The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets Corruption - collected articles

The London Mayoral election is at serious risk of being stolen

[Please note that there is additional information in the now closed forum:  Lutfur Rahman - collected articles  ]


Last updated at 12:13 PM on 2nd March 2012

Then it emerges that Livingstone's narrow victory was entirely due to one borough. That of Tower Hamlets where there have been remarkably sharp increases in turnout, the number of voters on the register and share of the vote received by Livingstone.

The evidence of massive voter fraud taking place in Tower Hamlets is overwhelming. 'Postal vote farming' where extra names are registered at an address, is not an isolated or random occurrence but is taking place systematically.

The Evening Standard has investigated and found that 'dozens of flats are holding up to eight people per bedroom, according to the electoral register.'

In one case 12 adults are still listed as voters at a three-bedroom flat in Mile End despite having moved out about four months before officials gathered data for the register. A lettings agent said that only 'three or four' of those named had ever lived there.

Cllr Peter Golds, the Conservative opposition leader of the council, has written on Conservative Home this morning about the failure for anyone to take action.

'In 2009 I handed over to the police copies of emails regarding postal vote farming,' he writes. 'The police spoke to the sender who "promised not to do it again" and therefore indicated a prosecution would not be in "the public interest", despite the fine for this being £5,000.

'The electoral commission advises that concerned citizens approach the town hall, who then ask you to send your evidence to the police, who go back to the electoral commission on this merry go round of inertia.'

Cllr Golds adds there is similar indifference to 'appalling intimidation at polling stations.'

This is not a new problem. The 2008 mayoral election saw the Labour share of the vote sharply increase in Tower Hamlets against the trend elsewhere. In the 2004 results Livingstone beat the then Conservative candidate Steve Norris by 16,229 to 10,157.

In the 2008 results we saw Livingstone beat Boris Johnson in that borough by 37,361 to 17,509.

Then we had in April 2010, just before the General Election, an increase in the electorate of 7,000 recorded in just one month.

This is a council where later that year the directly elected Mayor, Lutfur Rahman, stood as an independent but with the support of Livingstone against the official Labour candidate.

Tower Hamlets Council's response is to deny that there is a problem and of course there is no suggestion any of the participants in recent elections were party to any fraud.

'No cases of electoral fraud have been found in Tower Hamlets,' A council spokesman said, adding that the borough 'suffers from very high levels of overcrowding.'

So if the council can't or won't act, who will? What is the Electoral Commission doing about this? Nothing. It has a budget of £24million but when I rang them it became all too clear that it has no power to ensure free and fair elections take place - merely to offer 'guidance.'

It could act as a whistle blower but won't even do that.

When the Conservative MP Lee Scott raised the matter in Parliament he was told by his colleague Gary Streeter MP, who speaks on their behalf of the Electoral Commission, that 'the Commission has been assured by the police and Tower Hamlets electoral registration officer (ERO) that the issue is being treated with the appropriate seriousness.'

Streeter added: 'The Electoral Commission informs me that it has made no specific assessment of the level of (a) over registration or (b) fraudulent registration in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.'

Still all the boxes are ticked: 'The Commission monitors the performance of electoral registration officers (EROs) in Great Britain, including their plans for preventing and detecting electoral malpractice. The most recent report of performance against the standards set by the Commission found that the ERO for Tower Hamlets exceeded this standard in 2010.'

The Cabinet Office Minister Mark Harper, also proposes to do nothing - while 'taking the matter very seriously', of course.

So there we are. There is a serious risk of the election for Mayor of London being stolen yet nothing is being done to avert this from happening in the mother of democracy.

Perhaps we need some international observers from developing countries to help us out. We seem to be unable to manage to ensure a democratic election takes place.

Read more:

More evidence of the 3rd world politics of Tower Hamlets can be found here:

And here:

Tags: corruption, criminality, electoral, fraud, hamlets, homophobia, tower

Views: 1143

Replies to This Discussion

From "Islamist Watch"

The United Kingdom’s local elections at the beginning of May were dramatic. Across Britain, much was made of the fact that the ruling Conservative Party lost almost 500 council seats in the wake of scandal and sleaze. Meanwhile, endless hours of analysis on the BBC have been dedicated to Northern Ireland, where Sinn Fein, the political offshoot of the IRA, achieved a majority for the first time.
But it is in the London borough of Tower Hamlets where more focus should perhaps be placed. The Islamist-linked Aspire Party has just won a sweeping victory. It now controls a majority 24 of the 45 seats available, with the party’s founder — Islamist activist and fraudster Lutfur Rahman — now the mayor.
This is not Rahman’s first stint in charge of this important London borough. He served as mayor from 2010 to 2015, initially as a representative of the Labour Party. His tenure was marked by widespread Islamist extremism, cronyism and outright corruption — all exposed by expertly-conducted documentaries and investigations from mainstream British media, although largely ignored or downplayed by police and national politicians.
The danger Rahman posed was apparent from the beginning. In his first year, Rahman was thrown out of the Labour Party for his Islamist links, after a local secular Bangladeshi politician, Helal Abbas, revealed Rahman’s ties to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).
Abbas’s warnings concerned many. The IFE was founded in 1990 by Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, a leading member of the violent Islamist movement Jamaat-e-Islami – one of the most active extremist groups in South Asia, of which offshoots include terrorist organisations designated as such under US law.
In November 2013, a Bangladeshi War Crimes Tribunal sentenced Mueen-Uddin to death in absentia for his role in the abduction and murder of 18 journalists and intellectuals during the 1971 Liberation War against Pakistan. Mueen-Uddin was reportedly in charge of Jamaat-e-Islami’s Al-Badr killing squad, which collaborated with the Pakistani regime.
Mueed-Uddin then imported his extremism to Britain. For the last three decades, IFE has served as a key “European wing” of Jamaat-e-Islami.
A 2009 training course organised by the IFE for its members featured hardline Jamaat-e-Islami literature, with one IFE official, Muhammad Rabbani, explaining that “Our goal is not simply to invite people and give da’wah [call to the faith]” but to “mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da’wah, hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad”.
To achieve this new political order, the IFE “strives for the establishment of a global society, the Khilafah … comprised of individuals who live by the principles of … the Shari’ah”.
In east London, the IFE has been working to impose this political vision. A series of investigations by leading British journalist Andrew Gilligan uncovered that the IFE had been crucial in the election of Rahman and other radical politicians.
George Galloway, a frequent fellow traveler of Islamists (and today a leading apologist for Vladimir Putin), as well as an ally of Rahman, declared in 2005 during a speech at the IFE headquarters, following his own election victory: “I am indebted more than I can say, more than it would be wise — for them — for me to say, to the Islamic Forum of Europe. I believe they played the decisive role … in this historic victory.”
In return for the IFE’s support in 2010 for Rahman, the Bangladeshi Islamist mayor appeared to hand the Islamist group significant levels of control, appointing IFE activists to senior council positions, and handing out grants to IFE sister organisations.
Councillor Abjol Miah, an IFE activist who worked closely with Rahman and who belonged to Galloway’s Respect Party, told an undercover reporter that: “We’ve actually consolidated ourselves now. We’ve got a lot of influence and power in the council, councillors, politicians.”
(Years later, Miah joined the Liberal Democrat party, before he was suspended for deeply antisemitic posts on his social media).
The extent of Islamist influence and control over this sizeable London borough and its government was extensive and disturbing.
Critics even widely suspected the IFE and Rahman of masterminding revenge against Helal Abbas, a Labour candidate, for having dared to speak out. Shortly after exposing the Islamist grip on the borough, Abbas was the target of spurious smears by a free Bangladeshi East London newspaper supportive of Rahman’s campaign, the London Bangla, which accused him of “wife-beating”.
The paper’s usual run of 30,000 copies handed outside mosques in London was tripled to 90,000 for this special edition, paid for by a “mystery funder”.
But eventually, this corrupt Islamist cabal was stopped.
Rahman’s downfall was dramatic. In 2015, now representing the Tower Hamlets First party, Rahman was removed from office and banned from running again for five years, after an election court found him and his party guilty of electoral fraud.
Rahman and his party were found, James Bloodworth summarises, “to have engaged in postal vote fraud, given false statements, committed bribery and used ‘undue spiritual influence’ — illegally warning voters that it was a ‘sin’ to vote for rival candidates”.
Despite the litany of misconduct and radicalism, for many years, Rahman and his cronies simply got away with it, and Islamists became significantly stronger all across east London — which emerged, during and after Rahman’s time in office, as a key recruiting ground for ISIS.
But how did Rahman remain so long in office? Writing in the Daily Beast, Bloodworth notes that “Political correctness may go some way to explaining why neither London’s Metropolitan Police nor the Labour party ever brought a prosecution against Rahman.”
Bloodworth further notes that the judge in the electoral fraud inquiry concluded “Rahman regularly played the ‘race card’ and critics were silenced ‘with accusations of racism and Islamophobia.’”
Now Rahman is back. The interdiction preventing him from running for public office has expired. And his Aspire Party appears to be partly the same group of cronies and radicals that imposed Islamism and corruption on Tower Hamlets between 2010 and 2015.
Rahman’s key supporters in his recent election, for instance, include Shahed Ali, an Islamist activist with a particular obsession over “filthy … Zionist Joos” and a former member of Rahman’s administration who, the Times reports, was “sentenced to five months in prison in 2016 after admitting housing fraud and faced a five-year ban from holding office”.
Some are at least calling for greater scrutiny of Rahman and his administration. In March, Lord Hayward warned the House of Lords about Rahman’s imminent return, stating:
“Lutfur Rahman is appealing for votes in a sectarian manner in Tower Hamlets. He is not appealing for votes in the interests of any broad community. He says in his election broadcast that he “feels the pain” of the community. He does not. He feels the desire to rehold an office from he has been banned and should have been banned for a much longer period. He is not serving the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets; he is serving himself and, in the words of Richard Mawrey, ‘his cronies.’”
Indeed, Aspire’s campaign leaflets display only Bangladeshi candidates. And now, as noted by deposed former Tower Hamlets mayor John Biggs, Rahman’s new administration “is 25 men, all from one community”.
One candidate, Nazir Ahmed was suspended by the Labour Party in 2021 after it emerged he had published antisemitic posts on social media.
Moreover, a number of the candidates can been linked to other groups tied to East London Islamism. Ahmed and fellow candidate Ohid Ahmed, for instance, also appear to manage Voice for Global Bangladeshis, a mysterious organisation whose various officials are closely involved with Universal Voice for Justice, a group which openly promotes Jamaat-e-Islami causes and is run by self-declared members of Jamaat-e-Islami.
With a budget of well over a billion dollars, Lutfur Rahman and his Islamist allies will inflict an enormous amount of corruption and radicalism on the borough of Tower Hamlets, likely once again driving out moderate Muslims and secular Bangladeshis, and redirecting taxpayers’ money to the pockets of Islamists with violent designs.


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service