POVERTY IS CREATED DAILY BY TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL itself which uses “POVERTY” as a permanent tool in its bid for UK Central Govt and related grants and support. 
In Uncategorized on December 27, 2012 by Organiser of the Khoodeelaar! Constitutional, legal, democratic and community campaign against Big Biz Crossrail Tagged: POVERTY IS CREATED DAILY BY TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL itself which uses “POVERTY” as a permanent tool in its bid for UK Central Govt and related grants and support. Edit
1400    Hrs GMT London Thursday 27 December 2012. UPDATER reports on UK State created poverty.
Editor © Muhammad Haque.
POVERTY IS CREATED DAILY BY TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL itself which uses “POVERTY” as a permanent tool in its bid for UK Central Govt and related grants and support.
EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATIVE Reports based on actual evidence including written admissions by Council’s employees, confirmed in the de facto conduct of a number of sitting Councillors and one of the two “local MPs” show that Tower Hamlets Council has been following the POLICY TO KEEP POVERTY IN!
And that neither Councillors, from any “side” nor either of the two MPs “representing the Borough” are bothered about the role of Tower Hamlets Council in creating new facets of poverty or in keeping poverty in!
Individuals and families are pushed into poverty by Tower Hamlets Council as part of a key and de facto policy.
This [below] is a reasonably useful place to get a brief general idea about poverty:
But the wikipedia entry or entries is/are NOT exhaustive or specific to Tower Hamlets and OTHER genuinely independent and rigorous and reliable sources must be consulted and their evidence examined.
There are many other sources that contain useful information about what poverty is.
However, there are not many sources, known to us, that actually even admit that poverty is created by Tower Hamlets Council as part of deliberate policy.
In our finding, we assert that this is the case in Tower Hamlets. We assert that Tower Hamlets Council does, is and has been CREATING poverty in the Borough for a very long time.
The reference to “we” is the reference to THE MOVEMENT DEFENDING THE COMMUNITY IN THE EAST END OF LONDON spanning the past 50 years. This MOVEMENT is represented by the work of the AADHIKAR Media Foundation and by the 44 associated initiatives that have been set up or been active in the borough since 1961 identifying, examining and addressing and opposing poverty, deprivation, denial and violations of universal human rights in Tower Hamlets.
By extension, we also claim that the same is true of nearby Boroughs like Newham, Hackney, Islington, Camden, all of them in London and most of them eligible to claim the negligent status of “inner cities”.
In fact one of the corrupting policies that has been institutionalised by successive UK Central Government “administrations” is the routine of annual bids for grants by the Local Councils.
The EXISTENCE of poverty within the population in the given Borough Council IS a, if not THE, deciding factor in the “considerations”.
Logically therefore the Councils would NEED TO SHOW that they are a Borough where POVERTY EXISTS.
If the Borough can show that POVERTY DOMINATES in their [Borough] population then that is also a PLUS point to be included in their EVIDENCE during the negotiations!
So WHY Tower Hamlets would NEED to have POVERTY in the population is logically understandable.
What is not understandable is the little matter of POLICY.
If a search is undertaken of all the known output in print or on the record of the “deliberations” [using this word generously as most of what is said by Tower Hamlets Council personnel concerned cannot be given the recognition of "deliberations"; they do something of far lower quality than the term deliberation denotes or connotes] of the Council, it is not possible to com across any real admission that they have such a Policy.
But an objective examination of their conduct will show that they must have a policy.
If their “response” to such finding of de facto policy to keep poverty dominant in the population of Tower Hamlets is that they are left with no alternative by the CUTS imposed by the UK Central Government then the fact to put to them is this: that Tower Hamlets Council has been pleading for money every single year, for decades.
And most of the decades have been passed without the word CUTS dominating the headlines.
Yet for decades Tower Hamlets Council has been on the record, in the pleas it deposits with or makes to the UK central Government [Departments, Agencies and Others] and to the wider public in statements to the EFFECT that it is “having to deal with a population which has substantial part that is in poverty”
If the Council – in this context defined as being made up of both the “key decision-making councillors and the key personnel holding posts in the Council in whose name both categories of people make the decisions” – actually wanted to OPPOSE Poverty maintenance policy then it would do a number of things.
Things that would be known to those who are OBSERVING the CURRENT TOWER HAMLETS COUNCIL administration.
What are we referring to here?
Answer: We are referring to the law.
Question: Why the law?
Answer: Because of something very widely publicised about the CURRENT Tower Hamlets Council which is “imaged” via two words: “Executive mayor”.
And the aforementioned “Executive Mayor” has been the first “image” disseminated to the public and in public “in the name of Tower Hamlets Borough Council” who has made the largest number of statements either expressing an intention to go to court about something or actually going to court about something.
This is evident in two of the topics about which he has been on public record in the recent months: the Council’s [“proposed” and or “declared”] “action” over the Henry Moore Sculpture and the English Boundary Commission’s “proposal” to drop the word “Banglatown” from the name of the Council Ward known for the past 15 years or so as “Spitalfields and Banglatown”.
BOTH topics have had legal action [either by “the Council” or by the “executive Mayor”] attached to them.
The “Executive Mayor” stated a few weeks ago that the bid to drop the word “Banglatown” from the name of the “Spitalfields and Banglatown” Ward demonstrated an attack on all Bangladeshis throughout the world!
His statements on that have included a statement repeated a few times that he would apply for a “Judicial Review” if necessary.
A few weeks after that, one of the “Executive Mayor’s” “cabinet” members, Aminur Khan, in fact stated that the “executive Mayor” himself would use [any powers available to him] to KEEP the word “Banglatown” in the name of the Council Ward “Spitalfields and Banglatown”[if necessary].
That the current administration at Tower Hamlets Council would either take legal acton by referring a matter to the courts or it would look at the scope within the Council’s own legal remits and apply the law to address the matter!
Which, in our summary of what the Council has been saying, makes the Council come across on these two issues as being almost competent.
But that is NOT what Tower Hamlets Council is, or has been like, especially in the context of the real duty: delivering a set of Council services that actually address poverty, deprivation and denial.
With this updater diagnostic introduction, we shall be looking at the disastrous role played FOR CREATING POVERTY by the Council’s “Benefits” bureaucracy.
According to the claims made in 2012 by that bureaucracy’s “service delivery head”, Steve Hill, Tower Hamlets has got about 40,000 claims or claimants for “Benefits”.
That is a very large number of people.
How is it that this is so?
The detail of the answer will – or in “fairness” [remember this phenomenon] should – surprise and shock and astound people who, including the Rightwing, gay Conservative media trader Iain Dale have described Lutfur Rahman as one of the UK’s 100 most Influential Personalities “on or of the Left” in Britain today!
WHAT, exactly, has Tower Hamlets Council’s “executive mayor” Lutfur Rahman been “influencing”?
[To be continued]