KHOODEELAAR! the inner city, East End of London CAMPAIGN AGAINST unconstitutionality by Crossrail cliques

By©Muhammad Haque
1454 Hrs GMT
London Wednesday 28 May 2008

What is the evidence that justifies the KHOODEELAAR! campaign against the Crossraill hole plot-inviting Tower Hamlets Council DESCRIBING the controlling clique as corrupt?

There is not just one piece of evidence. There are countless items of evidence.

The evidence both shows that the clique is engaged in wring conduct about Corral. But that it is also engage din wrong conduct about the duties it has towards the people in the Borough of Tower Hamlets about other aspects of life that relate to the duties of a local council.

One of the persistent patterns of the lying behaviour by the corrupt clique on the Tower Hamlets 'locally elected' [!!!!!!!] Council has been their refusal to observe basic standards of ethics and behaviour. Ethics and standards of behaviour that on paper any 'locally elected council' 'administration' would be expected to practise and respect.

And how deep, complete, has been the evidence of the Tower Hamlets Council’s wrong and wrongful behaviour?

As deep as the numbers of years over which the clique has been in control. As deep as the particulars and as extensive as the details of the claque’s collusion with Big Business proponents who have got in league with the Tower ~Hamlets Council with the aim of taking over the land and the spaces in the East End of London under covers of plausible projects but in reality for the benefit of Big Business And to benefit the City of London-linked exploiters at the expense of the people of the East End of London the ordinary population in the borough in the end.

This is seen in the dishonest behaviour of the clique that was fronted by Christine Gilbert at the time.

Gilbert as chief executive in the Council made a most untrue assertion about the actual policy of the clique on Crossrail.

This concerned the so-called cabinet meeting of 6 October 2004.


The Khoodeelaar! campaign observed the meeting and it was clear that the community’s serious opposition to the Council’s collusion with the Crossrail scam [it was not a Bill in Parliament yet - that took place nearly 4 months later] was being sidelined by the clique.

So the Khoodeelaar! campaign organised for the relevant aspect of the community's questions to be put to Christine Gilbert in the context of the clique's conduct.

It was never expected that Gilbert would come out with an admission that her clique was in the wrong. Or that the clique had let the community down. But it was essential for the purpose of extensive evidential processing of her conduct that she was given the opportunity to come clean and admit that her clique had indeed been in the wrong.

Regardless of the actual final position Gilbert would take on the subject under reference, it was expected that she should show normal courtesy and behave in accordance with the rules that require the ‘chief officer’ of the local council to properly and timely acknowledge communications she received.

What did Gilbert do?

Did she behave in accordance with the standards expected of the town clerk?

She behaved with undue delay.

She pretended that she had not received the communications containing the questions.

Was that exceptional?

The answer, on the facts, is that NO.

CHRISTINE Gilbert behaved with the same prejudice and with the same lack of accountability towards the whole population in Tower Hamlets that had been the feature of the Tower Hamlets Council controlling clique for decades.


That is why the KHOODEELAAR! campaign has had to establish new criteria so that the history of neglect as shown by the ‘elected’ local council to the people in whose name the council is ‘elected’ is not repeated. That the people are offered accountable representation by the ‘elected’ council.

That was the only way in which the community’s interests could be defected.

That was the only way that the Crossrail hole attacks could be stopped.

Christine Gilbert behaved with no regard for the constitutional duties of the local Council. She behaved opportunistically and on the assumption that there would no ‘issue made on the floor of the council’ by any of the ‘elected members on the 'Tower Hamlets Council'’.

She showed no recognition of the fact that her conduct, her role and the implications of her conduct and of her role could indeed be challenged in court.

Or did she think that the Khoodeelaar! campaign notes to her and to her clique saying that a time would come when their abuse of power and their collusion with the agenda of the Big Business would be challenged in court was not part of the real programme fo action ?

How similar was Christine Gilbert’s disrespect to the ordinary codes of ethical, unaccountable behaviour to the disrespect shown to ethics, morality and the norms of constitutionality by the bureaucracy set up in the name of the ‘House of Lords’ that has been in fact peddling the Crossrail hole plotting agenda desired by Big Business, a la Bechtel of USA ?

[To be continued]