits mention in Pevsner (London 5: East), and is described as ‘a handsome group, all very similar, spaciously set out.’

Prosser was also responsible for several other school buildings in the area, including Barrett Road (1905), Mission Grove (1906) and Winns Avenue (1907), each in a similar style, and all currently still in use as schools. Selwyn Primary School appears to be the most architecturally exuberant of Prosser’s school designs.

Despite not being listed or in a Conservation Area, the buildings have clear architectural and historic interest, and are worthy of retention and reuse. As an undesignated heritage asset paragraph 135 of the NPPF applies:

The effect of an application on the significance of a non designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The current application is a result of Selwyn Primary School being chosen to benefit from the Priority Schools Building Programme (PSBP), which seeks to address schools most in need of urgent repair, either through rebuilding or renovation. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the school cannot be repaired and renovated as part of the PSBP programme.

Nor do we find the justification for demolition convincing. The buildings appear to be in a good condition and are currently being used successfully for their original purpose (as are Prosser’s other school buildings). Despite claims in the planning statement that they are ‘deemed to be in such dire need of urgent repair’, there are no structural or condition surveys supporting this, and the buildings’ ongoing use suggests this point is being overstated.

We also consider the design of the proposed building to be harmful to its surroundings. The streets around Selwyn Primary School are predominantly made up of handsome Victorian and Edwardian residential properties; those on Selwyn Avenue are particularly attractive, with pitched gables and stone window and door surrounds. Together with the existing school buildings it makes for a pleasant streetscape. In contrast, the proposed building is out of character with the surrounding area and pays little consideration to its setting. Materially it ignores the prevailing brick and painted render of the area, and there is no variation to its roofline, which is part of the charm of the existing buildings. In addition, based on feedback from the public consultation exercise, the majority of respondents wish to see the buildings retained and enhanced, as opposed to an entirely new school being built.

Finally, there are a number of issues with the planning application documents. It would appear that no Design and Access statement exists online. This should be addressed as it is a key document in understanding the application. Additionally, the planning statement uploaded is in draft form and is missing its Appendix A – the Heritage Statement.

We therefore strongly object to this application and request that planning permission be refused. A scheme which retains the existing buildings and restores and adapts them for ongoing use would be much more likely to meet with success, and we hope that such an approach can be taken forwards’.

The Waltham Forest Guardian today quotes Cllr. Liaquat Ali pontificating about community safety:

‘“Our sense of community and of belonging, and the need to always treat others with respect, helps to make Waltham Forest such a great place to call home. We’ve been shocked and saddened to see the various news reports that have emerged in the aftermath of the EU Referendum result, indicating a rise in incidents of hate crime in some areas.This is not a trend we’ve experienced in Waltham Forest. But, we remain vigilant and continue to actively promote community cohesion, signpost support services and work with local partners, including Waltham Forest Police, to ensure our streets are safe for all who live, work and visit here.”’

So who is the rather corpulent figure seen here (extreme left) at a recent award ceremony in the Mayor’s Parlour for Senator Sirajul Haq (wearing white), a far right-wing Pakistani politician who believes ‘Jews’ are controlling the UN, rants about the ‘blasphemous acts and conspiracies of Christians and Jews’, and in relation to proposed laws aimed at protecting women from violence, advances the bizarre theory that ‘the West’ has an ‘agenda to destroy the family system in Pakistan’?

Yes, its Cllr. Liaquat Ali!

What a buffoon.

A previous post (see link below) looked briefly at George Tomlinson primary school in Leytonstone, and the fears of some that it was surreptitiously being prepared for academisation.

Since then, much has changed. The school has new governors, and a new management team, the latter led by Executive Head Lynne Harrowell.

However, the sense of general unease seems if anything to have increased. Various alterations to the school’s everyday life have proved unsettling. Some teachers have left, apparently because they feared redundancy. A union representative has publicly complained of bullying. That said, it is the transformation at the top which has provoked the most comment.

Ms. Harrowell has a distinguished teaching record, and currently runs Larkswood Primary in the north of the borough, but it has not escaped notice that she is also a director of The Lime Academy Trust, a recently created private company limited by guarantee, and it is this that has set alarm bells ringing in some quarters.

Thus, an on-line petition to keep George Tomlinson under local authority control has quickly gathered some 3,700 expressions of support, many heartfelt, with the following being fairly typical:

‘George Tom has been a lovely, child-centered school and has given my children a wonderful start in life. The Lime Trust have torn the heart out of it. Children are unsettled and do not enjoy the changes they have made. Parents feel that the school is almost unrecognisable from the happy gentle place it was. All the joy has been sucked out of our school’.

Meanwhile, Councillor Grace Williams, recently appointed Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, has publicly declared as follows:

‘The appointment of a new Governing Body and the search for a new headteacher marks a new phase in the life of George Tomlinson Primary School. We fully support the school in this process and again want to reaffirm that we are not in the business of turning schools into academies…The petition asks for the school to be maintained by the local authority, calls for no involvement from Lime Trust in the school, and requests the appointment of a headteacher with no links to any academy or academy trust…I hope parents are left in no doubt the steps they are calling for are already being carried out by the new Governing Body’.

Clearly, the parents of George Tomlinson pupils and their supporters have to make up their own minds about such assurances, but a couple of observations are pertinent.

First, it is worth revisiting how this episode began. LBWF has consistently argued that the school was in some kind of crisis, and so intervention was unavoidable. As Cllr. Williams’ immediate predecessor, Mark Rusling, observed:

‘I was presented with evidence of declining standards…as well as safeguarding concerns and financial concerns. Those concerns were serious and demanded a response. We could have done nothing and trusted to the fact that all schools would become academies in due course, so standards at GT were of no concern to the local authority. I don’t believe that, and I do believe that local authorities have a role to play in education, so we acted on those concerns’.

At first sight, this explanation seems seductive, with the local authority apparently fulfilling its obligation to defend the common good. But on closer inspection, this happy picture begins to dissolve. George Tomlinson was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in 2012. Subsequently, not everything was plain sailing. It is clear that the governing body, in particular, needed strengthening. Nevertheless, whether the school truthfully could be described as descending into crisis is debatable.

LBWF’s stance appears to rest upon two confidential reports that were completed in the early months of 2016. Why and how these were commissioned remains to be established. Moreover, whether they are impartial is also unclear, as in one case the author appears to have links to The Lime Academy Trust. But the key point is obviously what they reveal about the school’s recent performance, and whether they substantiate the claims that have been made.

One of the reports remains under lock and key, but the other is now in the public domain. What surprises is its tone. For while there is a degree of criticism about some specific matters, this does not add up to the stinging indictment that might have been expected.

Take the important issue of safeguarding. LBWF’s case is that George Tomlinson was failing in this regard. Yet the report concludes as follows:

• ‘Safeguarding Single Central Record:The SCR was viewed and is up to date and scrupulously maintained by the school business manager. The Designated Governor for safeguarding reviews this regularly (usually once every half term and certainly every term).  The admin staff’s checking of visitors at reception, both identity and DBS, is robust.
• Policies:the safeguarding policy is on the school website along with the, E Safety policy, Behaviour, Attendance and Punctuality policy and the PHSE policy.  The policy has recently been updated to include prevention of extremism and FGM and this has been endorsed…
• Training; ’Prevent’ training was provided recently and the focus is to ensure the principles of the Prevent training are threaded through  schemes of work.” Safer Recruitment training has been undertaken by governors and leaders and safeguarding training for staff is routinely updated.
• E-Safety has been displayed around the school and teachers have planned and taught safety lessons.  One pupil mentioned a recent E-Safety lesson, and knew that for Cyber bullying he needed to report it to his parents if it happened at home or to a teacher if it happened at school.  A Year 6 pupil said that there had been a recent problem with social media and this had been dealt with effectively by staff’ .

Inevitably, as is the case in all such enterprises, recommendations for improvement follow, but might not most reports about most schools have said about the same?

Turning to The Lime Academy Trust, its involvement has provoked considerable comment. One issue is the nuts and bolts matter of Ms. Harrowell and her colleague’s appointment. All of the team no doubt have demanding jobs at Larkswood, so it is surprising to the mere outsider that they have the time to take on extra burdens. In addition, there is uncertainty about who is paying their wages, and how these were determined. One local councillor’s statement at a recent public meeting that it would take £500,000 to buy The Lime Academy Trust team out is hardly reassuring

More generally, it is reasonable to look more closely at what is known about The Lime Academy Trust itself.

The company is clearly ambitious, stating that its growth strategy is to operate five academies by 2017, ‘recruited from a mix of sponsorships, new provision and conversions’.

The board is drawn for the most part from the educational world, obviously, and also the performing arts.

But their is one director with extensive business experience – Marcus Orlovsky, who has held 63 directorships, of which 29 (according to Companies House) are still live.

Now Mr. Orlovsky is an interesting character. He likes to present himself as a bit off the wall, a maverick and guru. An admiring profile notes as follows about one of his conference presentations:

‘It’s hard to convey what Orlovsky says in many ways, because his presentation starts in a very stream-of-consciousness way, musing over the London skyline, the ubiquitous internet, creativity, bionic limbs, and very much more.

A favourite part of the talk is where he shows footage of a baby giggling madly as a pair of adult hands rips up paper in front of her. “That’s her father’s rejection letters for the jobs he’s applied for,” says Orlovsky tartly. The modern world is a mad place, and he’s both outraged and engaged.

But gradually his vision begins to take shape…He talks about the comet landing, shows us a photo of some children huddled together and reading, and continues: “We want to create magic. One of these is going to be the new Shakespeare, one will create craft which will land on a comet – and then be criticised if it bounces – but one of these [is] going to do that. The reality is that we can unlock things, or just allow the rain to come and wash away rubbish”’.

Strip away all the wackiness, however, and Mr. Orlovsky turns out to be a chartered accountant who (as he notes on Linkedin) has been by turn ‘Salesman/General fixer’ at Underwoods Cash Chemists, ‘Manager/Director’ at Ernst & Young, ‘Project Finance Director’ at Stanhope Properties, and ‘Director’ at Gresham Bell, before taking up his current position as ‘Director’ at Bryanston Square.

So far, so good. But there is more. Mr. Orlovsky is said to have considerable expertise in Private Finance Initiative contracts, no doubt a big plus in today’s world of primary and secondary schooling. Bryanston Square, too, has an impressive website (though the organisation’s corporate status does not appear to be specified).

The puzzle is Mr. Orlovsky’s ‘live’ directorships. Many of the companies where he is listed as a director appear never to have been active. The rest are small businesses, which only have to return very brief accounts. The following table summarises their current situation:

Source: Companies House, July 2016

Mr. Orlovsky is clearly an energetic innovator and entrepreneur, who thinks beyond the box. Whether the companies which he co-directs are achieving commensurate returns remains to be seen.

At any rate, this whole situation is one that we will be keeping an eye on.

A local resident writes:

‘As your blog has previously noted, LBWF plans to demolish our impressive Edwardian Primary School and replace it with a new “modular” prefab alternative, which has been described on the BBC website as an “Austerity school”.

 It is confirmed that this proposal will go to the council’s Planning Committee on 12 July.

As you have reported, too, SAVE Britain’s Heritage argues persuasively for keeping the present structure. But it is also worth underlining that the Victorian Society and other local groups are equally concerned by the plans.

LBWF has stonewalled the local community.  At Hale End and Highams Park Community Ward Forum on 27 June, Cllr. Tony Bell (Labour) told a packed school hall that he had cancelled the officially scheduled half hour “informal chat with councillors” which traditionally takes place before the meeting proper.  After being refused point-blank any discussion of Selwyn’s future, half of those attending walked out. Perhaps ironically, the policeman who then took to the podium warned local residents about “door to door salesmen appearing on your front doorstep, that promise you something but don’t deliver”!

The local community has proposals which significantly enhance the Selwyn plan, without affecting the planned building schedule or budget.  These proposals have the endorsement of recognised building experts and would add much needed pupil capacity to the school.

LBWF has distributed a missive to local residents denying “false rumours” circulating about plans for housing on the Selwyn site. But as the saying goes, “never believe anything, until it has been officially denied”.

Despite the flawed consultation last December, which a mere 66 people attended, LBWF insists that the ‘consultation’ box has been ticked.

Selwyn Primary school is being built on what Highams Park Forum considers a sub-standard budget of approximately £8 million.  What could possibly go wrong?

It has also just been announced that LBWF has consultation plans to demolish Hale End Library in Highams Park and build apartments on site.  The Library may be rehoused adjacent to Tesco’s store.  Using public property to build high-density housing sounds very similar to what some believe may be being proposed for the Selwyn site.

Neighbouring Hackney offers a disturbing vision of what soon could come to Highams Park. Parents there have likened the new schools being built to “battery farms”, with internal corridors that are “artificially lit rat-runs”, and have launched a petition urging the council to halt the development of private homes on school playgrounds.

The message to LBWF is clear: don’t cling to a mistake, just because you spent a lot of time making it!’.

Oliver Shykles writes as follows:

‘I chair the Highams Park Forum which is working together with the Highams Park Planning Group and The Highams Park Society to protest against LBWF proposals which could drastically affect library provision in Highams Park.

At the time of writing, 3,956 people involved with Highams Park have signed a detailed petition against the Council’s scheme, while 1,117 people involved with Highams Park have joined a Save Highams Park’s Library Facebook Group.

Over 200 residents attended a spring clean and protest outside their library last Saturday (images available in the press pack, here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5ylT69jXTlUT1E5VXVWRWs2RkE

We have prepared a press pack which includes a detailed rebuttal to the misleading and inaccurate claims made by Council officers which have been presented to Cabinet members (the meeting takes place today – the 12 July –  at 2pm at the Town Hall). We have three speakers at that meeting.

The specific council report we have responded to is ‘Appendix 2a Hale End Business Case 1st July 2016′:

http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/s52734/Appendix%202a%20Hale%20End%20Business%20Case%201st%20July%202016.pdf

All the documents related to the agenda item “Library Local Development Plan” to be discussed tomorrow by the Cabinet are here: http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=29051#mgDocuments‘.

In the last couple of days, both Private Eye (‘Haq Attack’, see below) and the Waltham Forest Guardian have published versions of the Ali-Haq story.

It is notable that the latter does not mention Senator Haq’s rantings about ‘Jews and Christians’, spineless journalism at its worst.

Meanwhile, a rumour going round the Town Hall is that Mayor Khan has declined to re-appoint Cllr. Ali to the London Fire Authority (LFA), despite Cllr. Robbins’ recommendation.

If this is true, the LFA will have to soldier on without Cllr. Ali’s notable expertise, always so eloquently delivered.

However, at least the public purse seems set to gain.

For it turns out that Cllr. Ali’s expense claims at the LFA have stood out like the proverbial sore thumb:

Source: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/MembersExpenses.asp

Of course, no impropriety is alleged: if such remuneration is offered, then Cllr. Ali has every right to claim it.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask whether ‘Hotel accommodation to attend LGA Annual Fire Conference and Exhibition 10-11 March 2015 at Newcastle’ costing £571.70, to take one example, really represents value for money.

After all a good number of LFA members managed to survive during these years without claiming expenses at all.

And it was not as if any of them were strapped for cash, because (regardless of expenses) all members anyway receive a basic annual allowance (which today stands at £7,750) plus add-ons for responsibility.

It will be interesting to get a Fire Brigades Union perspective on all of this.

According to Companies House, the Registrar has discontinued the compulsory strike-off of the E11 BID Co..

On the other hand, the visitor who uses the Companies House webpages to check on the E11 BID Co.’s progress is still greeted by the following:

As I’ve pointed out before, it does seem strange that an organisation which depends solely for its income on the hard work of local traders, and in the past has been showered with public money, cannot get its accounts in on time.

Indeed, this is particularly so because not so long ago the E11 BID Co. was castigated for failing to pay its taxes, and being run chaotically, so might have been expected to carefully learn the requisite lessons.

As ever, there will be many who wonder why LBWF continues to give succour to this lame duck, when by all reasonable standards it should have been put out of its misery years ago.

Mark Baynes’ blog Love Wapping is fast becoming indispensable for those interested in how East London is developing.

A couple of days ago, he published part one of his investigation into Islamists in Tower Hamlets:

http://lovewapping.org/2016/07/tower-hamlets-london-borough-hijacked-by-fundamental-islamists/

It makes a very interesting read, and I’ll  be posting the follow-ups here in due course.

His discussion of the links between Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), a fundamental Islamist group inspired by the teachings of Abul Ala Maududi, and Jamaat-e-Islami are pertinent.

As previous posts on this blog have pointed out, a group of Waltham Forest councillors recently (and surreptitiously) gave an award to the extreme right-wing Senator Sirajul Haq of Pakistan, with the event being captured here for posterity:

Senator Haq has close Jamaat-e-Islami links.

One wonders what Cllr.s Ali senior and junior, Cllr. Mahmud, Cllr. Khan, and Cllr. Dhedi – all pictured at the event – think of Jamaat-e-Islami and indeed IFE.

As in Tower Hamlets, has IFE infected the Waltham Forest body politic on the quiet?