Comments on: EXCLUSIVE: ‘The IFE have become influential in East London’

By: Astounded

Astounded — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:12:09 +0000

This is a judeo christian country whose principles run through secularism. It strives imperfectly for equality opportunity and education. These values are the antithesis of the IFE and the like, whether overtly or quitely behind closed doors. 50% of our population is denied by gender those rights, and countless behaviours modified to accomadatethem. This cannot be compared to the swing of left to right, or an aspect of racism or a denial of the democratic process. This is a new campaign to subvert democracy and introduce a way of live alien to the UK. 4 years ago it was stay msulimn dont vote, now its vote to be a muslim. This road leads to ghettos and the subjugation of women or “perfumed adulters”.

By: Alan Ji

Alan Ji — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:07:09 +0000

The Labour Party’s rules require membership to be where the person lives and is registered to vote. Quite unlike the Tories, and even worse the LibDems, who allow activities that Labour would regard as serious fiddles.

Exceptions are very few (being too young or not having a relevant citizenship to vote, just having moved house, for example). Comparing membership lists to the register of electors is not terribly difficult, provided someone can be bothered to do it. Anyone whose membership wasn’t in order wouldn’t be allowed to become a Council candidate or to vote in a meeting choosing candidates.

In terms of IFE, the case would have to be proved against each individual, just as it was with the Milis.

By: The Armchair

The Armchair — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:29:21 +0000

This is hardly new news. Indeed, as many of you politicos know, the Labour Party has always been vulnerable to entryism of all kinds, namely the entryism of cliques. All Labour-controlled councils(the ones which are still left (geddit?)) often have a dominating clique which often excludes all other councillors within their particular group when making vital decisions concerning the communities they are supposed to serve, particularly on planning issues. In order to get on with that dominating clique, you have to befriend, and act like them. In the end, the people who will support them will get the money, while the rest of the community will get nothing. The only way the people of Tower Hamlets are going to get rid of this clique is to vote the WHOLE of Labour out of office on May 6th.

By: Stanislaw

Stanislaw — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:57:33 +0000

@ Derek,

thanks, no hard feelings.

@ Ana,

thanks for this, Terry’s crackers, isn’t he?

By: The Bastard son of Billericaydickie

The Bastard son of Billericaydickie — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:03:16 +0000

The London Region Labour Party has been well aware of what was going on in Tower Hamlets. The local party wasn’t taken over by the region for nothing. All selections for council candidates have been closely checked.

Well now, where do I start. There weren’t any ’selections’ for council candidates. The London Regional Board appointed a panel to interview and appoint candidates. These appointments were made a couple of weeks ago and 48 out of 51 people allocated seats accepted.

Five sitting councillors have been deselected.

Three of them for being pretty useless (Salim Ullah, Shaheed Ali and the Repect defectee and current ‘Olympics Ambassador’ Waisul Ismam
One of them – Alex Heslop – because he’s not a woman and he’s white.
One of them – Fozlul Haque – because (a) he’s too close to IFE (b) he’s never lived in Tower Hamlets (c) Ken Clark really doesn’t like him.

Despite the regional board being given quite clear information on who the bad guys are (Md Abdullah Sallique, Roffique Uddin Ahmed and Alibor ‘bad boy’ Choudhury) all of these three were reselected, albeit Alibor had to move wards. The regional board were also advised not to select Aminur and Rabina Khan – both leading lights of IFE and selected for the safe ward of Whitechapel and the winnable ward of Shadwell.

By: Barad

Barad — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:43:24 +0000

“I am sorry Stanislaw and Barad about my remarks about gay rights – of course no sensible person is against rights for gays, etc.”

Thanks-appreciated.

By: AF

AF — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:24:48 +0000

Happily this is doing the rounds on the net and then some. Labour do not merit another shot at governing having let this go on at a local level for so long. I won’t be making the same mistake twice at the next election.

By: Sheepa Begum

Sheepa Begum — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:57:01 +0000

@Aashiqur Rahman

From one little Bengali to another, might I suggest you change your name to Abdul [Rahman] lest some of your Mawdudist pals at IFE accuse you of being a grave-worshipping sufi. ‘ishq occurs between lovers; not between a Wahhabi and his [anthropomorphic] deity.

Khuda hafiz

This campaign has also included the government providing huge – and unprecedented funding – to new organisations which have zero support among Muslims but are willing to act as attack dogs against politically active Muslims and smear them as ‘Islamists’.

Surely he’s talking about the MCB? Who’dve thought that such an unrepresentative organisation could be turned into govt. lapdogs?

By: Flaming Fairy

Flaming Fairy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:44:43 +0000

It’s good that the Telegraph is picking up on this nonsense now. After their success in bringing the scandal of MP’s expenses to the public’s attention, we can only hope a similar shitstorm starts to brew about this government’s craven approach to Islamism.

By: David T

David T — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 10:32:32 +0000

The “gay rights” case is for equality – in other words, it is a sub-set of a general argument for liberalism.