Equal opportunities in Tower Hamlets?

I just browsed the online E=edition of the East London Advertiser to see whether the ELA reported about our CCTV petition for Parkview estate that I delivered to the full council meeting Wednesday a week ago, just one day before the ELA comes out on the Thursday.

Unfortunately I could not find an article about our petition that asks for CCTV on our estate to bring us the same standard of safety and security that private housing residents can enjoy, in the East London Advertiser. Social residents run a much higher risk of becoming a victim of crime than residents in private housing developments do. The council’s argument is that they would only put it in if the level of crime would justify such a measure but private housing developers do not want to expose their residents to the risk in the first place and put in CCTV as a preventative measure, which is taking good care of those residing in such blocks. Tower Hamlets council obviously wants to see victims of crime first before they would consider CCTV as standard in local housing estates. This just shows that residents are not valued as much by social housing landlords Tower Hamlets Homes and ultimately by Tower Hamlets council who still own the freehold of the property that Tower Hamlets Homes now administers as ALMO.

When I browsed through the online version of the East London Advertiser issue 4/2/2010 that people who took part in the “You Decide” event and voted for CCTV on their estates are still waiting for them 1 year on.

Yet this criticism “has to be” expressed in the East London Advertiser rather than the flagship paper “East End Life” because East End Life doesn’t allow any free discussion in their paper, they repress any type of criticism by refusing to publish reader’s letters and comments that would be critical of the Tower Hamlets Labour Council’s policies and decision. I think that it is against the law and contradicts Freedom of Speech and Expression that a local authority can publish a borough wide newspaper and not allow reader’s comments. East End Life promotes Council events like “You Decide” each week with the promises made but fails to face its own failures by also allowing the criticism that follows their own inability to keep the promises made. One reader calls East End Life Soviet Style propaganda, which is not far from the Hitler style propaganda, painting everything glossy, saying we do this, we win that but never delivered on those promises made and knowing that they are not able to deliver on those promises.

The dilemma about East End Life has now also become a point in my Defamation Proceedings against John Gray who actually complains in his Defence that I dare to criticise the Labour Party in a reader’s letter to the East London Advertiser.

Another reader’s letter in the East London Advertiser comments on the rise of Labour Party employees within the Labour Party council. One of the latest appointments apparently is a person called Takki Sulaiman who previously worked at Haringey council and who appointed Sharon Shoesmith as head of Children’s Services there. I understand Sharon Shoesmith still fights her dismissal from Haringey council over the Baby P affair.

I have been laughed at for failing shortlisting by the local Labour Party for nomination as Bethnal Green and Bow parliamentary candidate and for having joined the Conservative Party. Labour proves here that they look after their own, even if they fail with parliamentary elections they get a job in a town hall if all else fails.

I think the job selection processes in the Town Hall right now should be objected to detailed scrutiny for each applcation and each applicant failing to be appointed, that is not a member of the Labour Party should ask a detailed explanation why they have been refused.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits