Thursday, 23 April 2015

Lutfur Rahman: isn't it nice when bad things happen to bad people?

The Election Commissioner, Richard Mawbrey, today upheld the following allegations against Tower Hamlets' Mayor (now ex-mayor, thank goodness):

- Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses
- False statements made against Mr Rahman's rival Mr Biggs
- Bribery: grants approved to organisations which Mr Rahman favoured, most of which were run by Bangladeshi groups
- Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman
- Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman.

So, Rahman was guilty of bribery and corruption and telling lies, and, according to Mr. Mawbrey, of playing the "race"and "religious" cards. Apart from anything, today's judgment should represent a body blow against the sort of political correctness that allowed Rahman to rise to power in the first place: no white politician would have been allowed to get away with this sort of vile nonsense for so long. But it doesn;t represent any such thing, because Mr. Mawbrey then blotted his copybook by making the following bizarre statement:
"This is not the consequence of the racial and religious mix of the population... It is the result of the ruthless ambition of one man."
There are two basic reasons why one "ruthlessly ambitious" man was able to grab power in Tower Hamlets. First, there was the craven dhimmitude of our political elite and the agents of the state, which has made them terrified of acknowledging the vast racial and religious elephant in our national room. The second reason for Mr. Rahman's political success was exactly what Mr.Mawbrey calimsmit had nothing to do with - i.e. the racial and religious composition of the borough's electorate. Electoral corruption on this scale is endemic in many third world countries, but largely unknown in the UK. Are we seriously meant to believe that the fact that over half of the borough's population is classed as Black or Mixed Ethnic and the fact that 35% of it is Muslim had nothing to do with with this BME Muslim's rise to power? Multiculturalism - in this case, the importation of sleazy third world electoral practices - enabled this ghastly creature to become the Mayor of a London borough. I just can't see the point in denying the logical conclusions to be drawn from today's judgment: it's this sort of chronic refusal to admit the bleeding obvious that frustrates so many Britons. How are we going to fully integrate incomers if we continually shrink from forcefully pointing out to them that the habits and practices they've brought with them from their countries of origin simply aren't acceptable in their new home?

One other point: given that we've outlawed so-called "hate" crime and introduced a raft of equality laws, isn't it time we thought about making it illegal for criminals, thugs and extremists to play the race and religious cards? Level playing field and all that.


  1. Actually, I thought the terms of the Commissioner's judgement were fairly balanced. To weigh against your quote, he also said that even in multilateral Britain the laws must apply equally. I suspect that he was probably just getting in a pre-emptive defence against the predictable accusations of racism etc. Not a bad ploy.

    Great picture. Judge a man by the company he keeps.

    1. I just don't think the authorities should accuse someone of playing the race card and then say something which is patently untrue because they're worried someone else will play the race card! Rahman played the race card: the racial composition of Tower Hamlets played a key role in allowing Rahman to become mayor.

      Pity, because the Judge has a good track record in this area -

  2. The only other British person who had the habit of wearing his fedora indoors in recent years was Bobby Elliot, drummer of the group "The Hollies". He appeared one day sporting a wide-brimmed hat and then never took it off and I never discovered why. Perhaps Mr Galloway knows the answer? Some one said that wearing a suit without a tie indicates that you are an alcoholic - adding a fedora just makes you look very confused.
    I have been trying to remember the name of the obnoxious chairman of the Race Relations Commission [sorry, this body keeps changing its title] who was involved in a scuffle outside Lord's Cricket Ground a while back or what it was that Bernie Grant did that made him so popular or why Martin Luther King Jr incurred the dislike of the usually mild-mannered John Freeman [current TV interviewers, please re-visit the tapes of this great man and learn].

    1. I'm pretty sure Bobby Elliot was going bald at the time - not a good look for a member of a pop band back then. He had that sort of waffy blond hair that tends to go early - like Tony Grieg.

      Gurbux Singh was the chairman of the commission for racial equality. He was found guilty of threatening and abusing policemen outside Lord's and resigned his post. The blister picked up severance pay of £115,000 from the Home Office - a lot of money in 2002 (rather a lot now, come to think of it).

      I think Bernie Grant's enormous popularity rested on his comment after PC Blakelock was killed by black rioters at the Broadwater Farm estate in 1985, that the police "got a bloody good hiding". What's not to love?

      I didn't know John Freeman and MLK didn't hit it off.I will have to watch their "Face to Face" encounter, which is available here: