Hackney Council fought-off an attempt by a Stamford Hill school to have a long-running legal action thrown out court using evidence that magistrates branded as a "red herring". In another case a planning inspector doubted the evidence of witnesses.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Sunday, 1 April 2012
George Galloway: Bradford vs Bethnal Green (UPDATED August 2012)
Update 14 October
The Guardian assesses the effect of his rape comments on his Bradford spring: ' He insisted his comments had not caused a setback in Bradford. "I haven't lost support in Bradford, no. The people who spoke to you, or the ones you are speaking to me about, never supported me in the first place," he said. While it is true that national membership of Respect continues to grow – having reached 2,000 now, compared with just 300 before the Bradford byelection, according to the party secretary Chris Chilvers – it is disingenuous for Galloway to claim he has not lost support in the constituency.
At the beginning of this month George Galloway said he would sue the NUS (BBC) for accusing him of being a rape denier.
Friday, 23 March 2012
Synagogue losses appeal in which Hackney Council accused witnesses of lying
A long-running planning dispute between Hackney Council and a synagogue in Stamford Hill - in which the council accused Ultra Orthodox Jewish (Charedi) witnesses of lying - has been won by the council.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Hackney Council claims Charedi witnesses lied in planning inquiry
A planning inquiry into an unauthorised synagogue in Stamford Hill ended with the council accusing ultra orthodox Jewish witnesses of lying.
Friday, 17 February 2012
"Notorious" article on Charedi men cleared by Press Complaints Commission
This blog has more than once referred to an article written by Jewish Chronicle columnist and historian Geoffrey Alderman - mainly as an example of how heated the debate between different sections of the Jewish community can become.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
Charedi community must tolerate inconvenience like everyone else
This is the statement made by Labour Councillor Ned Mulready at Hackney Council's planning sub committee on Tuesday 10 January.
He is talking about a private school for ultra orthodox Jewish pupils at 91 Amhurst Park which is one of many schools set up around Stamford Hill without planning permission.
"The judgement of whether or not to grant planning permission for a school comes down to the need for the school versus the harm it causes to the amenity of residents.
I’ll first address the need for the school. There is absolutely no need for this school to be on this specific site. The school has been built because a group of parents in the local area have decided to opt out of state education for their kids.
Now that is their right but it is a choice. They might see it as an obligation but, in law, it isn’t. It’s a choice. And we must see it as such.
The fact that there is a large group of people in an area with a preference for religious schooling over state education, in my book, doesn’t mean there is a need for a religious school, just that there is a desire.
Now, I can see how it could be argued that if there is a desire for a certain specific type of education from a large part of the local community - a type of education they have a right to choose for themselves - then you could say there is a need for a school which would provide that sort of education.
I wouldn’t agree with that definition of need.
But I can see how you could get to it.
So if we take that as given. Assume that there is a need for a school of this type (I refute that but lets just go with it).
We then come down to the judgement of where the school needs to be. Or rather, where there is a need for the school to be.
There is absolutely no reason why this school has to be built on that site or even in the Stamford Hill area.
You don’t have a right to a school on the same couple of streets that you live on. There is absolutely nothing in any law or regulation that says you do. You have decided that none of the local state schools are for you and that you are going to build your own. Fine. That’s your right.
But the onus is surely on you to find appropriate land to build on. And if you can’t find that land in the small area of Stamford Hill then you move out a bit until you do. And if the site you find isn’t perfectly located for the children who will go there, then you just have to deal with it.
And I think this is something that the Charedi community generally will have to come to terms with as the number of children in the community grows exponentially.
I travelled for two and half hours everyday I went to school there and back. That was a massive inconvenience. But I don’t think for a second that I have a right not to be inconvenienced.
I am aware that there are Charedi customs and traditions regarding having schools and synagogues in the vicinity. And I make no judgement on that. We are a religiously tolerant society and I would hate for that to be threatened.
But we are not a religious society and in law we see those who follow religious customs and traditions as doing so through choice. Therefore the fact that there may be Charedi customs and traditions regarding this should have absolutely no bearing on the assessment of need."
Cllr Mulready sits on the planning committee but was not allowed in the room during the vote or to take part in other discussions after declaring a personal interest in this planning application. Some of the issues here were addressed in the last piece: Does school row expose 'Charedi coup'?
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Last Christmas I gave you this card... did you like it?
Heather James' drawing of Ridley Road market was sent to 45,000 people in Hackney North last year. On her blog she wonders if anyone liked it and points out that she kept it as non-Christian as possible. Who was it from?
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Court excludes six from Stepney mosque
The trustees of a ‘portakabin’ mosque in Stepney have succeeded in excluding six worshippers from their premises but have racked-up a £100,000 legal bill in doing so.
The bill is being paid using £600,000 of funds raised to build a new mosque.
Despite ordering the exclusions, High Court Judge Elizabeth Slade accepted that the mosque’s trustees could have initiated the legal action to silence legitimate complaints about how the mosque has been run.
But she said that the allegations made by the mosque’s trustees – that they were afraid of the defendants – should be treated as legitimate at least until they went to trial.
She said: “The claimants have established a serious issue to be tried in respect of the allegation of trespass against each of the respondents to these allegations. “
But she said: “In my judgement there is likely to be considerable factual dispute as to whether the trustees had cause (to exclude the defendants) or whether they did so for proper purposes. These factual issues will have to be resolved at a later hearing. At this stage I can’t resolve such factual disputes.”
She said: “The history of litigation between parties shows that there is considerable animosity between some directors and defendants.”
Her judgement included the witness statement of three mosque trustees who did not believe that their colleagues’ decision to take legal action was a legitimate or responsible use of mosque funds.
The ‘rebel’ trustees said: “We understand that the reason some trustees are seeking these exclusions is because they feel intimidated by their (the defendants) presence. It is our opinion that any intimidation does not result from the (defendants)
“The trustees are facing allegations of serious wrong doing… it’s our opinion that the matter has been referred to the Charity Commission it therefore seems to us that this (legal action) has more to do with the feelings of (the trustees)… to prevent freedom of expression.”
Judge Slade referred to the view of the ‘rebel’ trustees that the decision to take legal action: “shows how far they (the trustees) are prepared to go in the suppression of criticism of their allegations of wrong doing.“
In her judgement she said that she had weighed up a number of issues including a recent peaceful period at the mosque: “It may be that peace has been preserved because the trustees have stayed away.”
But decided that excluding the defendants was the fairest course until trial, saying that not to exclude them would be consenting to “continuing interference” in the activities of the trustees.
The bill is being paid using £600,000 of funds raised to build a new mosque.
Despite ordering the exclusions, High Court Judge Elizabeth Slade accepted that the mosque’s trustees could have initiated the legal action to silence legitimate complaints about how the mosque has been run.But she said that the allegations made by the mosque’s trustees – that they were afraid of the defendants – should be treated as legitimate at least until they went to trial.
She said: “The claimants have established a serious issue to be tried in respect of the allegation of trespass against each of the respondents to these allegations. “
But she said: “In my judgement there is likely to be considerable factual dispute as to whether the trustees had cause (to exclude the defendants) or whether they did so for proper purposes. These factual issues will have to be resolved at a later hearing. At this stage I can’t resolve such factual disputes.”
She said: “The history of litigation between parties shows that there is considerable animosity between some directors and defendants.”
Her judgement included the witness statement of three mosque trustees who did not believe that their colleagues’ decision to take legal action was a legitimate or responsible use of mosque funds.
The ‘rebel’ trustees said: “We understand that the reason some trustees are seeking these exclusions is because they feel intimidated by their (the defendants) presence. It is our opinion that any intimidation does not result from the (defendants)
“The trustees are facing allegations of serious wrong doing… it’s our opinion that the matter has been referred to the Charity Commission it therefore seems to us that this (legal action) has more to do with the feelings of (the trustees)… to prevent freedom of expression.”
Judge Slade referred to the view of the ‘rebel’ trustees that the decision to take legal action: “shows how far they (the trustees) are prepared to go in the suppression of criticism of their allegations of wrong doing.“
In her judgement she said that she had weighed up a number of issues including a recent peaceful period at the mosque: “It may be that peace has been preserved because the trustees have stayed away.”
But decided that excluding the defendants was the fairest course until trial, saying that not to exclude them would be consenting to “continuing interference” in the activities of the trustees.
A trial is likely at the beginning of November.
The judge said: “It’s a serious matter to deprive the trespass defendants of access to their chosen place of worship. However, if relief were granted until trial, that would not deprive the trespass defendants of the ability to worship. There are other mosques in the area. It has not been suggested that they would be barred from attending these.
“Taking all these matters into account I grant interlocutory relief restraining defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 from entering or remaining on the specified premises until trial or further order.”
One of the key areas of concern raised by the judge during the hearing was the legitimacy of the trustees decision in revoking the licenses of the defendants to attend the mosque. It became clear during the hearing that the licences were revoked by the mosque’s solicitor, Peter Miller of Bowling & Co.
Also that Mr Miller had drawn up a resolution that was passed in an emergency board meeting at the mosque at 12.30am on August the 25th, designed to ratify his action to withdraw these licences.
Judge Slade said: “In my judgement, in the material before me, there are serious issues to be tried:
a) Whether the licences of the trespass defendants to be on the claimants land was revoked.
b) If so, when and by whom?
c) If by trustees whether they had good cause to do so and did so for proper purposes
d) If by an individual whether he had authority to do so.”
Another area of concern to the judge was what she had previously described as the “appalling” state of Bowling and Co’s provision of paperwork to the defendants’ legal team and to the court.
After Judge Slade’s judgement was read out in court there was a heated discussion about costs.
Previous reports:
The judge said: “It’s a serious matter to deprive the trespass defendants of access to their chosen place of worship. However, if relief were granted until trial, that would not deprive the trespass defendants of the ability to worship. There are other mosques in the area. It has not been suggested that they would be barred from attending these.
“Taking all these matters into account I grant interlocutory relief restraining defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 from entering or remaining on the specified premises until trial or further order.”
One of the key areas of concern raised by the judge during the hearing was the legitimacy of the trustees decision in revoking the licenses of the defendants to attend the mosque. It became clear during the hearing that the licences were revoked by the mosque’s solicitor, Peter Miller of Bowling & Co.
Also that Mr Miller had drawn up a resolution that was passed in an emergency board meeting at the mosque at 12.30am on August the 25th, designed to ratify his action to withdraw these licences.
Judge Slade said: “In my judgement, in the material before me, there are serious issues to be tried:
a) Whether the licences of the trespass defendants to be on the claimants land was revoked.
b) If so, when and by whom?
c) If by trustees whether they had good cause to do so and did so for proper purposes
d) If by an individual whether he had authority to do so.”
Another area of concern to the judge was what she had previously described as the “appalling” state of Bowling and Co’s provision of paperwork to the defendants’ legal team and to the court.
After Judge Slade’s judgement was read out in court there was a heated discussion about costs.
Previous reports:
Mosque dispute: legal paperwork is "disgrace" and "appalling"
A Stepney mosque faces massive legal costs as its management committee attempts to exclude opponents from the premises.
The management of the Shah Jalal Mosque on Duckett Street in Stepney intends to sue the same worshippers for libel and has initiated further legal proceedings in order to take full control of the mosque's bank accounts. The potential costs could be enormous and put an end to the new mosque plans.
As the number of hearings and bundles of paperwork mount the defendants claim that the mosque has spent £90,000 of charity's £600,000 on its solicitors.
At the hearing on Tuesday a number of technical details were discussed.
The presiding Judge, Justice Elizabeth Slade heard the claimants’ case for excluding 11 worshippers. But the hearing was held up several times by inconsistent paperwork provided by the claimants’ Stratford-based solicitors Bowling and Co.
At one point in the hearing Judge Slade said: “This is a disgrace, that the documents haven’t been properly serviced and that counsel (for the defendants) is meant to be dealing with this case without the same documents that others are dealing with in court.”
The judge later described the situation as “an appalling state of affairs” and demanded that the claimants representatives get their paperwork in order. One of the claimants’ junior solicitors was asked to help the defendants’ barrister identify the documents the court was considering.
Both parties claimed to be trying to minimise costs.
A number of allegations have been made by both sides in the dispute. The claimants say that the 11 defendants have used violence, intimidation and defamation to take control of the mosque.
The allegations against the claimants include theft, fraud and having abused their positions of responsibility within the mosque.
One of the key issues concerning Judge Slade was that the claimants' case was not specific to each defendant: “I’m concerned about the lack of specificity even if the 25 July meeting is taken as authorised, the word ‘associates’ is an extremely broad term."
She asked the prosecution to provide individually identifiable evidence at the Wednesday hearing.
Both sides have consulted Muslim clerics to substantiate their claims about the use of the mosque.
At one point the Judge said: “Are you saying that members of the congregation who express a view that they have lost faith in those who are running the organisation warrants the banning of these individuals from the premises?"
Mr Cakebread, barrister for the claimants said: "No. If I’m inclined to take the view that my priest is not a good priest or the arch bishop of Canterbury (is not a good bishop), then I’m entitled to express that view.
"But am I entitled to go into that church and explain this view from the pulpit? My submission is that no, you are not and not entitled to put up notices that are highly defamatory of my priest or the ArchBishop of Canterbury.
“Members of the congregation are entitled to express their view but what we say is that they are not entitled to express their views inside the mosque."
Counsel for the defence, Mr Al Mustakim, pointed out that the mosque's imam, not its trustees was the equivalent to a priest.
He also said: “What in effect these trustees are trying to do is bypass the other 15 trustees on a point which is so fundamental it goes to the very heart of the purpose and function of the mosque. It goes against the teaching of the Koran which forbids people from excluding fellow worshippers in undertaking their prayer and flies in the face of what a mosque is all about."
A crowd of about forty people filled court five apparently in support of the defendants.
The management of the Shah Jalal Mosque on Duckett Street in Stepney intends to sue the same worshippers for libel and has initiated further legal proceedings in order to take full control of the mosque's bank accounts. The potential costs could be enormous and put an end to the new mosque plans.
As the number of hearings and bundles of paperwork mount the defendants claim that the mosque has spent £90,000 of charity's £600,000 on its solicitors.
At the hearing on Tuesday a number of technical details were discussed.
The presiding Judge, Justice Elizabeth Slade heard the claimants’ case for excluding 11 worshippers. But the hearing was held up several times by inconsistent paperwork provided by the claimants’ Stratford-based solicitors Bowling and Co.
At one point in the hearing Judge Slade said: “This is a disgrace, that the documents haven’t been properly serviced and that counsel (for the defendants) is meant to be dealing with this case without the same documents that others are dealing with in court.”
The judge later described the situation as “an appalling state of affairs” and demanded that the claimants representatives get their paperwork in order. One of the claimants’ junior solicitors was asked to help the defendants’ barrister identify the documents the court was considering.
Both parties claimed to be trying to minimise costs.
A number of allegations have been made by both sides in the dispute. The claimants say that the 11 defendants have used violence, intimidation and defamation to take control of the mosque.
The allegations against the claimants include theft, fraud and having abused their positions of responsibility within the mosque.
One of the key issues concerning Judge Slade was that the claimants' case was not specific to each defendant: “I’m concerned about the lack of specificity even if the 25 July meeting is taken as authorised, the word ‘associates’ is an extremely broad term."
She asked the prosecution to provide individually identifiable evidence at the Wednesday hearing.
Both sides have consulted Muslim clerics to substantiate their claims about the use of the mosque.
At one point the Judge said: “Are you saying that members of the congregation who express a view that they have lost faith in those who are running the organisation warrants the banning of these individuals from the premises?"
Mr Cakebread, barrister for the claimants said: "No. If I’m inclined to take the view that my priest is not a good priest or the arch bishop of Canterbury (is not a good bishop), then I’m entitled to express that view.
"But am I entitled to go into that church and explain this view from the pulpit? My submission is that no, you are not and not entitled to put up notices that are highly defamatory of my priest or the ArchBishop of Canterbury.
“Members of the congregation are entitled to express their view but what we say is that they are not entitled to express their views inside the mosque."
Counsel for the defence, Mr Al Mustakim, pointed out that the mosque's imam, not its trustees was the equivalent to a priest.
He also said: “What in effect these trustees are trying to do is bypass the other 15 trustees on a point which is so fundamental it goes to the very heart of the purpose and function of the mosque. It goes against the teaching of the Koran which forbids people from excluding fellow worshippers in undertaking their prayer and flies in the face of what a mosque is all about."
A crowd of about forty people filled court five apparently in support of the defendants.
Previous report: Is a mosque a corporation?
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Hackney's 'groups of friends' problem. Diane on religion
Today's Hackney Gazette has a quote from Detective Chief Inspector John Macdonald who led the Eddie Thompson murder inquiry. In a piece on page three called "Assassination gun hidden in boy's bag" the Gazette refers to the murderers as "reckless gangsters".
Discussing the history of the gun used in the killing, DCI Macdonald opted for less inflamatory language: "I think that firearm was used by a group of friends as and when they needed it and used other people to hold it." Is he purposefully avoiding the word gang?
A couple of days ago Blood and Property asked whether the 15-year-old carrying the gun used to kill Eddie Thompson might have been the same 15-year-old described as a member of a Vietnamese gang by the Mirror's crime correspondent.
Diane Abbott on religion: The Church Times reports: "Diane Abbott, who was the first black woman to be elected to Parlia ment, said that more people in her constituency in Hackney attended a faith meeting on a Sunday than any type of political meeting; “so I take issues of church and faith very seriously.”
“The lesson for the Labour Party from Christian Socialist history is that we are all human beings,” she said. “We have to stay close to people, and listen and respect people. Politics can’t be about just the next opinion poll, but practice based on values.”
On her website Diane provides stats showing 47% of her constituents are Christians.
Back in February Diane told Blood and Property pretty much the same thing: "A large proportion of my constituents go to church so understanding religion is important to me. Huge amounts of money are being poured into the Christian Party here in Hackney, as your blog has pointed out. This seems to suggest religion may be on the agenda of politicians in the future but it will only really make a difference if candidates can win the support of people outside of their churches as well as within them."
Diane did not give away her personal views on religion and the supernatural when Blood and Property asked - except to say she hasn't had any supernatural experiences (Do Hackney Politicians believe in ghosts?)
But in a 2009 speech in parliament she said: "We have to look at how we work with the Churches. I admit that I am not a regular church-goer myself, but often the only bastion of order, values and boundaries in inner-city areas is the Church."
So she does go to church which is more than we know about Meg Hillier? When Blood and Property interviewed Meg she said: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job." And on whether or not she believes in ghosts she said: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
Discussing the history of the gun used in the killing, DCI Macdonald opted for less inflamatory language: "I think that firearm was used by a group of friends as and when they needed it and used other people to hold it." Is he purposefully avoiding the word gang?
A couple of days ago Blood and Property asked whether the 15-year-old carrying the gun used to kill Eddie Thompson might have been the same 15-year-old described as a member of a Vietnamese gang by the Mirror's crime correspondent.
Diane Abbott on religion: The Church Times reports: "Diane Abbott, who was the first black woman to be elected to Parlia ment, said that more people in her constituency in Hackney attended a faith meeting on a Sunday than any type of political meeting; “so I take issues of church and faith very seriously.”
“The lesson for the Labour Party from Christian Socialist history is that we are all human beings,” she said. “We have to stay close to people, and listen and respect people. Politics can’t be about just the next opinion poll, but practice based on values.”
On her website Diane provides stats showing 47% of her constituents are Christians.
Back in February Diane told Blood and Property pretty much the same thing: "A large proportion of my constituents go to church so understanding religion is important to me. Huge amounts of money are being poured into the Christian Party here in Hackney, as your blog has pointed out. This seems to suggest religion may be on the agenda of politicians in the future but it will only really make a difference if candidates can win the support of people outside of their churches as well as within them."
Diane did not give away her personal views on religion and the supernatural when Blood and Property asked - except to say she hasn't had any supernatural experiences (Do Hackney Politicians believe in ghosts?)
But in a 2009 speech in parliament she said: "We have to look at how we work with the Churches. I admit that I am not a regular church-goer myself, but often the only bastion of order, values and boundaries in inner-city areas is the Church."
So she does go to church which is more than we know about Meg Hillier? When Blood and Property interviewed Meg she said: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job." And on whether or not she believes in ghosts she said: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
Monday, 28 June 2010
Why is a famous economist living in 'grimmest' Hackney?
Tim Harford, the FT's Undercover Economist (author of The Undercover Economist and Logic of Life and probably other things too) explains how chicken shops, massage parlours, crack dens and murders on your doorstep affect the price of your property.
In a blog post called "Fried chicken versus fresh air" he writes: "I asked the estate agent Anne Currell to tell me what would really bring down the value of my house. She sounded like she was reading from my neighbourhood yellow pages: pubs with late licences; takeaway food; garages; tyre shops; massage parlours; and betting shops. She didn’t mention crack dens, but I think they’re not good for property values either."
Meanwhile a recent post by Paul Stott at I intend to escape... notes how Hackney Homes is turning to religion.
He asks: "Should Hackney Homes be working with an organisation that seeks the 'advancement of Islam'? It is certainly ironic that the Turkish state was predicated on the belief that progress and advancement could only come from reducing the role of religion in government, yet here in the UK the opposite process now seems to be actively encouraged!"
Considering the many varied views of Hackney's politicians on the issue of the supernatural - I wonder how decisions are made about which religions are chosen to work with?
In a blog post called "Fried chicken versus fresh air" he writes: "I asked the estate agent Anne Currell to tell me what would really bring down the value of my house. She sounded like she was reading from my neighbourhood yellow pages: pubs with late licences; takeaway food; garages; tyre shops; massage parlours; and betting shops. She didn’t mention crack dens, but I think they’re not good for property values either."
Meanwhile a recent post by Paul Stott at I intend to escape... notes how Hackney Homes is turning to religion.
He asks: "Should Hackney Homes be working with an organisation that seeks the 'advancement of Islam'? It is certainly ironic that the Turkish state was predicated on the belief that progress and advancement could only come from reducing the role of religion in government, yet here in the UK the opposite process now seems to be actively encouraged!"
Considering the many varied views of Hackney's politicians on the issue of the supernatural - I wonder how decisions are made about which religions are chosen to work with?
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Black female Hackney vicar at centre of political/religious controversy
The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Telegraph report that Rose Hudson-Wilkin, vicar of Haggerston and Dalston since 1998, has been selected as the next Chaplain to the House of Commons. But has she also become a pawn in a battle between church and state?
Her appointment was not out of the blue, she was on a shortlist and had been the Queen's Chaplain.
But her new job had previously combined the roles of commons chaplain and Sub-Dean of Westminster Abbey. However a rift between the Speaker of the House, who chooses the commons chaplain, and the Dean of Westminster Abbey, who chooses the sub-dean, means the two roles are split.
According to the Mail, the problem was caused by the Speaker of the House of Commons refusing to accept the choice of the Dean of Westminster Abbey: "Commons Speaker John Bercow has refused to give the job to the candidate picked by the Dean of Westminster Abbey, the Very Rev Dr John Hall, who answers to the Queen.
But, according to the Telegraph, it was the other way around. The problem was caused by the Dean of Westminster refusing to accept the choice of Mr Bercow: "Mr Bercow's historic appointment was threatened by the Very Rev John Hall, the Dean of Westminster Abbey, who was strongly opposed to such a move."
Either way, it looks like another prominent Hackney figure will be distracted from the borough as it faces what could be its toughest period in decades. (Meg Hillier will be seeking a place in the shadow cabinet while Diane Abbott seeks to lead the Labour Party)
According to the Mail, Hudson-Wilkin "intends to retain her parish in Hackney" but one of her tasks will be "to read the prayers at the start of each day’s sitting" in Westminster.
A bit of background on Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin:
“I don’t believe that children have any rights not to be smacked, carte blanche. I’ve always said to my children that the only rights that they have is to go to school, to get an education, to be respectful in the home, and respectful to their teachers. That’s the only rights I’m interested in. Everything else? Non negotiable.
Her appointment was not out of the blue, she was on a shortlist and had been the Queen's Chaplain.
But her new job had previously combined the roles of commons chaplain and Sub-Dean of Westminster Abbey. However a rift between the Speaker of the House, who chooses the commons chaplain, and the Dean of Westminster Abbey, who chooses the sub-dean, means the two roles are split.
According to the Mail, the problem was caused by the Speaker of the House of Commons refusing to accept the choice of the Dean of Westminster Abbey: "Commons Speaker John Bercow has refused to give the job to the candidate picked by the Dean of Westminster Abbey, the Very Rev Dr John Hall, who answers to the Queen.
But, according to the Telegraph, it was the other way around. The problem was caused by the Dean of Westminster refusing to accept the choice of Mr Bercow: "Mr Bercow's historic appointment was threatened by the Very Rev John Hall, the Dean of Westminster Abbey, who was strongly opposed to such a move."
Either way, it looks like another prominent Hackney figure will be distracted from the borough as it faces what could be its toughest period in decades. (Meg Hillier will be seeking a place in the shadow cabinet while Diane Abbott seeks to lead the Labour Party)
According to the Mail, Hudson-Wilkin "intends to retain her parish in Hackney" but one of her tasks will be "to read the prayers at the start of each day’s sitting" in Westminster.
A bit of background on Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin:
The Mail describes her as: "Outspoken Mrs Hudson-Wilkin, 49 – who is married with three children – has already been tipped to be the first woman bishop. A controversial figure, she led calls for the Church of England to apologise for its role in slavery and has lambasted racism in the clergy. A friend said her views were ‘radical, Left of centre’."
Here's an interesting interview with the Times from 2008: “Some members struggled with me. They had been told that no priest worth anything would want to come to Haggerston. On top of that I’m a woman and black.... What you really want is a white male priest. But I will not be ignored in my own church.”
and On whether it is right to beat children (film reviewed by Operation Black Vote): "Hackney vicar Rev’d Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who says that parents beat their children “out of love...“I don’t believe that children have any rights not to be smacked, carte blanche. I’ve always said to my children that the only rights that they have is to go to school, to get an education, to be respectful in the home, and respectful to their teachers. That’s the only rights I’m interested in. Everything else? Non negotiable.
“What I see in Britain is people not having a line that says child/adult. So right now we’re telling our 16 year old that they are adults, and they’re not. We’re leaving our kids to grow themselves, and that doesn’t happen in the Caribbean. In the Caribbean, we grow them.”
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Is Hackney fragmenting? Is Diane's support fragmenting?
Would the leaflet pictured below qualify as communalism? Or the opposite? The message is from Muslim Lib Dem councillor, Dawood Akhoon, and he is calling on Muslim brothers and sisters to vote Lib Dem. As his two Lib Dem colleagues in the Cazenove ward are both ultra-orthodox Jews, Ian Sharer and Abraham Jacobson, it is hardly what you'd expect in a propaganda leaflet aimed at Muslims.
But the person who sent it to Blood and Property believes it has a bearing on the debate about communalism. It is clear that this leaflet was not intended for general release - so does it confirm the views of Geoffrey Alderman that Hackney Politicians have to interpret the community along racial or religious lines? (for the opposite view: Abraham Pinter responds to Geoffrey Alderman)
Not sure if the photos below will be legible but the leaflet starts off with "Dear Brother/Sister in Islam" and goes on to say: "As Muslims and residents of Hackney, we have many challenges ahead both locally and nationally."
It ends saying: "We have always served and supported the Muslim Community and we are all committed to continue to do so."
Meanwhile Diane Abbott laments the days when ethnic communities stood shoulder to shoulder against racists. In a piece in the Independent she writes: "The other strength of the anti-racist movement of that era was that it was genuinely multi-racial. Black, white and Asian went to Southall to resist the fascists. Since then we have seen a regrettable fragmentation. First Asian people resisted being called black. Now Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all insist on a separate identities. A distinct cultural identity is one thing. But the struggle against racism has been immeasurably weakened by the political fragmentation we have seen in past decades."
Could Diane's vote base be suffering from the same problem? Earlier this week her Lib Dem opponent Keith Angus claimed that Afro-Caribbean voters were deserting her - Diane has yet to reply to Blood and Property's questions on this.
But what about Hackney's African population? Are Nigerians still smarting over Diane's 2006 article: Think Jamaica is bad, try Nigeria? Christian Party leader, George Hargreaves has focused on British-Nigerian voters. Could African voter identify more with his Christian Party? Could Diane's voter base, as well as the anti-racist movement, be suffering from fragmentation?
(Hackney Christians: Money, power, demonic possession)
But the person who sent it to Blood and Property believes it has a bearing on the debate about communalism. It is clear that this leaflet was not intended for general release - so does it confirm the views of Geoffrey Alderman that Hackney Politicians have to interpret the community along racial or religious lines? (for the opposite view: Abraham Pinter responds to Geoffrey Alderman)
Not sure if the photos below will be legible but the leaflet starts off with "Dear Brother/Sister in Islam" and goes on to say: "As Muslims and residents of Hackney, we have many challenges ahead both locally and nationally."
It ends saying: "We have always served and supported the Muslim Community and we are all committed to continue to do so."
Meanwhile Diane Abbott laments the days when ethnic communities stood shoulder to shoulder against racists. In a piece in the Independent she writes: "The other strength of the anti-racist movement of that era was that it was genuinely multi-racial. Black, white and Asian went to Southall to resist the fascists. Since then we have seen a regrettable fragmentation. First Asian people resisted being called black. Now Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all insist on a separate identities. A distinct cultural identity is one thing. But the struggle against racism has been immeasurably weakened by the political fragmentation we have seen in past decades."
Could Diane's vote base be suffering from the same problem? Earlier this week her Lib Dem opponent Keith Angus claimed that Afro-Caribbean voters were deserting her - Diane has yet to reply to Blood and Property's questions on this.
But what about Hackney's African population? Are Nigerians still smarting over Diane's 2006 article: Think Jamaica is bad, try Nigeria? Christian Party leader, George Hargreaves has focused on British-Nigerian voters. Could African voter identify more with his Christian Party? Could Diane's voter base, as well as the anti-racist movement, be suffering from fragmentation?
(Hackney Christians: Money, power, demonic possession)
Abraham Pinter responds to Geoffrey Alderman
Abraham Pinter has responded to points raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics. In the piece Alderman says that Hackney politics are driven by religion and ethnicity, not class, as elsewhere in the UK.
Pinter says that Alderman is looking at the Hackney Jewish community as an outsider and is both out of date and out of touch.
COMMUNAL VOTING:
Perhaps the most contentious issue is whether the ultra-orthodox Jewish community only votes for candidates from within its own community.
Pinter does not agree that this issue is described correctly by Alderman and says that both of their views will be put to the test on May 6th in the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey.
Pinter said that the Conservative party had come close to defeating Labour in the ward last year. He believes that this was due to 90% of ultra-orthodox Jewish voters supporting the Conservative Party which happened to be the only party fielding an ultra-orthodox candidate. He also said that this, combined with growth in the ultra-orthodox community over that short period, should point to a success for the Conservatives.
But he said that Labour would retain the seat because of the work done by the party to improve relations with the community – particularly over planning issues.
“The Labour Party took seriously what happened and they’ve taken steps to recognise the needs of the community.”
He said: “It is a test but I am confident. We know what goes on in the community because we are a school and we get a lot of feed back.”
If Labour retains the seat it would, he believes, disprove some of Alderman's claims. The victory would be achieved despite the Labour party having no representative from within the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, while the Conservatives do.
However he did acknowledge that it is common within the community to vote for a recognisable name, but he said that if a non-Charedi candidate could prove that he or she had the community’s interests at heart, they would be supported. He said that the Labour Party in Haringey had achieved this.
THE ROLE OF WOMEN:
Pinter said that Alderman was out of touch on the role of women in the community. One of the organisation that Alderman talks about is Agudas Israel and Pinter points out that its chief executive of Agudas Israel Housing Association is Ita Symons.
He said that Symons was one of the most powerful people in the community. As a Labour supporter he said he didn't think the accolade of the Jewish community's Margaret Thatcher was a compliment, but said that the comparison had been made.
Pinter also pointed to Interlink which he said may now be a more powerful organisation: “Interlink is one of the most powerful organisations in the community and it is politically run by women. He pointed to a recent article in the Jewish Chronicle: Come on, women, lets get equal."
He said that Bella Sharer standing in the Brownswood ward in Hackney would only be a novelty if she won. He said it was common practice for wives to stand as paper candidates in seats they have no chance of winning. Unlike Ian Sharer, he does not believe the Lib Dems have much chance in Brownswood.
IS THIS A RACIST COMMUNITY?
One of the issues raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics referred to an article written in the Jewish Tribune back in 1978. Alderman said that the article had demonstrated a set of anti-black attitudes that still exist in the community, but which are not published because of the reaction from beyond the community.
But Pinter said the author of the article had been an older member of the community and that the sentiment had been that Jews should not fight battles on behalf of the black community – or they all faced the risks of a backlash.
He said that there were a number of the problems with making an argument like Alderman’s.
Pinter pointed to his own attitudes at the time: “The way I grew up, when I was an 18-year-old - 45 years ago - when I saw a successful black person, I always felt myself to have positive views, as in "isn’t it wonderful that a black person can do well here" now I think that this view might be racist because it is patronising. But that’s the way it was back then."
He said that views of society at large had changed and they had also changed in Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community.
He said: "I think it's worth mentioning that the Hamodia is now the main newspaper read by the community and not the Jewish Tribune, but as I said Alderman is an Historian."
Pinter says that Alderman is looking at the Hackney Jewish community as an outsider and is both out of date and out of touch.
COMMUNAL VOTING:
Perhaps the most contentious issue is whether the ultra-orthodox Jewish community only votes for candidates from within its own community.
Pinter does not agree that this issue is described correctly by Alderman and says that both of their views will be put to the test on May 6th in the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey.
Pinter said that the Conservative party had come close to defeating Labour in the ward last year. He believes that this was due to 90% of ultra-orthodox Jewish voters supporting the Conservative Party which happened to be the only party fielding an ultra-orthodox candidate. He also said that this, combined with growth in the ultra-orthodox community over that short period, should point to a success for the Conservatives.
But he said that Labour would retain the seat because of the work done by the party to improve relations with the community – particularly over planning issues.
“The Labour Party took seriously what happened and they’ve taken steps to recognise the needs of the community.”
He said: “It is a test but I am confident. We know what goes on in the community because we are a school and we get a lot of feed back.”
If Labour retains the seat it would, he believes, disprove some of Alderman's claims. The victory would be achieved despite the Labour party having no representative from within the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, while the Conservatives do.
However he did acknowledge that it is common within the community to vote for a recognisable name, but he said that if a non-Charedi candidate could prove that he or she had the community’s interests at heart, they would be supported. He said that the Labour Party in Haringey had achieved this.
THE ROLE OF WOMEN:
Pinter said that Alderman was out of touch on the role of women in the community. One of the organisation that Alderman talks about is Agudas Israel and Pinter points out that its chief executive of Agudas Israel Housing Association is Ita Symons.
He said that Symons was one of the most powerful people in the community. As a Labour supporter he said he didn't think the accolade of the Jewish community's Margaret Thatcher was a compliment, but said that the comparison had been made.
Pinter also pointed to Interlink which he said may now be a more powerful organisation: “Interlink is one of the most powerful organisations in the community and it is politically run by women. He pointed to a recent article in the Jewish Chronicle: Come on, women, lets get equal."
He said that Bella Sharer standing in the Brownswood ward in Hackney would only be a novelty if she won. He said it was common practice for wives to stand as paper candidates in seats they have no chance of winning. Unlike Ian Sharer, he does not believe the Lib Dems have much chance in Brownswood.
IS THIS A RACIST COMMUNITY?
One of the issues raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics referred to an article written in the Jewish Tribune back in 1978. Alderman said that the article had demonstrated a set of anti-black attitudes that still exist in the community, but which are not published because of the reaction from beyond the community.
But Pinter said the author of the article had been an older member of the community and that the sentiment had been that Jews should not fight battles on behalf of the black community – or they all faced the risks of a backlash.
He said that there were a number of the problems with making an argument like Alderman’s.
Pinter pointed to his own attitudes at the time: “The way I grew up, when I was an 18-year-old - 45 years ago - when I saw a successful black person, I always felt myself to have positive views, as in "isn’t it wonderful that a black person can do well here" now I think that this view might be racist because it is patronising. But that’s the way it was back then."
He said that views of society at large had changed and they had also changed in Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community.
He said: "I think it's worth mentioning that the Hamodia is now the main newspaper read by the community and not the Jewish Tribune, but as I said Alderman is an Historian."
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Stop worrying and learn to love race politics
Ethnicity and religion drive Hackney politics, not class, says Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a leading academic on British elections and modern British Jewry.
Alderman, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle and writer for the Guardian and the Times (profile) tells Blood and Property that politicians are deluding themselves if they don't accept that people vote along ethnic lines.
GEOFFREY ALDERMAN: I went to Northwold Road school and then the Grocer’s Company's School Hackney Downs, which, in its time was the best state school in the country. From there I went to Oxford. I am the official historian of Hackney Downs school and when I went to the school it was so Jewish that it closed on the Jewish holidays, there was no point in keeping it open. The few Christian boys there wanted to know when the Jewish holidays were so they could find out when the school would be shut.
I’m not sure if the Jewish community is larger or smaller than it was, probably larger now. My grandfather moved from Spitalfields to Hackney circa 1937 and rented the property my parents later bought in Walsingham Road. The Jewish community I grew up in in the 1950s and 60s was traditional but, on the whole, not a strictly practising Jewish community. The black hat Jews of Stamford Hill today were in a tiny minority then and they were exotic oddities.
The area began to change character in the 1960s after the Hungarian uprising which the Soviets brutally repressed. The Hassidic Jews survived the holocaust in Hungary and began to move into Hackney in the 1960s. Now they form the majority of Jews there.
But as a youngster I never saw many Hassidic Jews, may be one or two, now they form the majority of Hackney Jewry and demographically they are the fastest growing section of British Jewry. In Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington you will find families of of 11, 12, 13. This has been one of the pressures for planning permission.
In Modern British Jewry I deal with the political organisation of the Orthodox Jews in Hackney. When I was doing the research in the late 70s and early 80s it was already evident to me that the growing ultra-orthodox community (acted) through Agudas Israel, an organisation which functions as a mini-welfare state, and which publishes a weekly paper, the Jewish Tribune, .
A very important part in this community has been played by Joe Lobenstein, four times Mayor of Hackney. In my book The Jewish Community in British Politics I mention him and the pioneering work he was doing especially in reviving Conservative politics amongst Jews in Hackney.
But he, I believe, was getting ultra-orthodox Jews to vote for him because he was Jewish, not because of the party he was in. This tendency was definitely being observed by me in the late 1970s – Jews voting for Jewish candidates irrespective of their party politics.
One might ask, is this democracy? Well of course it is. These Jews are British, they pay taxes and they vote. Who are you or I to tell them how to vote? If they want to vote in a particular way then that is their right, whether you celebrate it or despise it.
May I make a general point here? I don’t think we in England, or London have yet got used to the idea of an ethnic political system. In the US, ethnic politics is so conventional they don’t bat an eyelid. There’s the Jewish vote, the Irish vote, the Italian vote. They are used to an ethnic based politics. We are not.
When I started investigating it in the 1970s everyone was talking about class and how you had to understand class. Class - it was said - was the basis of the British political system, everything else was embellishment. But I saw something else in Hackney and it was more like the situation in the US, where socio-economic class is less important and ethnicity and religion are - often - much more important.
In the book I also refer to the fact that Agudas Israel was already beginning to acquire a level of sophistication. In another book I published in the 1980s on London Jewry, I also noted how Agudas Israel had taken the trouble to rebrand itself to get resources for its community as Hackney descended into a battleground between competing ethnic factions.
It had previously described itself as Jewish rather than as representing an ethnic minority. Previously the Jews of Hackney had projected themselves as British people. Agudas Israel was sensitive to the rise in ethnic politics and said: “We’re not part of the working class, we’re an ethnic minority and we're discriminated against. We need resources."
Agudas Israel went along to the Ken Livingstone-led Labour faction that then controlled the Greater London Council. This faction paid attention. Agudas Yisroel played the game brilliantly.
I am fascinated by the relationship between the left-wing Diane Abbott and this community. On the face of it they have nothing in common. She stands for things such as democracy, free speech and women's rights. These are anathema amongst the chassidim of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. One has only to read the anti-feminist and anti-black rhetoric put out by the Jewish Tribune to see that this is so. As for the gays, the Tribune wouldn't even dare mention the term.
I recall that in 1978 there was terrible scandal when the Yiddish Tribune ran a piece criticising Greville Janner for defending black people in Parliament. The publishers didn’t realise that other people might speak Yiddish and the following week the West Indian World translated this appalling editorial. That doesn’t happen any more, but not because the views have changed but because the Jewish Tribune knows other people can understand Yiddish."
How many Jewish councillors are women? None. Why? Because the type of orthodoxy in Stamford Hill allocates a certain role to women: to get married, have as many children as possible and to maintain a Kosher home. And in the home it is the woman who is the boss, not the man.
How many female Orthodox Jewish school governors are there? Only the minimum required by law. However they can be teachers and head teachers but they cannot be in a position of political leadership. And as far as this community is concerned there is no such thing as a female Rabbi. Outside the home it is a male dominated society. It is ruled by Rabbis, it is a theocracy. (Alderman said that this might be changing as Bella Sharer, wife of Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems in Hackney, is standing in the May 6 elections.)
Every article, every advertisement in the Jewish Tribune is approved by a Rabbinical censor. If you are defamed by the Jewish Tribune you can’t go to the PCC, it is one of only a handful of UK papers that is not a member.
That said, the community is generally disinterested in wealth and its members do tend to help each other when help is needed. The men "learn" Talmud all the day and it is the women who go to work. Interestingly, this community has no problem in principle with women working and there are some very wealthy women in the community.
Whether you or I like the community is irrelevant. The community is very well organised, very hospitable and very successful. Its members may dress in ways we find peculiar, but you won't find its youngsters involved in gun and knife crime that is, alas, so rampant now in the Hackney I once knew.
Alderman, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle and writer for the Guardian and the Times (profile) tells Blood and Property that politicians are deluding themselves if they don't accept that people vote along ethnic lines.
GEOFFREY ALDERMAN: I went to Northwold Road school and then the Grocer’s Company's School Hackney Downs, which, in its time was the best state school in the country. From there I went to Oxford. I am the official historian of Hackney Downs school and when I went to the school it was so Jewish that it closed on the Jewish holidays, there was no point in keeping it open. The few Christian boys there wanted to know when the Jewish holidays were so they could find out when the school would be shut.
I’m not sure if the Jewish community is larger or smaller than it was, probably larger now. My grandfather moved from Spitalfields to Hackney circa 1937 and rented the property my parents later bought in Walsingham Road. The Jewish community I grew up in in the 1950s and 60s was traditional but, on the whole, not a strictly practising Jewish community. The black hat Jews of Stamford Hill today were in a tiny minority then and they were exotic oddities.
The area began to change character in the 1960s after the Hungarian uprising which the Soviets brutally repressed. The Hassidic Jews survived the holocaust in Hungary and began to move into Hackney in the 1960s. Now they form the majority of Jews there.
But as a youngster I never saw many Hassidic Jews, may be one or two, now they form the majority of Hackney Jewry and demographically they are the fastest growing section of British Jewry. In Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington you will find families of of 11, 12, 13. This has been one of the pressures for planning permission.
In Modern British Jewry I deal with the political organisation of the Orthodox Jews in Hackney. When I was doing the research in the late 70s and early 80s it was already evident to me that the growing ultra-orthodox community (acted) through Agudas Israel, an organisation which functions as a mini-welfare state, and which publishes a weekly paper, the Jewish Tribune, .
A very important part in this community has been played by Joe Lobenstein, four times Mayor of Hackney. In my book The Jewish Community in British Politics I mention him and the pioneering work he was doing especially in reviving Conservative politics amongst Jews in Hackney.
But he, I believe, was getting ultra-orthodox Jews to vote for him because he was Jewish, not because of the party he was in. This tendency was definitely being observed by me in the late 1970s – Jews voting for Jewish candidates irrespective of their party politics.
One might ask, is this democracy? Well of course it is. These Jews are British, they pay taxes and they vote. Who are you or I to tell them how to vote? If they want to vote in a particular way then that is their right, whether you celebrate it or despise it.
May I make a general point here? I don’t think we in England, or London have yet got used to the idea of an ethnic political system. In the US, ethnic politics is so conventional they don’t bat an eyelid. There’s the Jewish vote, the Irish vote, the Italian vote. They are used to an ethnic based politics. We are not.
When I started investigating it in the 1970s everyone was talking about class and how you had to understand class. Class - it was said - was the basis of the British political system, everything else was embellishment. But I saw something else in Hackney and it was more like the situation in the US, where socio-economic class is less important and ethnicity and religion are - often - much more important.
In the book I also refer to the fact that Agudas Israel was already beginning to acquire a level of sophistication. In another book I published in the 1980s on London Jewry, I also noted how Agudas Israel had taken the trouble to rebrand itself to get resources for its community as Hackney descended into a battleground between competing ethnic factions.
It had previously described itself as Jewish rather than as representing an ethnic minority. Previously the Jews of Hackney had projected themselves as British people. Agudas Israel was sensitive to the rise in ethnic politics and said: “We’re not part of the working class, we’re an ethnic minority and we're discriminated against. We need resources."
Agudas Israel went along to the Ken Livingstone-led Labour faction that then controlled the Greater London Council. This faction paid attention. Agudas Yisroel played the game brilliantly.
I am fascinated by the relationship between the left-wing Diane Abbott and this community. On the face of it they have nothing in common. She stands for things such as democracy, free speech and women's rights. These are anathema amongst the chassidim of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. One has only to read the anti-feminist and anti-black rhetoric put out by the Jewish Tribune to see that this is so. As for the gays, the Tribune wouldn't even dare mention the term.
I recall that in 1978 there was terrible scandal when the Yiddish Tribune ran a piece criticising Greville Janner for defending black people in Parliament. The publishers didn’t realise that other people might speak Yiddish and the following week the West Indian World translated this appalling editorial. That doesn’t happen any more, but not because the views have changed but because the Jewish Tribune knows other people can understand Yiddish."
How many Jewish councillors are women? None. Why? Because the type of orthodoxy in Stamford Hill allocates a certain role to women: to get married, have as many children as possible and to maintain a Kosher home. And in the home it is the woman who is the boss, not the man.
How many female Orthodox Jewish school governors are there? Only the minimum required by law. However they can be teachers and head teachers but they cannot be in a position of political leadership. And as far as this community is concerned there is no such thing as a female Rabbi. Outside the home it is a male dominated society. It is ruled by Rabbis, it is a theocracy. (Alderman said that this might be changing as Bella Sharer, wife of Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems in Hackney, is standing in the May 6 elections.)
Every article, every advertisement in the Jewish Tribune is approved by a Rabbinical censor. If you are defamed by the Jewish Tribune you can’t go to the PCC, it is one of only a handful of UK papers that is not a member.
That said, the community is generally disinterested in wealth and its members do tend to help each other when help is needed. The men "learn" Talmud all the day and it is the women who go to work. Interestingly, this community has no problem in principle with women working and there are some very wealthy women in the community.
Whether you or I like the community is irrelevant. The community is very well organised, very hospitable and very successful. Its members may dress in ways we find peculiar, but you won't find its youngsters involved in gun and knife crime that is, alas, so rampant now in the Hackney I once knew.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
God on her side?
Back in February Blood and Property posted a story called "Brain cancer will not halt Christian bid for Diane's seat". It came from the Scotsman which reported that the Reverend George Hargreaves - the leader of the Hackney-based Christian Party - had pulled out of an election because his wife, Maxine, had fallen ill with cancer.
The paper said that Maxine Hargreaves had already recovered once from the disease and had undergone brain surgery in 2007. It also said that she still aimed to take on Diane Abbott in Hackney South and Shoreditch.
Yesterday her candidacy for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was announced.
How serious a threat does she pose? In February Diane Abbott told Blood and Property: "A large proportion of my constituents go to church so understanding religion is important to me. Huge amounts of money are being poured into the Christian Party here in Hackney, as your blog has pointed out. This seems to suggest religion may be on the agenda of politicians in the future but it will only really make a difference if candidates can win the support of people outside of their churches as well as within them."
The Christian Party now has the backing of some rich and powerful figures: Hackney Christians: money, power, demonic possession.
It also came 7th in the 2009 European elections, behind the BNP, in the London Region winning 51,336 votes (2.9%). (These figures are from Wikipedia which is worth a look for an interesting set of policies ranging from music copyright law to "discouragement of the practice of addressing women as Ms")
The success of the party, or the damage it could inflict on Labour in Hackney, will depend on how large the borough's fundamentalist Christian population is. Many of these could come from the African community which Hargreaves has been targeting, at home and abroad: Hackney Christian politician in BNP 'mistake'
However Hargreaves and his party are not well regarded in some quarters. On April 2nd the Guardian described Rev Hargreaves as "The black man who could help the BNP win Barking"
On Tuesday April 20th, the BBC published a piece called "Will Christians swing the 2010 election?" It concentrated on marginals and quoted Rev Hargreaves saying his party could have a "king-maker" role in some constituencies.
The Christian Party was started by Rev Hargreaves in 2004 and took on its current name at the end of 2005 (according to Wikipedia) so it has not stood candidates in a General Election before.
The party is also fielding a candidate in Hackney South and Shoreditch and in the borough's Mayoral elections.
The paper said that Maxine Hargreaves had already recovered once from the disease and had undergone brain surgery in 2007. It also said that she still aimed to take on Diane Abbott in Hackney South and Shoreditch.
Yesterday her candidacy for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was announced.
How serious a threat does she pose? In February Diane Abbott told Blood and Property: "A large proportion of my constituents go to church so understanding religion is important to me. Huge amounts of money are being poured into the Christian Party here in Hackney, as your blog has pointed out. This seems to suggest religion may be on the agenda of politicians in the future but it will only really make a difference if candidates can win the support of people outside of their churches as well as within them."
The Christian Party now has the backing of some rich and powerful figures: Hackney Christians: money, power, demonic possession.
It also came 7th in the 2009 European elections, behind the BNP, in the London Region winning 51,336 votes (2.9%). (These figures are from Wikipedia which is worth a look for an interesting set of policies ranging from music copyright law to "discouragement of the practice of addressing women as Ms")
The success of the party, or the damage it could inflict on Labour in Hackney, will depend on how large the borough's fundamentalist Christian population is. Many of these could come from the African community which Hargreaves has been targeting, at home and abroad: Hackney Christian politician in BNP 'mistake'
However Hargreaves and his party are not well regarded in some quarters. On April 2nd the Guardian described Rev Hargreaves as "The black man who could help the BNP win Barking"
On Tuesday April 20th, the BBC published a piece called "Will Christians swing the 2010 election?" It concentrated on marginals and quoted Rev Hargreaves saying his party could have a "king-maker" role in some constituencies.
The Christian Party was started by Rev Hargreaves in 2004 and took on its current name at the end of 2005 (according to Wikipedia) so it has not stood candidates in a General Election before.
The party is also fielding a candidate in Hackney South and Shoreditch and in the borough's Mayoral elections.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Boff answers Blood and Property's 'distasteful' questions
Andrew Boff is the Conservative Mayoral candidate for Hackney. He is currently a member of the London Assembly and will hold the seat until 2012. Some links: Wikipedia biography; His election website: changehackney.com. (Also, there is an interesting piece in Hackney Citizen: Hackney Council rejects Mayoral candidate's election address)
QUESTIONS:
1. Blood and Property: Do you think it is acceptable that Mayor Pipe has answered a similar set of questions to these via the Hackney Council Press office? Should tax payers money be used for this as an election nears?
Andrew Boff: This is one of the points that I'm trying to make about whether or not the Mayor should be paid. The Mayor should be a representative of the people, not subsumed into the bureaucracy of the Council. These questions are clearly related to the election. Using the press office would be highly inappropriate if that is what has happened.
2. Blood and Property: How significant is the PR/Comms department in Hackney? Do you think that it's senior figures - or any of the other departments in the council - have become politicised? And would you be able to work with them if you won the election?
ANDREW BOFF: To quote Government Minister Ben Bradshaw, “You’ve got local authorities that are spending a considerable amount of council taxpayers’ money employing armies of press officers to produce these propaganda sheets masquerading as newspapers. They remind me of (Soviet state newspaper) Pravda and papers I knew from my times in East Germany as a BBC correspondent. If the only information you’re getting is misleading propaganda put out by politicians from one particular party, I think that’s very dangerous.” Read Hackney Today and tell me it's not propaganda without giggling. There are some very good officers working in Hackney Council who can speak for themselves. The regime does not allow them to speak to the press, however, because Mayor Pipe wants to control the message. Under my Mayoralty officers would be allowed to speak for themselves, dispensing with the need for a large media management team.
Andrew Boff answered questions 3, 4 and 5 together below. He said he found them "distasteful" - (does this mean racist?). These are the questions:
3. How would you respond to the criticism that the Conservative Party in Hackney is a vehicle for an (ultra) orthodox Jewish political agenda rather than anything to do with the Conservative Party? (Must read for Hackney Politics)
4. Do you agree that (ultra) orthodox Jewish councillors rarely stand against each other in elections? Do you think it would matter if there was some kind of agreement within the Orthodox Jewish community for candidates not to stand against each other? Have you spoken to your Orthodox Jewish councillors about this issue? (Democracy Problem in Stamford Hill)
5. Last year Mayor Pipe accused Councillor Steinberger of putting the planning needs of the Orthodox Jewish community above the financial needs of the rest of the borough? (23,000 residents used as a bargaining chip, mayor claims) - are you concerned that this kind of prioritisation may be taking place with 2/3 of your councillors coming from the Charedi community?
ANDREW BOFF: Who is the criticism from? Nobody has said this to me. I'm not really one for conspiracy theories especially when it's directed against one section of the community. It's rather sinister. I've recently spoken out against the dangerous islamaphobic nonsense that Channel 4 and Jim Fitzpatrick MP have spread about the London Muslim Centre and these appear of the same ilk and I find them rather distasteful. Still, if I have to answer such questions - of the Conservative candidates in Hackney 11% are Orthodox Jewish 18% have a Caribbean/ African heritage, 4% are Turkish/Kurdish, 4% Polish and 2% Asian. The Conservative Party is a "vehicle" for all of us.
6. Blood and Property: Do you think it matters that Hackney's legal department was 25% understaffed during major development period - olympics, bishopsgate goods yard, dalston development. (Hackney legal department recruiting crisis)
ANDREW BOFF: I'd prefer the legal department to serve the interests of the people of Hackney, not just its administration. The Head of legal services letter to Lowell Grant (“Spirit”) which told him to “desist from misrepresenting the facts to the media” after the Council had corruptly taken away his home and business shows how that department has become a puppet of the political class in Hackney. No wonder they have problems keeping staff. (Easteight's coverage of Spirit's story)
7. Blood and Property: How much has the borough has changed in the last 10 years - demographically (there's some research claiming that Hackney North has the highest density of people with degrees in the country) Do you think this will change the make up of the voting patterns in the borough in your favour?
ANDREW BOFF: In Hackney, Conservatives have always had a better reception on the Council estates than in the wealthier streets. Now that even the wealthy are finding it difficult to afford Labour many are realising that if you want to vote for change, you may have to change your vote.
8. Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that changes in the borough are related to property prices and new people moving here - how easily do you think that this process could be reversed (i.e. do you think that many hackney residents see their homes as investments or just as homes?)
ANDREW BOFF: What is clear is that people brought up in Hackney are having greater difficulties staying here. The Council's policy of social cleansing doesn't help, with a large numbers of new dormitory developments and very very little for Hackney families. I will end the public subsidy of new one and two bedroom flats and ensure all that taxpayers money goes into building proper family homes, preferably with gardens. The overcrowding in Hackney is a severe problem and largely hidden. It has an effect on educational attainment, health and the cohesiveness of families. The Council doesn't seem to talk much about it though.
9. Blood and Property: Do you think that Hackney has suffered the worst effects of the financial crisis? Why is Hackney's employment situtation either improving more slowly than other boroughs? or degenerating faster than other boroughs?
ANDREW BOFF: The question is in the past tense and the past is not the biggest issue. The effects of the recession will carry on through the next few years and it will hit Hackney particularly hard. We already have the highest number of job applicants chasing each job (92) and I shudder to think of what is going to happen if we carry on with the current Council who have neglected their duty of care to help local residents find work. The example of only one Hackney resident on an apprenticeship on the Olympic site is a symbol of how rubbish the Council is at finding work for local people. It needs to be much more pro-active in assisting the unemployed.
10. Blood and Property: There is a fear that if the Conservatives win the next election, Hackney will see a substantial fall in financial support. Is this fear justified?
ANDREW BOFF: Whoever wins the General election will be cutting back on financial support to Hackney. That is the brutal reality of the financial crisis. The Government is paying out more than they are getting in. Their current policies are less to do with Keynesian stimulation of the economy and more about delaying the inevitable for as long as possible, well, after May 6th anyway.
11. Blood and Property: What sort of relationship does Jules Pipe have with Boris Johnson?
ANDREW BOFF: They have to have a constructive relationship. I do not know if Bozzer has ever invited him round for dinner.
12. Blood and Property: Do you think that you would be more effective at winning money and resources from Johnson's administration than Pipe?
ANDREW BOFF: Yes, because I am well placed, as a member of the London Assembly, to argue for the kind of things that Hackney needs. Having spent most of my life in proper jobs, becoming a paid politician in 2008 has given me the chance to campaign at the GLA for the things I think that Hackney needs such as more family housing, protecting small independent shops against the threat from chain stores and improving the London Plan in its attitude to street markets.
13. Blood and Property: Would a Conservative government and a Conservative Mayor of London be more benevolent towards Hackney if the borough had a Conservative Mayor?
ANDREW BOFF: They'd want to see a Mayor who was spending their financial support effectively rather than building plush new Town Halls, glossy marketing and jollies to Beijing. So yes, they probably would.
14. Blood and Property: Although crime in Hackney has fallen, other boroughs complain that Hackney has more policemen. Meanwhile, Hackney seems to rely on outside agencies like Operation Trident. If Boris Johnson cuts numbers of police officers, how will this affect Hackney?
ANDREW BOFF: The overall number of a Police Officers on the street will increase by 95.
15. Blood and Property: Also, while other boroughs are actively lobbying Johnson to siphon resources away from Hackney, can Hackney residents be sure that you will put in as many hours as a paid-up Mayor?
ANDREW BOFF: Yes.
16. Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that the crime figure improvements in Hackney are down to numbers of police men in the borough?
ANDREW BOFF: The effectiveness of Police Officers (they can be women as well you know) is one part of making Hackney safer. However, there is an enormous amount of unreported crime especially that which is perpetrated against young people. We have also seen a disturbing increase in hate crimes and it appears that whilst the quantum of crime may have had a statistical improvement, the severity of crime has increased. This points to Police time being directed to the low hanging fruit to hit targets. The rise in knife crimes and anti-social behaviour indicates that there is not enough attention being given to issues around social deprivation, overcrowding, the shameful lack of positive activities for young people and the breakdown in community based self-policing . The Council has to abandon its hostility to people of good will in the community who are trying to make a difference. Only then will there be a truly sustainable and equitable decrease in crime.
17. Blood and Property: Do you think it is healthy that so many of the boroughs schools are now academies - and does it matter that these schools are not subject to the freedom of information act? - References here: Hackney academies: too good to be true?
ANDREW BOFF: I welcome there being more information about the academies coming into the public domain. The success of the academies comes not from their secrecy but their ability to manage themselves without the target-driven tick-box obsessed Learning Trust breathing down their necks. That dead hand and lack of trust is creating impossible pressures on excellent teachers and driving them out of the profession. The Learning Trust must be scrapped. It has been an abysmal failure. We need to bring trust back into education. Trust in the professionalism of the teachers, headteachers and parents who want to see their schools thrive.
18. Blood and Property: How important do you think religion and an understanding of religion might be in Hackney. Do you think that it will become more or less of an important factor in Hackney politics in the future? (There seems to be a lot of political activity in fundamental churches) and the orthodox jewish community is said to be growing fast and has specific requirements.
ANDREW BOFF: Understanding is generally a good thing. The secular media are curiously bi-polar when it comes to the activities of people with faith. If they separate themselves from the political process they are accused of not integrating, if they join political parties they are accused of entry-ism. The chattering all has a rather nasty taste to it. Hackney is the sum of its parts and must meet the needs of all its residents.
19. Blood and Property: Do you think the BNP will stand in the Hackney Mayoral elections this year: if so, how do you think it will affect the elections in the borough?
ANDREW BOFF: It now turns out that this was a hollow threat. That party works on creating mistrust between communities. That kind of approach has absolutely no place in Hackney. (Hackney Citizen covers Boffs BNP clash in the London Assembly)
QUESTIONS:
1. Blood and Property: Do you think it is acceptable that Mayor Pipe has answered a similar set of questions to these via the Hackney Council Press office? Should tax payers money be used for this as an election nears?
Andrew Boff: This is one of the points that I'm trying to make about whether or not the Mayor should be paid. The Mayor should be a representative of the people, not subsumed into the bureaucracy of the Council. These questions are clearly related to the election. Using the press office would be highly inappropriate if that is what has happened.
2. Blood and Property: How significant is the PR/Comms department in Hackney? Do you think that it's senior figures - or any of the other departments in the council - have become politicised? And would you be able to work with them if you won the election?
ANDREW BOFF: To quote Government Minister Ben Bradshaw, “You’ve got local authorities that are spending a considerable amount of council taxpayers’ money employing armies of press officers to produce these propaganda sheets masquerading as newspapers. They remind me of (Soviet state newspaper) Pravda and papers I knew from my times in East Germany as a BBC correspondent. If the only information you’re getting is misleading propaganda put out by politicians from one particular party, I think that’s very dangerous.” Read Hackney Today and tell me it's not propaganda without giggling. There are some very good officers working in Hackney Council who can speak for themselves. The regime does not allow them to speak to the press, however, because Mayor Pipe wants to control the message. Under my Mayoralty officers would be allowed to speak for themselves, dispensing with the need for a large media management team.
Andrew Boff answered questions 3, 4 and 5 together below. He said he found them "distasteful" - (does this mean racist?). These are the questions:
3. How would you respond to the criticism that the Conservative Party in Hackney is a vehicle for an (ultra) orthodox Jewish political agenda rather than anything to do with the Conservative Party? (Must read for Hackney Politics)
4. Do you agree that (ultra) orthodox Jewish councillors rarely stand against each other in elections? Do you think it would matter if there was some kind of agreement within the Orthodox Jewish community for candidates not to stand against each other? Have you spoken to your Orthodox Jewish councillors about this issue? (Democracy Problem in Stamford Hill)
5. Last year Mayor Pipe accused Councillor Steinberger of putting the planning needs of the Orthodox Jewish community above the financial needs of the rest of the borough? (23,000 residents used as a bargaining chip, mayor claims) - are you concerned that this kind of prioritisation may be taking place with 2/3 of your councillors coming from the Charedi community?
ANDREW BOFF: Who is the criticism from? Nobody has said this to me. I'm not really one for conspiracy theories especially when it's directed against one section of the community. It's rather sinister. I've recently spoken out against the dangerous islamaphobic nonsense that Channel 4 and Jim Fitzpatrick MP have spread about the London Muslim Centre and these appear of the same ilk and I find them rather distasteful. Still, if I have to answer such questions - of the Conservative candidates in Hackney 11% are Orthodox Jewish 18% have a Caribbean/ African heritage, 4% are Turkish/Kurdish, 4% Polish and 2% Asian. The Conservative Party is a "vehicle" for all of us.
6. Blood and Property: Do you think it matters that Hackney's legal department was 25% understaffed during major development period - olympics, bishopsgate goods yard, dalston development. (Hackney legal department recruiting crisis)
ANDREW BOFF: I'd prefer the legal department to serve the interests of the people of Hackney, not just its administration. The Head of legal services letter to Lowell Grant (“Spirit”) which told him to “desist from misrepresenting the facts to the media” after the Council had corruptly taken away his home and business shows how that department has become a puppet of the political class in Hackney. No wonder they have problems keeping staff. (Easteight's coverage of Spirit's story)
7. Blood and Property: How much has the borough has changed in the last 10 years - demographically (there's some research claiming that Hackney North has the highest density of people with degrees in the country) Do you think this will change the make up of the voting patterns in the borough in your favour?
ANDREW BOFF: In Hackney, Conservatives have always had a better reception on the Council estates than in the wealthier streets. Now that even the wealthy are finding it difficult to afford Labour many are realising that if you want to vote for change, you may have to change your vote.
8. Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that changes in the borough are related to property prices and new people moving here - how easily do you think that this process could be reversed (i.e. do you think that many hackney residents see their homes as investments or just as homes?)
ANDREW BOFF: What is clear is that people brought up in Hackney are having greater difficulties staying here. The Council's policy of social cleansing doesn't help, with a large numbers of new dormitory developments and very very little for Hackney families. I will end the public subsidy of new one and two bedroom flats and ensure all that taxpayers money goes into building proper family homes, preferably with gardens. The overcrowding in Hackney is a severe problem and largely hidden. It has an effect on educational attainment, health and the cohesiveness of families. The Council doesn't seem to talk much about it though.
9. Blood and Property: Do you think that Hackney has suffered the worst effects of the financial crisis? Why is Hackney's employment situtation either improving more slowly than other boroughs? or degenerating faster than other boroughs?
ANDREW BOFF: The question is in the past tense and the past is not the biggest issue. The effects of the recession will carry on through the next few years and it will hit Hackney particularly hard. We already have the highest number of job applicants chasing each job (92) and I shudder to think of what is going to happen if we carry on with the current Council who have neglected their duty of care to help local residents find work. The example of only one Hackney resident on an apprenticeship on the Olympic site is a symbol of how rubbish the Council is at finding work for local people. It needs to be much more pro-active in assisting the unemployed.
10. Blood and Property: There is a fear that if the Conservatives win the next election, Hackney will see a substantial fall in financial support. Is this fear justified?
ANDREW BOFF: Whoever wins the General election will be cutting back on financial support to Hackney. That is the brutal reality of the financial crisis. The Government is paying out more than they are getting in. Their current policies are less to do with Keynesian stimulation of the economy and more about delaying the inevitable for as long as possible, well, after May 6th anyway.
11. Blood and Property: What sort of relationship does Jules Pipe have with Boris Johnson?
ANDREW BOFF: They have to have a constructive relationship. I do not know if Bozzer has ever invited him round for dinner.
12. Blood and Property: Do you think that you would be more effective at winning money and resources from Johnson's administration than Pipe?
ANDREW BOFF: Yes, because I am well placed, as a member of the London Assembly, to argue for the kind of things that Hackney needs. Having spent most of my life in proper jobs, becoming a paid politician in 2008 has given me the chance to campaign at the GLA for the things I think that Hackney needs such as more family housing, protecting small independent shops against the threat from chain stores and improving the London Plan in its attitude to street markets.
13. Blood and Property: Would a Conservative government and a Conservative Mayor of London be more benevolent towards Hackney if the borough had a Conservative Mayor?
ANDREW BOFF: They'd want to see a Mayor who was spending their financial support effectively rather than building plush new Town Halls, glossy marketing and jollies to Beijing. So yes, they probably would.
14. Blood and Property: Although crime in Hackney has fallen, other boroughs complain that Hackney has more policemen. Meanwhile, Hackney seems to rely on outside agencies like Operation Trident. If Boris Johnson cuts numbers of police officers, how will this affect Hackney?
ANDREW BOFF: The overall number of a Police Officers on the street will increase by 95.
15. Blood and Property: Also, while other boroughs are actively lobbying Johnson to siphon resources away from Hackney, can Hackney residents be sure that you will put in as many hours as a paid-up Mayor?
ANDREW BOFF: Yes.
16. Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that the crime figure improvements in Hackney are down to numbers of police men in the borough?
ANDREW BOFF: The effectiveness of Police Officers (they can be women as well you know) is one part of making Hackney safer. However, there is an enormous amount of unreported crime especially that which is perpetrated against young people. We have also seen a disturbing increase in hate crimes and it appears that whilst the quantum of crime may have had a statistical improvement, the severity of crime has increased. This points to Police time being directed to the low hanging fruit to hit targets. The rise in knife crimes and anti-social behaviour indicates that there is not enough attention being given to issues around social deprivation, overcrowding, the shameful lack of positive activities for young people and the breakdown in community based self-policing . The Council has to abandon its hostility to people of good will in the community who are trying to make a difference. Only then will there be a truly sustainable and equitable decrease in crime.
17. Blood and Property: Do you think it is healthy that so many of the boroughs schools are now academies - and does it matter that these schools are not subject to the freedom of information act? - References here: Hackney academies: too good to be true?
ANDREW BOFF: I welcome there being more information about the academies coming into the public domain. The success of the academies comes not from their secrecy but their ability to manage themselves without the target-driven tick-box obsessed Learning Trust breathing down their necks. That dead hand and lack of trust is creating impossible pressures on excellent teachers and driving them out of the profession. The Learning Trust must be scrapped. It has been an abysmal failure. We need to bring trust back into education. Trust in the professionalism of the teachers, headteachers and parents who want to see their schools thrive.
18. Blood and Property: How important do you think religion and an understanding of religion might be in Hackney. Do you think that it will become more or less of an important factor in Hackney politics in the future? (There seems to be a lot of political activity in fundamental churches) and the orthodox jewish community is said to be growing fast and has specific requirements.
ANDREW BOFF: Understanding is generally a good thing. The secular media are curiously bi-polar when it comes to the activities of people with faith. If they separate themselves from the political process they are accused of not integrating, if they join political parties they are accused of entry-ism. The chattering all has a rather nasty taste to it. Hackney is the sum of its parts and must meet the needs of all its residents.
19. Blood and Property: Do you think the BNP will stand in the Hackney Mayoral elections this year: if so, how do you think it will affect the elections in the borough?
ANDREW BOFF: It now turns out that this was a hollow threat. That party works on creating mistrust between communities. That kind of approach has absolutely no place in Hackney. (Hackney Citizen covers Boffs BNP clash in the London Assembly)
Monday, 22 March 2010
"To be brutally honest I've got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that" Meg Hillier
Blood and Property posted an interview with Meg Hillier on Monday morning. It is long. But is it dull?
Meg Hillier on Religion: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job."
Meg Hillier on Ghosts: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
So, did she answer any of the questions Blood and Property put to her in this interview?
Find out here: Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions.
Meg Hillier on Religion: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job."
Meg Hillier on Ghosts: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
So, did she answer any of the questions Blood and Property put to her in this interview?
Find out here: Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
