Galloway did it again

He won on a 65% turnout, a man with a mission and with his own unique brand of political agenda. I don’t think it had anything to do with Big Brother at all. Voters are not so shallow as to vote for appearances on Big Brother. I doubt they even watch Big Brother as much as some might lead us to believe. I think Galloway just wins on his ‘we are family’ type of politics.  The BBC reports the statistics here.

How ridiculous the stance of the major parties is can easily be described by the comment of the Conservative candidate who thinks that Galloway crushed Labour, when he lost a higher stake with 22.78 % of the votes whilst Labour only lost 20.36 % of their votes.

That just shows Galloway could not win in a high business environment like the Isle of Dogs but he can win where there is the rural type of area with many immigrants from Asia.Of course those immigrants cannot be expected to support a war that sees their relatives far away ending up in coffins.

Here in Tower Hamlets former Respect members have integrated with Labour to build a United Front led by Independent Lutfur Rahman, a type of quietly content coalition of brothers and sisters who are ideologically homeless but know what they want.

Though big efforts are made to get anybody who is somebody in little clean up operations. One councillor was ousted by prosecuting over illegal sub-letting of a flat and fiddling expenses for example.

But politics always uses the same tricks to get rid of opposition, when the goal is just to stay in power rather than make good arguments politically. Galloway gained an astonishing 52.83%. I do not know what his arguments were, as I did not follow the election but here in Tower Hamlets he called for more immigration,which ultimately led to his downfall, as even the most passionate people have to see the geographical restrictions a small area like Tower Hamlets has in terms of population.

Of course the anti-war propaganda always sits well when it gets proven more and more each day how little the troops can actually achieve. The repeated cries for more democracy in primitive countries fall on deaf ears as nobody can really afford it. We can’t even afford it ourselves here any longer.

Whilst the Conservatives here were in alliance with the Tax Payer’s Alliance to stop the waste they turn out to be a big wasting party, and yesterday the alliance turned sour when the Tax Payers Alliance published on Facebook yesterday how Andrew Lansley ran up a ££109,017 bill on tea and coffee in the space of 3 months. That is the real price of politics that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or even African nations and other impoverished nations can never afford to make politics with the people.  Strangely enough today I can’t find that article on the Tax Payers’ Alliance website any longer but only the Mail on line article.

Yet I belief Galloway’s popularity is only spot on where he won and unique to his area and will never find a broad appeal in Britain because we cannot support that level of immigration that Galloway needs to stay popular throughout. I think this is going to be Galloway’s last stand and after him the Respect Party will be truly buried and done and dusted.

healthy attractions

I find this approach of Canadian women quite refreshing because it shows a demo with a difference. It doesn’t condemn females wanting to be attractive and dressing as such but it condemns that typical lazy attitude that says:” because you dressed invitingly someone had the right to violate you”.

Of course in our culture women and men can dress any way they like without making others think that they can violate that person just because they feel gay and happy and express it in their clothing. Wanting to attract others does not mean that anybody is invited to take what they want without asking. It’s as simple as that.

Crime falls with exception of the soft option

Crime has fallen all around in England and Wales but for sexual offences. Of course sexual offences are seen as soft crimes, crimes that do not really hurt society and do not harm property. Yet it is the victims and their families who suffer in silence. The new government seems to have taken fancy to accepting these figures as rapists are set for early releases as well.

Yet courts do take a tougher stance on domestic violence, but for the sake of social safety and well-being, more must be done to root out sexual crimes and make them “socially” unacceptable among the predominantly male population, which seems to me the only way forward to stop perpetrators from re-offending.

We must however be very careful not to restrain freedom of expression  in order to blame those who show off substantial parts of their bodies as a fashion statement. Really, the question of ownership over a body must not lay in the amount of clothes a person wears but in the mutual respect people have for each other.

The ever consistent robberies are often a by-product of drug abuse and more must be done to combat that crime in any event.

religious debate in France

This debate is titled “Islam debate” in France on the BBC website, which I think should not be the correct title because the debate in France deals with all types of religious symbols from Christian crosses to Muslim headscarves.

I understand that France, not unsimilar to Turkey, is a secular state. Germany works on similar principles, in that state education is secular but religion  is left to families. I do not think that a discussion about a very prominent religion stigmatize that religion. In fact it can intimidate the rest of the population if one particular group walks around in totally distinguished clothing and makes others left out, which can have very racist implication, in that the person who wears that “Social Uniform” tells other, unless you look like me, I won’t accept you.

There is a reverse stigmatization happening from those being very distinct towards those who are not.

I think that would apply to all religion and not only to Muslims or any other religions for that matter.

The question that arises for me is who is discriminating against whom? Members of a very distinct group of people, including some religions who keep out everybody else, or those who say, we do not wish to be confronted with your religious symbols in every walk of our lives, keep your religion in your church and your home.

I think freedom and tolerance has to have a breathing space that keeps a common ground for all of us and as much as Christians have stopped to indoctrinate the  society, as much must we expect of all other religions not to indoctrinate our lives as well.


avoiding fringe-group radicals

The government’s decision to move the no 10 online petition to the Yougov website has gotten widespread interest. Connected to this change is the promise that large petitions will get a debate in parliament; That has got to be a petition with over 100.000 signatures. For that purpose petitions are going to be edited and screened for their legal viability as there is no point discussing a matter that is totally out of grounds.

It can only be positive to catch unrest before it starts and hopefully also avoid fringe-group disturbances and political actions. Here in Tower Hamlets we have seen how only 17% of the electorate voted in a Respect councillor because the other 83% of residents do not care who gets in. Well we have to take off the votes for Labour and Conservative and others on the list.

Such hotspot voting can be avoided if people can air their grievances on an online petition that promises a parliamentary debate and takes democracy just that little bit further. That comes from a government that really cares about your views.

BNP are left-wing

I just read this most interesting blog on Conservative Future and indeed I spent many typing sessions developing theories about the close relationship of left-wing and right-wing groups, I explained that the German National Party was a left-wing organisation and murderous to those who did not fit in with their positive criteria. Now Conservative Future says that the BNP are left-wing and not right-wing and there is a great resemblance to the ideal of National Socialist thinking in the BNP’s arsenal of thoughts. Without any doubt the BNP has much in common with the National Socialists of the Hitler era and the sooner they accept this the quicker the old-fashioned Labour radicals will realise on what a losing streak they really are.

It’s this racist element within the left-wing sphere that puts foreign immigrants off and paves the way for the crazy political scene we see in Tower Hamlets where Councillors swap parties more often than we change our winter coats.  Have any of these disgruntled residents actually thought through their political allegiance in all aspects of their way of life, history and future?

I do not hope that we will see a repetition of the previous story, that all former Respect Councillors will head back to Labour instead of chosing the  party that works in their interests instead. Any type of political movement that is based on separatist motives has no place in the UK or indeed the world.

Lutfur Rahman and the Labour Party

Following yesterday’s post about the religious u-turn of the Labour leadership, I now wonder whether the political upheaval here in Tower Hamlets over the Mayoral candidacy has not gotten something to do with religion.

It is possible that the 8 councillors that broke off from Labour over the Lutfur Rahman’s candidacy have religious motives for their actions. Though I do not know anything about it, it might be possible that the recent change in the Labour leadership might have prompted the breakaway in Tower Hamlets, that has many residents who seriously follow their religion and love it very much.

I would not give too much credit to a Labour Party announcement saying there are possible accounting irregularities as this could just  be a convenient excuse to rid themselves of a candidate they never really wanted in the first place.

It would be good if the breakaway councillors and most of all Lutfur Rahman could enlighten us on that point.  I am sure many would even support Rahman if his motives were purely religious and not also politically tainted towards the Middle East conflict and that is the question isn’t it.

I am sure Mr Rahman would find himself many supporters if he rode on the religious freedom horse and left out all the other stuff.

Though this is merely speculative and not much is known to me about the underlying motives for a group of 8 councillors to break away from their political party.

The crazy Tower Hamlets political scene

Tower Hamlets is like a witches cauldron with political influences being mixed into potions to mesmerize the electorate into steering into one direction or another. For anybody seeking to get involved into politics in this borough its like walking on hot coals because whom can one believe? Now 8 Labour councillors support a candidate that is standing against the Labour Party because he has been de-selected.  (Ted Jeory reporting)

Councillors chop and change directions and there is nothing but an up and down of political waves that stretch all over the left electorate. I was severely criticised for changing parties and looking around for a party that could be worth engaging in but swerved from Labour to Respect to become Conservative because it is confusing here in Tower Hamlets as even the Councillors constantly change directions. I was named as the Chameleon of the Year but I am not sure whether I still deserve this type of award in the light of much better candidates emerging.

There is always this grass-roots discussion within Labour, whereby the local members seem to have a grudge with party headquarters and the other way around. But when elected councillors en-mass defect from one party to another, all within the left-wing spectrum of course who can blame the ordinary citizen of being confused and not able to settle into any political party in this environment of suddenly changing political scenery.

What is it going to be like once we have an elected Mayor, is he also going to change direction all the time? What Tower Hamlets needs is stability and I do not think that either Labour or Respect can bring any quality politics to this borough and we are all better off in voting Conservative.

Up-date on 28.9.10, the East London Advertiser reports this also, alongside a report that Tower Hamlets has the highest number of youth unemployment in London. This promises a volatile mix of further problems being created through political instability.

Join Neil King’s online Facebook group. There is also a Bethnal Green & Bow Conservatives Group.

A surprising outcome

My appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Stadlen against the Kaschke v Hilton [2010] EWHC 690 (QB), decision was declared as totally without merit. Well that might be good as the court at least gives my case some credit. So the Court of Appeal has refused to re-consider the decision in the Light of Striking out the claim either in terms of publication or merit of the claim itself in terms of value.

I just had those news from Mr Dougans who got it from the Court of Appeal so he says, though the official website results do not show it yet. 10:35.

Even though I made the decision mainly over the costs order against me that followed, it is good in terms of that the Court of Appeal doesn’t feel that the decision could have included a strike out, as it was intended by Justice Eady when he gave permission to appeal to Mr Hilton.

At the worst case scenario the Court of Appeal could have heard the Appeal and allowing counter appeals and deciding that Mr Justice Stadlen should have dismissed the case there and then. But another possibility is that the court declares the application for permission to appeal the Hilton ruling as totally without merit because the case had been struck out by now. Another fine way to get around another determination of the Regulation 19 issue. I doubt there is someone in that court that would know how to do it properly. They are just trying to avoid the issue, lol.

Even if I win this case I will write to Strasbourg for an opinion on the merits of the analysis with regards to the E-Commerce Regulations, as I am interested in that subject.

Unfortunately I feel very much discriminated against in the court, compared to the former Defendants I was always asked to proof treble strong what I tried to achieve whilst the court always held in favour of the Defendants from the start. I felt very much excluded and forced into the outsider position, in which I still am. You can see if you read the judgments, they are favourable to the Defendants, they promise them victory and they discriminate against Freedom of Association issues. I wondered why Justice Stadlen mentioned my Respect membership as if it was the last party I belonged to and he makes it look like he uses that as reason to justify the bloggers publications about me. He wrote I am a member of the Respect Party when I became a member of the Conservatives on 11.9.2007. I think this was done with intent to make the judgment more convincing and condemning.

Yet that can only come from someone who is prohibited in discriminating against people for certain associations.

I personally have an interest and do research in political development and have done so for a while. I have started to write a book on the subject as well but had no time to come anywhere near completion.

I think any trained lawyer can see the mistakes in the judgments, the parts and quotes that have been used out of context to decide in the favour of the former Defendants. But not even the best arguments will help if the court is decidedly against me. Mr Justice Eady started it off basing his judgment on pure assumptions and case law like Godfrey v Demon, for witness statements being struck out if the publication cannot be proven, Stern v Piper for the repetition rule have all been ignored to concoct some rulings that are entirely bizarre.  I can see the threat in all judgments that strike out are based on an assumption of left-wing activities and try to justify the allegations, but that is strictly speaking against the rules of the European Court of Human Rights.

A lot of the case-law in the latest Stadlen judgment has been taken out of context. The court tries to misconstrue quotes from other authorities and in particular Burstein, Lord Denning made some very good remarks about admissibility of character evidence but it was all dependant on justification and or properly before a jury. Whereby properly before a jury actually means before a jury and not assuming it is before a jury and deciding what that assumed jury might decide.

I think it is too easy for a court to say, you are not going to get much damages, as that is a purely relative and subjective impression.  This rule can be used on anyone the court doesn’t like or wants to push out in favour of a Defendant. This rule is open to abuse.

I can only continue to persevere because that is what the European court rules expect me to do.  I think I suffer a considerable miscarriage of justice.  I run against a wall of consented ignorance and condemnation towards me and wonder whether it is partly because of my German origin.

French MPs vote 335:1 against full face veil

I am just thinking how stupid George Galloway would look if he spoke his silly threats in France, where most Muslims just follow the law and do neither threaten to commit suicide or kill others over the decision of the French parliament.

Recently in France a Muslim woman was fined € 22 for driving whilst wearing the full-face veil.

I am not certain why Britain doesn’t just follow the pattern as France is not the only European nation that outlaws the full-face veil.

At least the Conservative President Sarkozy has the full support of his Communist counterpart Andre Gerin who compares the veil to a walking coffin or muzzle. The only opposition vote came from the Socialist MP (I presume).

Whilst out of  the 5 million Muslims in France only 2,000 wear the veil, the ban is seen as an important instrument of integration.

Business man Rachid Nekkaz, wants to provide a € 1 million fund for those women who want to defy the ban and so encourage them to wear it. I wonder whether there is going to be a new crime, aiding and abetting the wearing of forbidden clothing.  Surprisingly the Muslim council of France supports the abandonment of full face veils for women.

The bill, that was introduced by Ms Alliot-Marie is not meant to stigmatize a group of people or religion but to help further democratic openness, starting with an open face for all.

Up-date on 18 May 2010, it seems that George Galloway found support from Damian Green who said outlawing the full-face veil would be un-British and Catherine Hesseltime said we should stop wasting our time discussing it. I suppose we are covered under Freedom of Expression and speech if we do.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,049 hits
%d bloggers like this: