This just in, and reproduced verbatim:

 LEGAL CHALLENGE TO GOVERNMENT AS PRESSURE GROWS FOR INDEPENDENT 7/7 INQUIRY

Survivors and relatives of the people killed in the July 7 th London bomb attacks have warned the Government that they will seek a Judicial Review into its continued refusal to grant an independent enquiry into the attacks.

They will outline their legal case in a letter, which will be presented to the Home Office at noon on Wednesday 15th August 2007.

Graham Foulkes, whose son David Foulkes, 22, was murdered at Edgware Rd said:

“We were very disappointed that the Government rejected our call for an independent enquiry. We believe that our country can only benefit from an independent investigation into the largest ever terrorist attack on mainland Britain.”

He continued:

“There have been reports into the bombings. None of these have been independent. And as time has gone on it has become obvious that much of what we were told was untrue. For instance, we have gone from being told that the bombers were unknown to the authorities (”clean skins”, as Charles Clarke, the then Home Secretary said in the wake of the bombings) to finding out through the “Crevice” trial that at least two of the bombers were known prior to July 7 th 2005 and that one of them, Mohammed Siddique Khan (the Edgware Road bomber) had been followed home by the authorities.”

This concern has been supported by the Greater London Assembly who, on May 28 th 2007, passed a motion calling for an independent inquiry following the conviction of the Crevice Defendants “given the conflicting accounts of what happened in the months leading up to 7th July 2005″.

The legal case for an enquiry rests on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This requires the state to protect life and to undertake an independent and effective investigation of the issue if the article is breached. Even if the requirement to protect life was not breached, the Article allows for an enquiry because of the obvious need for public protection.

Rob Webb, whose sister Laura Webb, 29 was murdered at Edgware Rd said:

“The drip feed of information since the attacks probably doesn’t give the whole story. But it is now clear that the security services knew far more about the bombers and the possibility of an attack than we had originally been led to believe. So the state looks to have breached its duty to protect life. We all – Government, Security Services, survivors, bereaved and of course the public at large, who remain at risk of terrorist plots, need to learn all we can about the 7/7 attacks. We need to know what could have been done to help prevent them and so help prevent innocent people from suffering the fate of all those who were caught up in the awful events of that day in July 2005.”

Should the Government once again turn down the request for an independent investigation, the signatories of the letter will seek a Judicial Review into the decision.

Rob concluded:

“We don’t wish to take our Government to Court. But we need to ensure that everything is done to prevent further attacks. We believe that an Independent investigation will help do that, which is why we are prepared to go to Court to ensure that one happens.”

Petition for an inquiry here

Signatories to the letter, which will be presented to the Home Office today include:

Nader Mozzaka, bereaved. Nader’s wife, Nazy, died at Kings Cross

Graham Foulkes, bereaved. Graham’s son, David, died at Edgware Rd

Rob Webb, bereaved. Rob’s sister, laura, died at Edgware Rd

Paul Mitchell, survivor. Paul lost part of his leg and had serious hearing injuries at Kings Cross

Thelma Stober, survivor. Thelma lost her left leg and had other serious back injuries at Aldgate

Kirsty Morrison, survivor, King’s Cross. Kirsty developed debililtating PTSD.

Elizabeth Alderton, survivor, Aldgate

Ros Morley, bereaved. Ros’s husband Colin died at Edgware Rd

Lesley Ratcliff, survivor, King’s Cross

Michael Henning, survivor, Aldgate. Michael had facial injuried and developed PTSD

Judy Mallinson. Judy’s husband, Ross, suffered serious head injuries.

Ema Plunkett, survivor, Tavistock Square

Elizabeth Kenworthy, Aldgate. Survivor and first responder

David Gould, bereaved. David’s step-daughter, Helen, died at King’s Cross

Angela Iouannou, survivor, King’s cross

Fiona Crosbie, survivor, King’s Cross

Mark Elding, survivor, Tavistock Square

Andy Brown, survivor, Aldgate. Andy lost both legs in the explosion.

Janine Mitchell. Janine’s husband Paul was seriously injured at King’s Cross

Janne Palthe, survivor, Edgware Rd

Thomas Ikemi, bereaved. Thomas cousin, Anthony, was killed in Tavistock Sq

Ross Mallinson, survivor. Ross suffered serious head injuries at Aldgate

Sarah Stow, survivor, Tavistock Sq

Tim Coulson, survivor, Edgware Rd

Rachel North, survivor, King’s Cross.

More on this breaking story here.

2 Comments »

Radio Five Live’s ‘Pods and Blogs‘ show has been kind enough to pick up on and feature the ongoing blog campaign in support of those Iraqi employees who’ve worked for, and are still working for, UK forces and who now find themselves under threat from local militias and death squads.

The show, a podcast version of which is hosted here, includes an interview with Dan Hardie, who kicked off the campaign - no more needs to be said, just listen and understand…

 
icon for podpress  Pods and Blogs - Iraqi Workers [12:02m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (15)

And in case you haven’t figured it out by now, Tim Ireland’s sorted out this video to explain it to you… in Post-It notes.

13 Comments »

It has long been accepted by the vast majority of the British people, whatever their views on immigration in general, that service to Queen and Country counts for something; that regardless of the different rules on immigration and residency that may or may not be in force at any particular time, any man or woman who, for whatever reason, places their life at risk in service of the realm has earned for themselves and , at least, their immediate family, the moral right to enjoy the very best of protections this country can offer, that of residency in this country.

One sees this view displayed most clearly in regards to the Gurkhas, whose moral claim to have earned, through service,the right to reside on these shores goes almost undisputed, even by members of the British National Party.

There is another group of foreign nationals who, at the present time, are no less deserving of consideration than the Gurhkas and to whom we have no less as a moral obligation to provide adequately for their personal safety, and the safety of their families.

They are not soldiers, although for the last four years they have worked alongside British forces in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances, putting their lives at risk merely for doing their job… oh what the hell, just read what Justin has to say and you’ll get the picture:

———————————————————————-

Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra.

The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the UK. This is morally unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all of whom have already worked for our country.

The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four News, notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra. It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in Iraq. The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops ‘register with the UN refugee agency’. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces. (See here and here.)

Marie Colvin’s report for the Times of April 8 speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in Syria by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers stating that they are at risk from jihadi violence: and yet we are still refusing to admit them to the United Kingdom.

If you feel that this is unacceptable and that Britain should prevent Iraqis from being murdered for the ‘crime’ of working for British troops, could you please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for action. You can use the excellent website ‘Write to Them‘ or post a letter yourself.

Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your letter could contain the following points:

  • It is morally unacceptable that Britain should abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.
  • This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the ‘crime’ of having supported UK forces.
  • Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave Iraq and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.
  • There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in Iraq kill the families of those they consider ‘enemies’: for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who worked for us.
  • It is entirely practical for this country’s troops in Iraq, and its embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for us and fly them to the UK. Indeed, there is already considerable anger among British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.
  • This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees. Denmark has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis who worked for its smaller occupying force.
  • It does not matter what your MP’s views (or what your views) are on the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. People who risked their lives for this country’s soldiers are now being abandoned by the British Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the right of asylum in this country.
  • This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers stay in Iraq or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon: applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.

—————————————————————-

There is also a petition you can sign at the Downing Street website - go on, you know you should.

As the suggestion has been made that we should tag other bloggers with this, I’m going to be really cheeky and tag Tom Watson.

7 Comments »

There is no escape

On the steps of the presidential offices in Kigali, sheltered by a pergola from the burning midday sun, David Cameron turned to face a Rwandan television reporter. First, she wanted to know about his efforts to out-trump Labour on international development, and then she asked: “What do you have to say about continuing with your visit to Rwanda when part of your constituency is currently devastated by floods?”

Even the journos in Rwanda have started taking the piss.

Water Taxi for Cameron, anyone?

12 Comments »

Right, I’ll be liveblogging this for the next hour or so until both results are in:

00:15 Sedgefield result estimated to be in about 30-40 minutes.

00:20 Looks a little tight in Ealing Southall but its starting to look like a Labour hold, Lib Dems second and a bit of a disaster for the Tories - sorry, I mean David Cameron’s Conservatives - after everything they’ve thrown at the seat. ETA about an hour.

00:25 The tables apparently have it up in Sedgefield - Tories and the LDs allocated two tables for the count, Labour give four… low turnout reported, estimated at around 38%.

00:27 And the excuses are starting up North, with the Tories talking up tactical voting amongst their supporters and bitching about the Lib Dems.

00:34 A little classic comedy while you wait…

00:38 Blanket coverage of the ‘no charges in cash for honours’ story - that’s Guido’s remaining shreds of credibility down the shitter.

00:46 Quick shot of the tables at Sedgefield. Looks to be about the double the number of vote bundles in red than in yellow. Tory table looks alarmingly bare… well it does if you’re a Tory, but from where I’m sitting it looks just fine.

00:48 Golf on News 24… yawn! Might have to dig out another video in a bit - any suggestions? Ah fuck it - how about Guido making an arse of himself on Newsnight…

00:51 Thank fuck for that, we’re back to the politics and they’re rounding up the candidates for the declaration… As far as results go, I’ll stick to the big three parties unless anything unusual happens. Meanwhile, have a bit of Blackadder:

00:55 Lib Dems predicting Labour 46%, LD’s 24%, Tories 13% and BNP in fourth in Sedgefield.

00:58 BNP looking cheerful - may well have kept their deposit.

01:00 Right, we’re on…

Labour - 12,525

Lib Dem - 5,572

Tories - 4,082

BNP - 2,494

1:05 Labour Majority 6,969, Lib Dems nearly 1,500 ahead of the Tories and the BNP behaving like a bunch of cunts as usual. No change there…

1:08 Wonder when Greg Stone will start Labour Watch up again? Usual BS from Stone - reckons he’s struck a blow for Lib Dem kind… by gaining all of 637 votes over their result in 2005.

1:12 Tory vote down over 2005 by 1890… that’s a sickener for Cameron.

1:14 Thank fuck that twat from the BNP has shut up, for a minute I thought he was going to start on this…

1:20 Tories talking up their share of the vote as what matters - still lost nearly 1900 votes. Good old bitch about the LD’s negative campaigning - fuck knows what they’ll be saying down in Ealing. Fair play to the Tory for laying into the BNP.

1:22 Anyone else listening to the Tory whinging about the LDs and thinking ‘Shapps’…

1:23 Stone on now - usual ‘coming second here’ waffle and reckons the Tories will come in third in Ealing Southall.

1:28 Over to Ealing Southall. Journos not allowed in the count due to lack of space.

1:29 BBC calling it a Labour hold, LDs second and the Tories rolling in third - with Cameron having hung his hat on this one by parachuting in a chosen man, if that’s correct it’ll be a sickener. 43% turn out estimated.

1:35 Shapps on now - talking up having increased their vote and how the third party always gets squeezed. They’re fucked…

1:37 What a twat - the plus for the Tories is gaining the five councillors. Mwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

1:39 That’s the third or fourth time he’s mentioned the third party getting the squeeze - loo-oooser…

1:42 Just a reminder, last time out the results went…

Labour - 22,937 (48.8%)
Liberal Democrats - Nigel Bakhai 11,497 (24.4%)
Conservative - 10,147 (21.6%)

Tony Lit just arriving - nice of him to show up…

1:45 Christ, another 15 minutes - any thoughts on a another vid to pass the time?

1:47 Tell you what, let’s have a bit of Beck for Tony, Grant and Dave…

1:54 Back on the Blair story - re-running the interview with Sir Alistair Graham…

Time for another classic video - ‘and the vegetables?’

2:00 Results coming up - and I’ve settled on a vid to go with it…

2:05 FFS turn the mikes on… come on…

2:07 Still waiting - now talking another 10 minutes to the result…

2:11 Just thought of a cracking vid for Tony…

2:15 FFS - come on… Beeb keep going on about Ming Campbell visiting on eight occasions - ain’t those bus passes just peachy…

More comedy - Peter Cook this time…

2:20 Jeebus, that political researcher guy’s back on again… come back Peter Snow please…

2:23 Oh do come on - I’m going to run out of fags at this rate…

2:25 At fucking last… Lit’s on the stage - wonder if anyone’s asked him who he is… (Tom, behave yourself)

Labour - 15,188

LD - 10,118 (pretty good on a low turnout)

Tory - 8,230

Majority - About 5,000

43% turnout, down from 57% last time out…

And now the video…

2:33 5,000 majority was at the top end of expectations for us. Lib Dems got their vote out well and a drop of nearly 2000 votes for the Tories with Cameron’s name all over the campaign is a sickener…

Tom’s done a bloody good job down there to pull that majority out of the bag…

2:45 Off to bed in a bit but before I go, here’s the percentages…

Labour - 41.5%

Lib Dem - 27.6%

Tory -  22.5%

All the effort the Tories put in and they managed less than a 1% pick-up. Cameron is going to be toast on the Tory blogs…

Night all…

32 Comments »

Following hot on the heels of the Jonathan Isaby’s gaff in publishing what he claimed were unofficial vote tallies taken by a member of the Tory Campaign team in Ealing Southall during the verification of postal ballots, a second national newspaper appears to have repeated Isaby’s gaff.

Visit in the Independent on-line this morning, and you’ll find its lead by-election story for Ealing Southall is the on-going police investigation into Isaby’s blog post, which appeared on the Telegraph’s website at 6pm yesterday evening.

Ealing Southall: Police to investigate Tories over leaked postal by-election results

By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Published: 19 July 2007

The Conservative Party found itself at the centre of a police investigation last night after allegations a “Tory source” had leaked results of a postal ballot of today’s Ealing Southall by-election.

Scotland Yard confirmed it was looking into the case and a police spokesman, when asked about the claims, said: “We’ve received allegations of possible electoral offences in relation to the Ealing Southall by-election. We take it very seriously and appropriate action will be taken.” The spokesman declined to be drawn on who had made the allegations or how the Conservatives had reacted.

The Daily Telegraph diarist Jonathan Isaby, known for his connections with the Conservative party, posted details of the postal ballot on his blog last night. He wrote: “[A] source inside the Tory campaign [in Ealing] reports that it was looking incredibly close, with them calculating the main parties’ tallies as follows: …”

The blog then listed the early results. Soon afterwards, the posting was removed from the website.

Before going on to note that:

By law, political parties are allowed representatives to oversee the validation process, however any release of an indication of how the vote is going is strictly prohibited on the grounds that it could influence subsequent votes. The offence is punishable by up to six months in prison.

However, pick up the print edition of this morning’s Independent and turn to page 10 and you’ll find a article entitled ‘Divided electorate attracts party heavyweights for last ditch appeal’, also bylined as the work of political correspondent, Ben Russell, in which it states the following:

“Postal voting returns presented to Mr Cameron yesterday were said to show Labour with XX percent of the vote … XX per cent for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on XX per cent”

The actual figures given by Russell have, for obvious reasons, been redacted.

As this screen shot from Google’s News Search shows, the article by Russell in which he sites postal ballot figures as having been ‘presented to David Cameron’ was posted to the Indy’s website last night - and the link returned by Google is identical to that of this morning’s story about the Telegraph’s gaff, which shows the the Indy have attempted to cover their tracks by overwriting their original story on the same URL.

indyscreengrab.jpg

There seem to be be possible explanations for Russell’s print edition story. Either these figures were being circulated more widely to and amongst journalists than was first thought, which may hint that there may be some truth to Isaby’s claim to have been given the numbers by a source in the Tory Party, or Russell has lifted the numbers from Isaby’s blog post and filed the first story while unaware of Isaby’s alleged breach of electoral law.

While the Telegraph may be in a position to draw some small crumbs of comfort from their gaff having taken place only on Isaby’s blog, the Indy have gone the whole hog and placed this information into print, which is an altogether more difficult thing to worm your way out of.

UPDATE

There appears to be a discrepancy between the figures cited by Isaby and those given by Russell, so its not at all clear where he sourced his figures from. There was a fair bit of chatter last night on Political Betting and few other sites, with several different sets of figures being floated once posts repeating Isaby’s figures had been removed as news of the police investigation spread.

4 Comments »

Bit of a quiz for you…

Examine the following photograph carefully…

mysteryman.jpg

Now tell me…

1. Who is the major public figure pictured with Tony Lit?

2. Where was the photo taken, and when?

3. How much did Tony Lit pay to attend this event and to whom?

Answers here and here

3 Comments »

Back we go to Ealing Southall and the case of the defection that wasn’t, and a frankly startling allegation…

Tory claim on defection ‘a lie’

LABOUR COUNCILLOR ZAHIDA A-NOORI, today wrote to Labour’s Regional Director Ken Clark to emphasise that the Tory stories concerning her were false.

Cllr A-Noori’s letter reads:

Dear Mr Clark

Re: False Allegations of resignation

Once again, I am compelled to write to you about false allegations being made about my membership of the Labour Party. Yesterday, in an agreed statement, I said that I joined the Labour Party to serve my community. This remains the case today and will remain the case in the future.

To be absolutely and categorically clear: I have no intention of resigning my membership of the Labour Party. I will not be joining the Conservative Party.

As you know, I was a council colleague of Councillor Gurcharan Singh. A number of members who supported Gurcharan signed blank pieces of paper in advance of the shortlisting interview last week.

I was assured that this would be for a write-in campaign should Gurcharan fail in his interview.

At no point did I give permission for the blank paper to be used as a resignation note. Any suggestion that is the case is a completely false and outrageous misuse of my signature and I am deeply distressed that this has happened.

I hope that this now closes the matter. We have a by-election to win and that’s what I want to focus on.

Yours sincerely,
Cllr Zahida Abbas Noori

If you’ll recall, Iain Dale has made a couple of quite specific statements of ‘fact’

1. Last night Cllr Noori did indeed agree with her five councillor colleagues that she would be joining them.

2. A statement was agreed with her, which I have, but I won’t post unless she’d like me to.

In addition to providing this quote from Tory HQ…

“Cllr Noori did agree twice on Monday night to leave the Labour Party to join the Conservatives in order to support Tony Lit’s energetic and dynamic campaign. It appears that the Labour party has now bullied her into changing her mind. However this is exactly the kind of strongarm Labour tactics which has driven five of their other Councillors away from the divided Labour party.”

I wonder, will Dale now stick to his guns, in which case he and Tory Central must be asserting that Cllr Noori was spoken to, in person and face to face - about her alleged plan to defect to the Tories, or will this latest statement from her now prompt a retraction and apology?

And if one accepts Cllr Noori’s account, what does that then say about the conduct of the Tory’s much heralded new acquisition, Cllr Gurcharan Singh?

2 Comments »

Praguetory’s popped up in comments (with a stammer) to offer some sage advice…

As for the impact of the defections, follow the money on the money on the betting markets.

Fair enough, given that William Hill have opened books on both upcoming by-elections.

For Ealing Southall, you get a winner only bet with Labour’s Virendra Sharma installed as 4/7 favourite, Tony Lit at 9/4 and Lib Dem candidate, Nigel Bahkai, trailing in third in the bookies’ estimation at 9/2.

Meanwhile the Sedgefield By-election gives a choice of bets.

You can take the straight win, with Labour at 1/200,  the Tories at 25/1 and the Lib Dems at 33/1, or you can go for a bet on Labour’s percentage share of the vote where you’ll get evens on 60%+, 11/10 on anything under 59% and 6/1 against nailing it dead at 59-60%.

One word of caution before lumping any cash on:

There is an old Lib dem by-election trick that I am certain will be deployed by one or both of the opposition parties. They pile money on their candidate, see the odds drop, then put out a release to show “campaign momentum”. Given that the Tories and Lib Dems are slugging it out for the infamous by-election bandwagon, they might both be piling on the cash though. Could be very funny.

What was that old proverb about a fool and their money…?

6 Comments »

I see that ‘Desperate Dale’ has been at the [mad] cow pie again this morning:

Five Labour Councillors Defect to Ealing Southall Tories

Tom Watson MP, Labour’s by election campaign manager in Ealing Southall, has just had the shock of his life. Five Labour councillors in Ealing Southall have just defected to the Conservatives and the Independent by-election candidate, Gulbash Singh, will this morning abandon his own campaign to become Ealing Southall’s next MP and instead join Tony Lit’s campaign.

The defection of Cllr Gurcharan Singh and his cronies has hardly come as much of a surprise to the Labour Party in Ealing Southall or to Tom, personally. It was expected that Singh would find some way to take his ball home if he didn’t pick up the Labour nomination, as was acknowledged here on July 3rd:

There is speculation that another veteran Ealing councillor, Gurcharan Singh, may run as an independent after he failed to make the Southall shortlist.

…by Iain Dale.

The main question being asked by local Labour activists this morning is that of quite what kind of deal the Tories have made with Gurcharan Singh in return for his crossing the floor and taking his mates with him. Sunny at Pickled Politics, who appears to have been first with news of Singh’s defection, some seven hours before Dale’s pip started squeaking thinks that Singh may well have been offered a clear run at another parliamentary seat, which if true, should have Tory Associations the length and breadth of the country scrabbling desperately to select their candidates before they get landed with Singh and his own personal brand of sectarian, communalist, politicking.

Oh, and Tom Watson was linking to Sunny’s article when I got up at 7am this morning, which shows how much of surprise it was to him, despite Dale’s efforts to spin this as a ’shock’.

The reaction to Sunny’s article of a number of Dale’s usual cronies and hanger’s on is well worth noting for its errant ignorance and desperation to maintain Dale’s fiction that Singh’s defection is a coup for the Tories. Sunny, I happen to know, in not a member of the Labour Party, or of any political party for that matter, and has been highly critical of the Labour selection process that resulted in Virendra Sharma taking the nomination, even to the extent of making the observation that ‘The only one [candidate] who has brand recognition is Tony Lit’, a comment that was leapt upon with relish by…

Iain Dale.

Nevertheless, Praguetory seems to think he know’s what going down in Southall much better that Sunny, after all he’s in Prague and Sunny is in South London and has extensive contacts throughout the Southall area, thereby cementing his well-earned and deserved reputation as the Tory blogosphere’s premier global village idiot. However, its another visitor from Dale’s dope show, ‘Henry Chevalier’, who surprising beats even Praguetory in the ‘making-a-complete-arse-of-himself stakes with this remark:

 

“…an extremely divisive and factional councillor…”

In terms of issues around wholly unacceptable discourse, it turns my stomach to see a member of the Indian Diaspora councillor community described in terms that could have come direct from The BNP Handbook of Racist Clichés. What next? Members of the Black councillor community described as “aggressive and intellectually under-equipped”? Members of the Jewish councillor community described as “conspiratorial and corrupt”?

From which one can only assume that ‘Political Correctness for Dummies’ has become a number one best-seller amongst clueless Tory activists since Cameron took over the leadership of the party - Sunny, who happens to be Asian himself, a minor detail that Henry seems not to have noticed, is describing Singh as a divisive and factional councillor because that’s precisely what he is, as the late Piara Khabra knew and understood all too well, hence his backing, before his death, for an all-women shortlist to select his replacement.

 

Khabra, who would have been 84, maybe 85 years of age had he lived to his planned retirement at the next general election, knew and fully understood the Tammany Hall-like nature of communalist politics within South Asian communities in Britain, and especially in Southall, having benefited from it himself in pushing through the deselection of the previous incumbent, Sidney Bidwell, in 1992. In truth, Khabra’s open support for an AWS selection for his replacement had as much, if not more, with a desire to break the constituency away from the communalist machine politics of some his would-be successors, particularly Gurcharan Singh, as it was his support for increasing the number of women in parliament or desire to see the first Asian female parliamentarian elected in the UK. This is well-known amongst both Labour activists and within the local Asian community, although obviously a facet of the local political scene lost on Tory bloggers who, as usual, seem content to run off at the mouth even when they haven’t got the foggiest idea what they’re talking about or what their party leader might have got them into in return for a bit of short-term and very marginal political gain.

 

Before getting too excited over Gurcharan Singh’s defection, Tory activists and bloggers would have done well to make a few inquiries into Singh’s background both locally and in the wider political context of his links and connections to political groups in the Indian sub-continent. Had they done so, they might just have run across this press release from the ‘World Muslim Sikh Federation’, which has its UK office in Southall:

Meeting to finalise the structure and faculties for a proposed University being set up by the Government of Pakistan in honour of Guru Nanak took place in Lahore on 15th and 16th June 2007. The meeting was attended by Sikh representatives from across the globe and included Sardar Avtar Singh Makkar , president of SGPC, Sardar PS Sarna the president of Delhi Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Sardar Bishan Singh President of Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee along with members of Evacuee Trust Board Pakistan.

Representatives from England included Councillor Gurcharan Singh the former mayor of the London Borough of Ealing and Sardar Anup Singh Choudry a former London lawyer and member of World Muslim Sikh federation.

And here, pictured at this very meeting, only last month, is Cllr Gurcharan Singh - he’s the one on the far right of the picture.

nankana-june07.jpg

So you know who’s who, the others pictured with Gurcharan Singh are (from right to left); Anup Singh Choudry, Sardar Bishan Singh, P S Sarna, Avtar Singh Makkar.

Trying to unpick fact from propaganda when dealing with the politics of the North-Western part of the Indian sub-continent, and especially around the Punjab and Kashmir can be a nightmare of heavily contested sources and opinions but what can be said with some degree of certainty is that the World Muslim Sikh Federation, which is based in Southall, is widely regarded as a Khalistani secessionist group whose leader, Manmohan Singh Khalsa, is currently barred from visiting India by the Indian government for reasons that should become clear from the next quote:

LAHORE: World Muslim Sikh Federation (WMSF) Chairman Manmohan Singh Khalsa called the partition of India and Pakistan “unholy”, and lamented that their forefathers had decided on a coalition with India.

Addressing a seminar on Sikh Question in Context of Geo-Political Position vis a vis India-Pakistan Relations, the Sikh leaders said “not following the directions of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1947 was a blunder.” He said the Sikh movement for an independent Khalistan was still alive and hoped for full support from the Pakistani government. He believed the Sikh community of India at the time of partition should have struggled for an independent state.

And some of his associates have shall we say, some rather interesting opinions. on future of India:

At the seminar commemorating Guru Nanak’s birth, the U.S.-based Council of Khalistan President Gurmit Singh Aulakh declared that India would perforce be split into six parts, Kashmir would be liberated from India and that the Sikhs would rise against India. Apart from Sarna and Aulakh, on the dais were Khalistani ideologues and Dal Khalsa leader Manmohan Singh Khalsa, along with American Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee Convenor Dr. Pritpal Singh. Manmohan, who also heads the World Muslim-Sikh Federation, spoke in favour of Khalistan at the seminar and later told mediapersons at Nankana Sahib on November 30 that he was working for a separate Sikh homeland. In the seminar’s audience was another Khalistani leader, Ganga Singh Dhillon, who heads the Nankana Sahib Foundation. Also on the dais was Chandigarh-based Khalsa Panchayat Convenor Rajinder Singh, known for his moderate Khalistani politics. Both Manmohan and Dhillon are blacklisted by the Indian Government.

In September last year, a 15-member International Advisory Council to the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (P.S.G.P.C.) was set up with Dhillon as the Chairman. The Dhillon-led Council inducted Pritpal (known to have close links with the Dal Khalsa and Babbar Khalsa), the Dal Khalsa’s U.K.-based Kesar Singh Mand and Manmohan Singh Khalsa, and U.K.-based Joga Singh from the Babbar Khalsa. Amongst the Indian members of the advisory council were Amarinder Singh and Paramjit Singh Sarna. Though Amarinder did not join the council, Harwinder Sarna did attend the council meeting held in Lahore on November 17. The meeting was also attended by Dhillon, Manmohan and Pritpal.

In all, the Indian government seems to take rather a dim view of Manmohan - when they’re not blacklisting him personally they seem intent on banning organisations with which he’s associated. The Dal Khalsa was proscribed by the Indian government for 10 years from 1982 before being permitted to start up again and a number of sources suggest that he was also, at one point, closely associated with the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) (the word ‘mouthpiece’ has been used to described his relationship with the ISYF) - as was Dr Jasdev Singh Rai, who’s standing as independent candidate in the Ealing Southall by-election.

The ISYF is currently one of two Sikh organisations proscribed by the British government under the Terrorism Act 2000, the other being the Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), which puts them in rather interesting company alongside the usual collection of Irish Republican and Unionist terrorist groups (IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF & LVF, amongst others), ETA, the Tamil Tigers, several branches of Islamic Jihad, three different Kashmiri terrorist groups - or should that be freedom fighters, Mrs Warsi (???) - and, of course, Osama and the boys from Al Qaeda. Not surprisingly the ISYF is also proscribed in India, and since 2004, in the United States of America.

And is is perennially the case, whenever there is talk of Khalistani secessionism and links to alleged (and proscribed) terrorist organisations in the North Western India, then talk of the malign hand of the Pakistani security services (ISI) - who are also cited as having played a instrumental part in supporting the development of the Taliban - is never too far behind.

A significant number of listed Punjab terrorists are currently known to be residing in the U.S. and Canada. A number of ‘Khalistani’ front organisations are extremely active in lobbying, propaganda and mobilisation of funds. These organisations include the Council of Khalistan, headed by Gurmit Singh Aulakh; the Khalistan Affairs Centre, headed by Amarjit Singh, who has a close association with the I.S.Y.F.; the Sikh Youth of America [S.Y.A.], under the leadership of J.S. Kang, John Gill, Jasjit Singh Fauji, and others; the American Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee [A.S.G.P.C.], headed by Pritpal Singh, a terrorist who was involved in several operations, including the Ludhiana bank robbery; the Dal Khalsa International [D.K.I.], coordinated by Ajit Singh Pannu; the Nankana Sahib Foundation Trust, headed by Ganga Singh Dhillon, who was closely associated with the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee [P.S.G.P.C.]; and the World Sikh Organisation [W.S.O.].

Links between such elements and Sikh terrorist leaders in Pakistan have retained their vibrancy and these have been consolidated through linkages between the American Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee [A.S.G.P.C.] and the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee [P.S.G.P.C.]. Linkages have also been forged between Kashmiri militant fronts in the U.S. and the Sikh Youth of America [S.Y.A.] and Babbar Khalsa, with the latter organisations paying out sums of money to the Kashmiri groups to target individuals identified by the Sikh extremists.

A rash of similar organisations and activities extends across Europe. The two factions of the B.K.I. (headed by Wadhawa Singh and Talwinder Singh Parmar respectively) for instance, have a presence in the U.K., France, Norway, and Germany. In the U.K., Mohan Singh Dhillon floated the Sikh Muslim Federation and was reported to have visited Pakistan to arrange meetings of Muslim militants of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (P.o.K.) with Sikh militants, to wage a ‘guerrilla war’ against India. These activities and interactions are supported, encouraged and facilitated by the I.S.I. Top Khalistani terrorists in Indian jails maintain active contact with many of these foreign-based groups.

Another interesting report linking Manmohan Singh Khalsa to a few interesting characters, and which makes the Pakistani government connection, appeared in The Chandigarh Tribune on November 2002:

Islamabad, November 21
In a significant development, President Pervez Musharraf today held a closed-door meeting with representatives of the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (PSGPC) and US and UK-based radical Sikh leaders. The meeting lasted 40 minutes.

Interestingly, neither Mr Alwinder Paul Singh Pakhoke, senior vice-president of the SGPC who led the jatha of 52 pilgrims, nor any other Indian Sikh leader was invited for the meeting.

Though the Sikh leaders refused to divulge what transpired at the meeting, sources said General Musharraf agreed in principle to convert Nankana Sahib, the birth place of Guru Nanak Dev into a Model Town. He also agreed to a face lift to Sikh shrines in Pakistan.

In another development, he offered to give due representation to Pakistani Sikhs in government jobs. Not even a single Pakistani Sikh holds a government post.

Sikh leaders from other countries, including Mr Gurmeet Singh Aulakh, president of the US-based Khalistan Council, Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa, UK-based Dal Khalsa leader, Dr Ganga Singh Dhillon, president of the Nankana Sahib Foundation (USA), Mr Avtar Singh Sanghera, UK-based Babbar Khalsa leader, Mr Lodhi, president of the World Muslim-Sikh Federation, and Mr Sahib Singh Peshawar, Mr Mastan Singh and Mr Naam Singh, all Pakistani Sikhs, attended the meeting.

And if that weren’t enough, there’s also this snippet of information from an article linked earlier:

The Amarinder-Sarna entourage had brought along noted singer and former Akal Takht Jathedar Prof. Darshan Singh. Brought along to sing ‘kirtan’ on the occasion, Darshan chose the occasion to also deliver a speech that sang paeans in devotion to Amarinder’s contribution towards the Sikh cause. Darshan has in the past been closely associated with the Khalistan movement. One of Darshan’s most controversial pronouncements has, in fact, been quoted by Aulakh in a recent essay deploring a section of U.S. Sikhs who had ’sold out’ to India as also in a statement released from Washington in the aftermath of the Lahore seminar. Darshan, along with Dhillon, Manmohan and Aulakh, had met Musharraf in November 2000 in Islamabad in connection with the proposed pro-Khalistan ‘Nankana Sahib Resolution.’ But, Paramjit Sarna had at that time refused to go along with that delegation to meet Musharraf.

While Amarinder and Sarna have little compunction in linking up with the P.S.G.P.C. in the interest of the ‘Sikh cause,’ its background seems to have been lost on them. Set up in 1999, the P.G.P.C.’s first head was a known anti-India hawk, Lt. Gen. Javid Nasir (retd.), the chief of the I.S.I. at the time of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. Apart from its objective of securing the maintenance and development of Sikh shrines in Pakistan, the P.G.P.C. was aimed at providing a platform for the remnants of the Khalistan movement outside India. Khalistani elements like Dhillon have been for long been associated with the P.G.P.C.

That last snippet throws up another interesting name associated with the World Muslim Sikh Federation, Prof. Darshan Singh, who has some rather interesting opinions:

On 25th January Prof. Darshan Singh Khalsa’s book Virtues Commune was launched at an impressive ceremony hosted by World Muslim Sikh Federation. The guests included Councilors and prominent persons of both communities.

In his opening speech Sardar Manmohan Singh Khalsa paid glowing tributes to Prof. Darshan Singh. He said that Professor Sahib has rendered singular service to Sikh Community as Jathedar, Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. Sardar Manmohan Singh also thanked Pakistan Government for looking after Sikh Gurdwaras in Pakistan in an excellent manner. Recalling his recent visits of Pakistan he gave various examples of the tremendous goodwill of Pakistani people.

Follwing these opening remarks Mr. Nazar Lodhi formally launched the book. Mr. Lodhi spoke of interfaith work that Muslim Sikh Federation has done in past several years.

Prof. Darshan Singh Khalsa, the writer and chief guest of the evening said that the misunderstandings between the two great communities were created by Brahimin’s Chanakya policy of intrigue. He said that by deliberate cleverness of Hindus the acts of traitors Chandu, Gangu, Sucha Nand, Lakhpat and Hindu hill Kings were not brought into light. Rather an effort was made to spread a word that the torture was ordered by Muslims Emperors on Sikh Gurus and the Sikh people. He also talked about the genocide of Sikhs particularly from 1984 to 1992 by the Indian Government.

Now I don’t know about you but this whole business of a ‘policy of intrigue’ and the ‘deliberate cleverness’ of a ethnic/racial group sounds rather too familiar in a very Western, and contemporary context, especially when this ‘review’ concludes with the following remarks:

He also highlighted the uniformity of principle of the two religions. He said Sikhs and Muslims both worship one God, whereas Hindus worship 33 crore gods and goddesses. Both Sikhs and Muslims do not believe in idol worship. On the other hand, Hindus worship idols made of stone and marble. The Sikh Guru never claimed to be God, like Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Definite a bit of blatant cosying up to Islam going on there and in the context of clear links with a country, Pakistan, that had its own fair share of issues with Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism.

Digging even further into the complex series of connections surrounding the World Muslim Sikh Federation threw up yet another controversial figure - Labour Peer, Nazir Ahmed, a man whose had a rather chequered run of late:

On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

And then there was

Labour’s most prominent Muslim peer, Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, urged support for the Conservative Party during the last general election. The claim comes from Labour MP for Dewsbury, Shahid Malik, who has provided evidence to the Labour Party that Ahmed campaigned for his opponent, Sayeeda Warsi in 2005. Warsi is now the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and a rising star of Cameron’s new look A-list of black, Asian and women candidates .

Malik has passed his concerns to the Labour chief whip, Jacqui Smith, and they will also be brought to the attention of the party’s National Executive Committee. The revelations could lead to the Muslim peer’s expulsion from the Labour Party.

Warsi, since then, has been appointed the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and has drawn widespread condemnation from both inside and outside her own party over her views on Kashmir and support for engagement with Hamas.

And only a few weeks ago

A Muslim peer compared Salman Rushdie to the September 11 hijackers today as the row over the author’s knighthood escalated…

Interviewed in Le Figaro newspaper in France, the Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham added fuel to the row when he hit out at Mr Rushdie.

“This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain,” he said. “Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.

“Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy.

“What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?”

And guess what..?

Self-determination as a human right and its applicability to the Sikhs was the theme of the speech given by Ranjit Singh Srai, a lawyer and co-ordinator of the Human Rights Advisory Group of the Panjabis in Britain All Party Parliamentary Group, at the World Muslim-Sikh Federation convention on Human Rights in South Asia held on July 24 in London…

…As part of his speech, Ranjit Singh Srai had read out a message by Lord Nazir Ahmed, a member of the British Parliament who was unable to attend the convention. Lord Ahmed in his note had called for the need of the Sikhs and Muslims of the subcontinent to work together in upholding the human rights of the people and expressed his hope that the conference would develop a stronger understanding between those who were peacefully engaged in struggles for self-determination, what he called “the most crucial human right of all”. Lord Ahmed reaffirmed his support for the establishment of Khalistan at a time when Sikh leaders in India are being targeted for calling for independence. He criticised India’s militarization and forceful suppression of self-determination movements in Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab and the state terror unleashed on the people of these two regions. Lord Ahmed’s message was well received. It carried an appeal for those concerned with the region to make common cause: “Durable peace, justice and the rule of law in South Asia is vital to the greater security of the world; we must work together to defeat those that threaten these ideals…. until India reverses grotesque challenges to civilised standards, we will work together to help ensure there is no UN Security Council seat for India.” wrote Lord Ahmed.

Manmohan Singh Khalsa and Nazar Lodhi, officers of the World-Muslim Sikh Federation, thanked speakers and guests alike and pledged to carry forward their work to promote human rights in South Asia.

So, at a meeting organised by a Khalistani secessionist group, we have an apparent advisor to an all-party parliamentary group reading a message by a Muslim peer in support of separatist movements in both the Punjab and Kashmir, movement that include several organisation proscribed under Britain’s anti-terrorism laws.

Interestingly, Lord Ahmed does not appear to be a member of the Panjabis in Britain group - which includes amongst its members an interesting mix of Labour (John McDonnell, Harry Cohen, etc), Tory (Dominic Grieve, David Willets) and Lib Dem (Simon Hughes) MPs, nor is it clear whether Ranjit Singh Srai still serves the group as a human rights advisor to the group. He is, however, the sponsor of another all-parliamentary group, Parliamentarians for National Self Determination, which is not currently on the approved list as, as a result, provides no membership information other that that of its Chair (Ahmed), Vice Chair - Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru) - and Ranjit Singh Srai, who ‘provides administrative assistance (organising meetings and events, preparing minutes, assisting with the preparation of position papers, liaising with other groups and organisations)’.

However an article in The Asian Age claims that others attending the launch of this group, which drew protests from the Indian High Commission and from Lord Dholakia, Chair of the Lib Dems Friends of India group, included:

Mr Simon Hughes, president of the Liberal Democratic Party, Daniel Hannon, member of the European Parliament from the Conservative Party, Mr Peter Wishart, MP of the Scottish Nationalist Party, and Mr Kashmiri Singh, general secretary of the British Sikh Federation.

While this article in Panthic Weekly shows that both Kashmiri and Khalistani groups attended and addressed the meeting alongside groups supporting self-determination in Kosovo, Chechnya and Kurdistan, prompting Lord Dholakia to comment:

“When examining home-grown terrorism, we need to consider the pronouncements often made by responsible people in our community in this country. I refer, for example, to those who exploit the situation in the subcontinent by advocating self-determination of some states in that part of the world. Those are the breeding grounds of emotions and hatred and do nothing but damage the stability of some people in this country and the stability of communities.”

So what have we learned from all this?

Well, for starters, that the Tories much trumpeted new acquisition, Cllr Gurcharan Singh, keeps what many both inside and outside the Asian communities in Southall would consider some rather curious and maybe just a little bit unnerving company of late, company that is all the more curious for his having been reported in 2005, by the Sikh Times, as stating:

‘There was a phase after the Operation Bluestar in the Golden Temple when the Sikhs really felt hurt by the army attack and demolition of the highest Sikh shrine. They thought the Government of India had deliberately humiliated them. But things have moved on. No rational sikh will raise the demand for Khalistan.’

In which case, what’s he doing knocking around with the - by his own definition - ‘irrational’ members of the World Muslim Sikh Federation, who seem to do little else but raise the demand for Khalistan?

Mmm… food for thought, eh?

A much more nuanced interpretation of Singh’s remarks might well be thought to be that no rational Sikh would raise the demand for Khalistan in Southall and expect to be elected - the general unpopularity of Khalistani groups in Southall is well known to both Labour party activists in the area, and to those in touch with the local community, a community in which many will take a very dim view of Singh’s apparent association with the likes of the World Muslim Sikh Forum and the P.C.G.P.C.

This, together with Singh’s reputation as ‘a factional, power-hungry operator’ and a divisive element in the local party goes a long way to explaining why the mood amongst local Labour activists in Ealing Southall is running somewhere between sanguine and relieved (and why progressive members of the local Asian communities are positive rejoicing as his decision to cross the floor.

Better still, one of the Tory candidate’d Tony Lit’s, big selling points - other than being a mate of Dave’s and owning a few well-tailored and expensive suits - was that he came into the campaign relatively free of any associations with known local power-brokers, communalist/sectarian factions or connections with the complex and sometimes bewildering politics of North Western India, an advantage that’s evaporated overnight courtesy of a pretty reckless act of political opportunism by the Tory Party, who’ve succeeding only in tainting both their candidate and campaign with political associations that go strongly against the grain of much of the local community. Much of the smart money locally suggests that whatever the Tories might gain in votes from Singh’s defection will be more than made up by voters switching away from Lit because his party’s now public association with a man who hang’s out with Khalistani nationalist groups.

If you’re in Southall over the next few days and you want to find out where Tony Lit is campaiging, just follow the trail of blood and look for the guy with the Armarni suit and a serious limp whose mumbling about his mate Dave having shot him in the foot.

That’ll be Tony…

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 Comments »