Total Visits

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Metropolitan Police: All new police constables must be able to speak second language!


On my return from a short holiday one of the first stories of blatant discrimination against the English that greets me is that the Metropolitan Police have now made it a mandatory requirement for recruitment that applicants speak at least one foreign language. Here is the article in the Mirror and below are my letters to the Mirror and to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. What do you think?

Metropolitan Police: All new police constables must be able to speak second language from today


Recruits will need to speak English and one of 14 designated languages to join the country's biggest force.

All new constables in the Metropolitan police must be able to speak a second language apart from English from today.

The astonishing requirement emerged in an advert for fresh recruits posted online by the country's biggest force.

From today, anyone wanting to join the Met must be able to speak English and one of the following 14 languages:

• Yoruba (Nigeria)
• Hebrew
• Arabic
• Hindi
• Punjabi
• Italian
• German
• Turkish
• Greek
• Spanish
• Polish
• Portuguese
• Sinhali (Sri Lanka)
• Bengali

In a press release, the Met said the requirement is a one-month 'pilot' scheme designed to "bring officers into the Met with more of the skills necessary to help police and engage with London's diverse communities as effectively as possible."

However, the Met does not specify that the new qualification is temporary on its website.

In fact, the Careers page makes it clear that anyone who does not speak one of the specified languages is "unable to submit an application".

The only reference to a 'one-month trial' was made in a quietly-issued press release at 1am today.

Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has also come under fire for the 14 languages chosen for his list - when by his own admission almost 300 are spoken in London.

Critics questioned why key languages including Gujurati, Mandarin and Romanian aren't on there - but German is.

Andrew Boff, leader of the Conservatives in the London Assembly, described the list as "bizarre".

He told the Mirror: "I just don't understand what this list of languages is supposed to achieve.

"It looks as if it's been made up at random.

"Chinese Mandarin is not on there when we know that statistically they are one of the groups most likely to be victims of crime in London.

"And there are others - where I live, Lithuanian is the most spoken language.

"Why on earth is German on there? I'm sure there are Germans living in London but they are likely to speak good English.

"Not even Germans like speaking German!

"This list clearly needed a bit more thought.

"I support the idea of a police force that looks like London - but I don't think having a second language should be a condition of application.

"Why not make it a general recommendation?"

Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan Howe said: "I am committed to providing a police service which looks and feels more like London.

"We know that almost 300 languages are spoken in the capital. We need to recruit and deploy officers with second languages in areas where those languages are spoken.

"I believe it will help boost confidence, help to solve crime more effectively and support victims and witnesses."

(Here is the link to the article >>> Metropolitan Police: All new police constables must be able to speak second language from today - Mirror Online )


Letter to the Mirror:


Dear Mr Robson

Re: Your article – Metropolitan Police: All new police constables must be able to speak second language from today


I read your piece with interest as it would seem that the Metropolitan Police have introduced a recruitment requirement which is not only objectively unjustifiable, but also the effect of which must impact adversely on ethnic English applicants. In racial equality law this is known as indirect illegal discrimination.

I am a practicing solicitor and your report indicates a clear indirect illegal discrimination by the Metropolitan Police. If our Capital’s POLICE FORCE cannot be relied upon to obey the law on even something as straightforward as their recruitment policy, then what indeed does that say about their effectiveness as a law enforcement agency at all?

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook


Letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe


Dear Sir Bernard

We understand from the Daily Mirror article, a copy of which we enclose, for your information, that the Metropolitan Police may be guilty of initiating a blatantly illegal discriminatory recruitment policy for Police Officers.


May we respectfully remind you that it is now a long established principle of Race Relations Law that it is illegal for an employer to adopt Employment Selection criteria which either advantages or disadvantages specific ethnic groups. The employment criteria which you have introduced, seemingly without any effort at proper consultation, self-evidently advantages immigrants who come from any of the ethnic or national backgrounds whose languages you have selected and equally disadvantages those from an immigrant background whose native language is not so selected, as well as the ethnic English.


We are writing to you to point out the blatant illegality of your action and therefore request that you desist forthwith. If we do not hear from you that you have done so within the next 7 days, we shall begin to make enquiries as to whether any ethnic English potential applicants have been prejudiced by your policy and shall be looking to support them in bringing a claim against you personally as an individual guilty of racial discrimination contrary to the Equalities Act 2010 and also against the Metropolitan Police as an institution.

Yours sincerely


R C W Tilbrook






Saturday, 11 July 2015

EVEL = English votes for English laws


In the light of the Conservative leadership's turgivations and proposals for English votes for English laws it is interesting to see what the Whitehall Civil Service briefing on EVEL says.

Here is the Ministry of Justice's internal briefing:-

The Government has announced its plans for changes to the process through which legislation is approved by the House of Commons.
Civil servants play an important role in preparing, refining, publicising, implementing, and enforcing legislation. As a result these changes are likely to impact on the work of a number of teams across the Department.

'English votes for English laws' will mean that bills, parts of bills and secondary legislation will be subject to a different Parliamentary process in certain circumstances.

The proposal will be implemented through changes to the internal rules of the House of Commons, and will be put to a vote before the summer recess, after which the change would come into effect. If approved, English votes for English laws would affect the way the Civil Service develops and delivers legislation.

How will it work?

The Speaker of the House of Commons would certify all bills, clauses or statutory instruments. A new Parliamentary process would then apply where the Speaker deems a bill, clause or schedule applies to England or England and Wales-only and relates to matters that are devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The legislative process is then the same up to and including Report Stage - all MPs would continue to debate and vote together. The only exception to this is bills that are deemed England-only in their entirety will be considered at committee stage only by English MPs.

After Report Stage there would be a new process of consideration. This would allow only English, or English and Welsh, MPs to debate and vote on the relevant measures, thereby giving their consent or vetoing them. This process would also include a separate dispute-resolution process where the whole House and the English and Welsh MPs disagree. After this the bill would continue to Third Reading as before.

Secondary legislation would also be subject to the new rules. Those statutory instruments certified as entirely English, or English and Welsh will require the consent of the relevant MPs as well as the whole House if pressed to a vote on the floor of the House.
A more detailed explanation of the new process can be found on GOV.UK. Parliamentary process is complex and the Cabinet Office will circulate guidance to Departments following the approval of the House.

What does this mean for us?

If approved, this would mostly affect teams that prepare new legislation and work on supporting securing its progress through Parliament. It would also affect policy makers, who would need to consider carefully which parts of the UK their policies apply to and how best to legislate on them.

The Cabinet Office will be working closely with teams that could be directly affected to ensure they fully understand the new process and how to use it. If the proposals are approved, there will also be workshops for staff and learning opportunities available on Civil Service Learning will be updated. All staff are encouraged to make the most of these opportunities to familiarise yourself with the new process, even if your work may not be directly affected. As civil servants, we will need to be particularly conscious of this new process when speaking with stakeholders and seeking to gain support for legislation in Parliament.

These proposals will attract significant interest, particularly in the devolved administrations. It is therefore crucial that we are all consistent in how we communicate the policy externally. The Cabinet Office Press Office will lead on media handling so consult them about any media enquiries.

More information will be available but for further advice any teams working on legislation which will be introduced imminently should speak to the PBL Secretariat for primary legislation or the SI Hub in the Cabinet Office for secondary legislation.




Thursday, 9 July 2015

Statement by the English Democrats' Chairman on the budget


Statement by the English Democrats' Chairman on the budget


It is very disappointing to see the British Government yet again using its position over England to pick on the English by disadvantaging English students by entirely removing grants when these are still available in Scotland and Wales.  The attitude displayed is of contempt for the English People who are just seemingly viewed as the source of all the cash that the British Establishment chooses (all too often) to waste elsewhere.  

Also George Osbourne’s much trumpeted “English Devolution” is of course nothing of the sort.  It is not the national Devolution which has been given to the Scots and Welsh.  It is merely a little measure of mere decentralisation introduced, ironically on a top down basis, by the most over centralised State in Europe.

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

Wednesday, 8 July 2015

More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!


More evidence of England paying the piper (but not calling the tune)!

 
Even MPs who represent English seats but who are not English like the Welsh Mrs Cheryl Gillan sometimes stick up for their constituents.  What do you think?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0002.htm
9 Jun 2015 : Column 1081

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con):
"I hope that the Government will resist the call for the triple lock, quadruple lock—or whatever we are going to call it now. I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the disaggregation by UK constituent nation of the EU budget contributions and receipts. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that it clearly shows that although the average cost across the UK in the last year for which figures were available was £48 per head, when that is disaggregated, we see that the real burden falls on England. The cost of membership is £72 per capita in England, whereas in Scotland, it is a mere £2; in Wales minus £74; and in Northern Ireland minus £160. So the devolved nations, which are effectively feather-bedded against the real cost of membership, should not be allowed to slant the results of any referendum by demanding an individual country lock on any result."
The actual debate can be viewed here, with Mrs Gillan speaking about 14 minutes 37 seconds in:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/035a053e-b29e-4a3a-a1d9-3916a6a5cce7?in=12:40:21
Alex Salmond misrepresented opposition to a Referendum on continued EU membership being determined by the vote in each nation as meaning, by extension, "that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not get a vote at all." The analogy with the USA is absurd.

This 'disaggregation' sets in context the positions of rUK in respect of EU Membership.

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?



WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?
 

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have their own Parliaments or Assemblies and their own national Governments and First Ministers. It is only England of all the Nations of the “United” Kingdom that is subject to direct rule from the British Establishment authorities in Whitehall and Westminster.

So when British national politicians talk about the NHS, the only NHS that they have control over is the English NHS. When they talk about building more houses and creating developments in our towns and countryside, again the British Establishment authorities only have powers to do so over England. These are the areas compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over which the English have no equivalent say:-



Scotland
Wales
N. Ireland
LAW AND ORDER
Justice
Exclusive

Exclusive
Civil Law
Exclusive

Exclusive
Criminal Law
Shared

Exclusive
Vehicle licensing

Exclusive
Exclusive
Local Administration Organisation & Finance
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Elections
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Civil register
Exclusive

Exclusive
Police
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Prisons
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Fire services
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
SOCIAL & HEALTH POLICY
Public Pensions (devolved administration)
Shared
Shared

Pensions & Child Support


Parity[52]
Health Service
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social Services ( Housing & Student Support)
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social welfare
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
food safety and standards
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT
Taxation
Shared
Subject to referendum
Shared
Urban Planning
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Environment
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Housing
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Transport
Shared
Shared
Shared
Economic Development
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Agricult., Forestary & Fisheries
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
CULTURE & EDUCATION
Culture/language
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Primary & Secondary Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
University & Professional Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Sport & recreation
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
RESOURCES & SPENDING
Own Tax resources
Yes
Subject to referendum
No
Allocation by UK Government
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Other resources
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
Devolved Spending as % of total public spending
63%
60%
50%

So housing policy for England is decided by the British Government. The other Nations decide how many houses to build for themselves. Pensions are ‘shared’ which means 90% of Scottish pensions are paid from English tax. Also the British Government can only sell English assets they cannot sell property of the other countries. So if they want to raise money to spend anywhere in the UK they can only sell English assets for that purpose. Every aspect of national policy in England is decided by the British Government.

In the British Parliament itself it is no surprise that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament have as much constitutional right to get involved in discussions about what happens in England as any MP for an English seat would have. In addition, of course, the political parties that are represented in the British Parliament for England are all British parties rather than specifically English and many of the MPs who represent English seats are Scottish or Welsh whereas no English people are elected to office in Scotland or Wales. So the absence of an English Parliament does mean the English interests are not properly represented.

The wider problem is of course that there is not only an English Parliament but there is also no English First Minister or any English Government, so there is no-one ensuring that England is governed in England’s national interests.

One problem that is becoming increasingly pressing is that British politicians fear that England’s size and population will imbalance the Union. Also that the English will make it difficult to continue to appease Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with English money as we become more assertive about our Nation. The British Establishment’s answer to these problems is to try to break England up into “Regions”.

The English Democrats are wholly against England being broken up into “Regions”. Regionalisation is not equivalent to national devolution to the Scottish and Welsh. That is not to say of course that the administration of England isn’t too centralised. There should be a programme of decentralisation to help re-establish our counties and our towns and cities and to make sure that we are less subject to Whitehall red tape and that our local authorities are able to be more democratically run and more accountable.

The point is that, as we move to a situation where the United Kingdom either becomes a Federal system, or more likely dissolves, England needs its own democratic Government in its own Parliament to ensure that England and the English Nation has a proper democratic voice which is heard loudly and assertively over whatever happens in the corridors of power!


Friday, 19 June 2015

The English answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru?


I was recently asked to do a short article on the English Democrats. Here it is:-

The English Democrats were launched in August 2002 in response to Scottish and Welsh national devolution. The English Democrats are the only campaigning English Nationalist Party and we view ourselves very much as the English answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

As a political party the English Democrats campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England.

The English Democrats are part of a developing “English Movement”. At the social level this Movement was illustrated when the People in England were asked in the 2011 Census whether they thought themselves to be English or British or English and British. Over 32 million, 64% said they were “English Only”; outside London that was generally over 70%!

From an organisational point of view the English Movement includes not only the English Democrats, but also the Campaign for an English Parliament. The CEP is a non-party partisan lobby group, campaigning to get an English Parliament; the Workers of England Union which is a union focussing entirely on workers in England, which given the special rules that apply in England, but not in Scotland and Wales, is increasingly needed. There is also the English Lobby which aims to help people with anti-English discrimination court cases.

I think what is happening is that people in England used to think that the British Establishment authorities would properly look after them, but our people are now starting to realise that that is not going to happen. So people who care about the English Cause and about English interests do need to get involved in campaigning for them.

The results of the 2015 General Election mean that all the Nation’s of the United Kingdom are different electorally and have different parties representing them. 


Although the Conservatives made some noises during the election about interest in the English Question, it is unlikely that they will be anything like as interested in acting on those noises now that they are in power. The English Democrats will of course be campaigning to try to get them to fulfil their promises, but what England really needs is a voice for England, which is at least as strong as the Scottish National Party is now for Scotland. Then and only then will English national interests be properly looked after.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Multiculturalist Metropolitan Policing runs amok!


The assaults of the multi-culturalist agenda on the “very idea of England itself” and on Englishness and also on the English nation continue apace with the announcement that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe now wants to get rid of as many “white” officers as possible out of the Metropolitan Police so that he can meet his "diversity and equality" criteria. He coupled that with the sort of statement that only someone whose moral compass has been so utterly corrupted by moral relativism and multi-culturalism that he is no longer able to discriminate between truth and falsehood. Here is what he said:-

“Older white officers could be paid off in order to improve diversity.”…

“I have always said if other people think we are institutionally racist then we are.”

He went on: “It is no good me saying we are not and then saying you must believe me, it’s nonsense, if they believe that.

He went on: “I think it is a label but in some sense there is a truth there for some people … You're very much more likely to be stopped and searched if you're a young black man.

“I can't explain that fully. I can give you reasons but I can't fully explain it. So there is some justification.”

“I think in some ways society is institutionally racist. We see lack of representation in many fields, of which the police are one.”

Sir Bernard said while there was not a problem in recruiting officers from ethnic minorities, London was changing at such a pace that the Met could not keep up.

He suggested one way to redress the balance so the force became more representative, would be to offer financial incentives for older white officers to leave the force early. But with the Met expected to face cuts of £800 (million) over the next few years, he said he would need “exceptional help” from the Government in order to do this.


Yes that is right, the most senior policeman in England has gone through the moral looking glass and can only see an inverted image of what he is talking about!

This is of course a country in which South Yorkshire Police not only in Rotherham but also in Sheffield and the other towns of South Yorkshire and other Police “Services” all over England have been deliberately turning a blind eye to the mass rape of under-age English girls to be used for the vast profit (estimated over £200,000 per girl per year) by criminal gangs of Muslim/Pakistani origin.

This politically correct and careeristly expedient blindness is not so much “Islamisation” but could perhaps it be called “Rotherhamisation”.

This is an area in which, if Sir Bernard had any ability to discern the truth, he would accept his force has been "Racist" that is in its point blank refusal to do their job properly and to investigate allegations of wrong doing by the Islamist former Mayor of Tower Hamlets and his Party. This refusal was on the grounds that it would offend "community relations". That is where the Met is racist in its unwillingness to properly investigate Islamist crimes. It is also protecting Islamist demonstrators whilst bearing down heavily on any dissent from English people. I say those are classic and appalling cases of racism Sir Bernard! That is Anglophobic racism!

It is worth noting just how glaring the alleged offences were in that ex-Mayor Rahmon offences were which the Metropolitan Police “Service” refused to investigate. Here is an interesting article discussing that case from a legal point of view in this week’s Law Society Gazette:-

ELECTION LAW PRIMER


Politics is the ‘conduct of public affairs for private advantage’.

Such was the cynical opinion of US journalist and social satirist, Ambrose Bierce (who died around 1914). But, satire apart, public power is a trustee function to be exercised prudently in the public interest, not for the private benefit of office holders. That is certainly what the public expects and it is the lodestar for all politicians of integrity.

That is why the Tower Hamlets election court judgment (given on 23 April by Judge Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an election commissioner) makes such depressing reading for all with an interest in sound, effective and principled public governance.

For, in the context of an election petition to have the Tower Hamlets mayoral election of 22 May 2014 set aside for corrupt and illegal practices (under the Representation of the People Act 1983), the judgment was a painstaking, robust and excoriating legal critique of the behaviour and regime of solicitor and former mayor, Lutfur Rahman (pictured).

Rahman was found guilty (through his agents and in some cases personally) of various corrupt and illegal election practices under the act including bribery, undue influence, personation, offences concerning postal and proxy votes, providing false information to a registration officer, making false statements as to candidates and paying canvassers.

Rahman was described as ‘evasive and discursive to a very high degree’ and ‘not truthful’. For in ‘one or two crucial matters he was caught out in what were quite blatant lies’. Corrupt or illegal practices were also found to have so extensively prevailed that they may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result of the election.

The election was therefore declared to have been avoided by corrupt or illegal practices and general corruption under relevant provisions of the act. Rahman was also declared ‘incapable of being elected to fill the vacancy or any of the vacancies for which the election was held’ and was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority under section 162 of the act.

The court described Rahman’s ‘right-hand man’ Alibor Choudhury, cabinet member for resources (‘perhaps the slang term “hatchet-man” would be more appropriate’) as ‘a very unsatisfactory witness’ who ‘did not hesitate to tell bare-faced lies in the smug assurance that the mere lawyers listening to him would not have the wit to see through them’. Choudhury was also named as guilty of illegal practices and a corrupt practice.

As to the political ‘modus operandi’, ‘Mr Rahman would retain a statesmanlike posture, making sure that he always said the right thing – particularly in castigating electoral malpractice – while what might be called “the dirty work” was done by Mr Choudhury’.

In the course of a careful and thorough 200-page judgment, an unfortunate picture emerged of abuse of process and political power. Fear of giving offence to racial and religious sensibilities was apparently cynically ‘weaponised’ for political purposes. As the judge noted from the evidence, the line taken by Rahman and his supporters was that any critic of the mayor was playing into the hands of the far-right English Defence League (EDL).

An example of the rather tortured logic used to conflate any criticism of Rahman and his colleagues with racism can be seen in paragraph 261: ‘… criticisms of Mr Rahman by his political opponents are adopted and repeated by the EDL: the EDL is a racist organisation: therefore anyone who criticises Mr Rahman is giving aid and comfort to the EDL: therefore anyone who gives aid and comfort to the EDL is himself a racist: therefore it is racist to criticise Mr Rahman’.

The judge noted that this ‘series of propositions informed all the responses of Mr Rahman and his team to criticisms and may be taken to be an epitome of the thought processes of Mr Alibor Choudhury’.

But although the judge thought it inevitable ‘that Mr Rahman will denounce this judgment as yet another example of the racism and Islamophobia that have hounded him throughout his political life’, he gave any such argument short shrift, pointing out stoutly that it ‘is nothing of the sort’. For: ‘Mr Rahman has made a successful career by ignoring or flouting the law (as this petition demonstrates) and has relied on silencing his critics by accusations of racism and Islamophobia. But his critics have not been silenced and neither has this court.’

It certainly was not. For in tackling the sensitive and difficult matter of undue spiritual influence (and finding that this had been established contrary to section 115(2) of the act) the judge was fearless. Although ‘it would have been easy to evade the issue by holding that, notwithstanding the clear words of the statute, spiritual influence should be treated as obsolete’, nevertheless, to ‘evade an issue or to reach a “fudged” solution in the hope of avoiding offence would be an abdication of the judicial function’.

In the last paragraph of his judgment, the judge highlighted the read-across to other profound social and public dysfunctions that have been caused by failures properly to exercise public functions because of misplaced sensitivities: ‘Events of recent months in contexts very different from electoral malpractice have starkly demonstrated what happens when those in authority are afraid to confront wrongdoing for fear of allegations of racism and Islamophobia. Even in the multicultural society which is 21st century Britain, the law must be applied fairly and equally to everyone. Otherwise we are lost.’

A salient example of course is Rotherham, where in her February 2015 report Louise Casey noted that although children were ‘sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani heritage community’ not ‘enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators’.

In robustly finding that Rotherham Council was ‘not fit for purpose’, in particular ‘failing in its duties to protect vulnerable children and young people from harm’, she highlighted ‘misplaced “political correctness”’ as an ingredient of its unhealthy culture.

But, in its closing pages, the election court judgment highlighted various matters for the Law Commission; including the petition system, which is ‘obsolete and unfit for purpose’. ‘Why,’ the judge asked, since we don’t ‘leave it to the victim of burglary or fraud (a fortiori the victim of rape) to bring civil proceedings against the perpetrator as the only way of achieving justice, do we leave it to the victims of electoral fraud to go it alone?’ A resonant question, illustrated graphically by the uphill struggle of the petitioners who had shown ‘exemplary courage’ in the instant case.

Comment

The Tower Hamlets judgment is lengthy but essential reading for all local government lawyers. As well as being an excellent election law primer, it is also a cautionary tale for all in public service about the deleterious effects of abuse of public power. For the ‘real losers in this case’ were noted as ‘the citizens of Tower Hamlets and, in particular, the Bangladeshi community’. This ‘alarming state of affairs’ being due to ‘the ruthless ambition of one man’.

Nevertheless, Rahman has announced that he will be appealing the judgment and ‘continues to reject all claims of wrongdoing’. According to his website he holds ‘that the integrity of the court system was marred by the bias, slurs and factual inaccuracies in the election judgment’.

However, the judgment is of course what it is, unless it is overturned on appeal.


(Here is the link to the article >>> Election law primer | Feature | Law Society Gazette)

What do you think?