Watching Guido trying to salvage a few meagre shreds of reputation as the blogosphere premier ‘Sleazefinder General’ is, I must admit, rather entertaining.

Do You Believe there is No Connection Between Cash and Honours?

Tony Blair created 292 peers. Millions were raised from the recipients of those honours…

Does anyone - or should I say anyone expressing an honest and unbiased opinion - really believe that a full audit of Tory Party finances and donations covering the Thatcher/Major government, which created 341 peers between them, would not show much the same kind of correlation?

And what about the £6 million in loans that the Tories paid off to ensure that the identities of their backers remained out of the public domain?

Ah, can you hear that folks? That’s the sound of silence…

Still, I guess all this does save Guido the time and trouble of trying to finish off writing ‘The Trial of  Lord Levy’ - unless Levy decides to sue him for libel and defamation, of course…

Anyone up for starting work on the Trial of Paul Staines Guido Fawkes?

Even more amusing, however, is the sight of the blogosphere’s premier Guido wannabe, Praguetory, appearing to admit to having withheld information from the Police in regards to criminal offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925:

it’s very hard to believe that the 6,300 documents prepared by the police over the course of about a year and passed to the CPS 3 (!) months ago were insufficient for a case to come to court. Not only is the evidence of wrongdoing clear, but I have been told by a number of sources close to specific lenders that they admit that they were trying to buy a lordship.

First things first - about this claim that ‘the evidence of wrongdoing is clear’, Praguetory…

Are you claiming to have seen the evidence submitted by the police to the CPS for consideration, or are you simply trying to pass off an extremely unqualified personal opinion as a matter of fact?

And in either case, in what sense do you consider yourself qualified to judge the strength of the evidence presented to the CPS by the Metropolitan Police. Are you a solicitor or barrister? Do you have a degree in law?

No of course you aren’t and you don’t, you’re just a loudmouth Tory blogger with a bloated sense of your own self-importance and a desperate craving for attention.

Moving on swiftly to Praguetory’s other claim…

I have been told by a number of sources close to specific lenders that they admit that they were trying to buy a lordship.

Well if that’s true, why have you not forwarded that information to the Metropolitan Police? Do you not realise that not only is the sale of honours a criminal offence under section 1 of the 1925 Act but also the solicitation of honours, which is covered by section 2…

(2) If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

Notwithstanding your patently transparent political motives, Praguetory, if you are aware of any individuals who may have offered loans or donations to any political party in the hope of obtaining a peerage or other honour for themselves of for third party then you are surely under a moral and ethical obligation to disclose their identity and/or the identity of your claimed sources together with any other relevant information appertaining to these alleged ‘admissions’ to the Metropolitan Police for further investigation.

After all, the solicitation of honours carries the same penalty as their sale - up to two years imprisonment on indictment or three months on summary conviction - as specified by the third and final section of the Act:

(3) Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty.

There is, of course, another possible (and many would argue likely) explanation for Praguetory’s remarks, which is simply that he’s bullshitting and that these ’sources close to specific lenders’ are no more than figments of his ego and his desperation to be seen as a big wheel in the discreditable, and increasingly discredited, histrionic wing of the Tory blogosphere.

(Despite surface appearances to the contrary, which stem primarily from the relentless media whoring and playing to the troll gallery of the likes of Guido and Iain Dale, there are actually some very good Tory bloggers out there, of whom I can happily recommend Mr Eugenides, Bel and Matt Wardman as being well worth a read if, like me, you prefer your political opponents to be honest, authentic and intelligent.)

Based on his comments, of which I’ve naturally taken a screenshot (see below) it seems to me that Praguetory has painted himself into a corner in which he has left himself only three options.

1) He can demonstrate the veracity of his claim to have been told by ’sources close to specific lenders’ of these alleged attempts to solicit honours in breach of section 2 of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, by forwarding the information he purports to have to the Metropolitan Police, thereby initiating further inquiries.

2) He can publish the identities of the specific lenders named by his claimed sources, secure in the knowledge that his ’sword of truth’ will prevail when he gets whacked with the inevitable libel action that would result from such a course of action, or

3) He can respond to the above challenge with his usual mix of bullshit and bluster and then waffle on about the importance of protecting sources and put up whatever other excuses for inaction he can think of - thereby reinforcing the impression that many will already have of him, that of his being a congenital bullshitter who will say pretty much anything in his unbounded desperation to climb the slippery pole of the Tory blogosphere to the lip of the gutter currently occupied by Guido.

Or he could just libel Bob Piper again in the hope that that might deflect attention away from the embarrassment of his made a complete cunt of himself, yet again.

With everything else that’s gone on around the Ealing Southall by-election and mere hours before the polls open, you’d think there was nothing left to be said until the result is announced tomorrow night.

And you’d be wrong, because just when you thought you’d seen every last twist and turn, Jonathan Isaby pops up at the Telegraph and manages to drop himself and the Tory Party right in the shit with a blog post (now hastily removed) that appears to contain a criminal breach of the Representation of the People Act:

Before anyone asks, the incriminating bit - which purports to show the postal vote tallies for the three main parties - has been blurred out for legal reasons, specifically those listed in Schedule 6, Section 66A of the 2000 amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983, to whit:

“66A. - (1) No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed-

(a) any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted, or

(b) any forecast as to the result of the election which is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information so given.

(2) This section applies to-

(a) any parliamentary election; and

(b) any local government election in England or Wales.

(3) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.”

Got that? Up to six months in the Jeffrey Archer Suite at Belmarsh for publishing even the results of an exit poll before the polls close, never mind publishing the tallies that parties shouldn’t really be taking, from the verification of postal votes and Isaby manages to finger a ’source inside the Tory Campaign’ as having provided the information.

And lets not forget, of course, that should Her Maj’s Constabulary take a bit of a gander at this, then Isaby is going to come under pressure to identify his source within the Tory campaign and, should he refuse, could face the prospect of playing chicken with a judge over the relative importance of protecting one’s source vs contempt of court, a game in, so I am reliably informed, the judge always wins.

Not much else to say at the moment apart from cheers to PP for the heads up and to dedicate this next couple of songs are Jonathan and his, as yet, unnamed source:

And now for a little Magic Sam…

Something that’s been bothering me since Tony Lit’s first appearance as the Tory candidate for Ealing Southall is the business of his resignation from his position as Managing Director of Sunrise Radio.

If you’ll recall, a number of questions were asked over at Tory Home about Lit’s sudden appearance on the scene and his credentials as a Tory, let alone as a Tory candidate, in response to which cam this ‘explanation’:

Just to be clear, Tony did become a member of the Party before passing the Parliamentary Assessment Board. He has always voted Conservative but couldn’t join the Party earlier due to his directorship of the radio station, a position which he has duly resigned from.

Now the idea that Lit couldn’t join the Tory Party as an ordinary member while serving as a director of a local radio station is complete and utter nonsense - there is absolutely nothing to that effect in either electoral law, broadcasting law or in OFCOM’s own regulation. In actual fact, as a regulatory body set up by Act of Parliament, OFCOM are a public authority in law and therefore bound by the provisions of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, by article 11, which provides for freedom of association as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

Clearly, even with it being a qualified right, there is nothing there that would permit OFCOM to restrict Lit, or anyone else for that matter, from joining a political party while holding a directorship of a local radio station - in fact there’s nothing to prevent Lit from holding down such a directorship while standing as candidate in an election, whether as a member of a political party or as independent. Remember, Lit’s father, Avtar, stood as independent in 2001 in the same constituency while still retaining ownership/control of Sunrise Radio, and even though the station was fined £10,000 for breaching regulations on political broadcasts, having played excepts from a interview with Avtar Lit where he expressed political opinions related to his subsequent, unsuccessful, campaign to become an MP, at no time was Lit’s ownership of the station questioned or deemed unacceptable.

And of course, if one wants a even more striking precedent, one should remember that disgraced former Tory MP, Jonathan Aitken, fought the 1983 general election in the seat of South Thanet while serving as the managing director of TV-AM in 1983 - he got a glass of red win poured over his over his head by Anna Ford, later that year, but that’s another story.

There is nothing in either law or regulations that would force Lit to resign as a director of Sunrise Radio in order to stand for election in Ealing Southall, or any other constituency, and while political broadcasting is heavily regulated prior to and during elections, Lit’s position as MD of Sunrise Radio is entirely immaterial - he’s not a broadcaster or presenter on the station, so there’s no possible conflict there, and as for any possibility of him using his position to make use of the station to support his campaign, well the station is being carefully monitored by his opponents to ensure it stays willing broadcasting/electoral law during the by-election campaign anyway. Sunrise Radio is a family-owned business, so even if Lit has removed himself from a position of direct influence, other members of his family, including his father haven’t, which is why the station is being monitored.

Lits’ apparent resignation as a director of Sunrise Radio has no bearing whatsoever on either its being controlled by the Lit family or on its being monitored carefully by his opponents to ensure it stays within the law.

At best, Lit’s resignation from Sunrise Radio is a bit of meaningless PR, even if you take it entirely at face value.

It’s a facet of this election campaign that, frankly, doesn’t make sense and, as a result, has had my ’something’s not quite right here’ bump itching all week - until Saturday evening that it, when this photograph came to light.

As is now well known, that Tony Lit pictured with Tony Blair at a Labour Party fund-raising event a matter of only four weeks ago, and event it which Sunrise Radio paid £4,800 (as a donation to the Labour Party) for a table at the event and then outbid other tables in an auction to pledge a further £4,000 for a trip to Atlanta to one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising events, which Sunrise hasn’t, yet, paid.

Suddenly the light bulb goes on.

£4,800 plus another £4,000 pounds equals £8,800 - excuse the very basic maths, I have to explain these things slowly and patiently so Praguetwat can keep up - and any donation to a political party over the sum of £5,000 has to be declared to the Electoral Commission and entered on its register of donations.

Suppose, just for a second, that this photo hadn’t come to light over the weekend and that Lit had actually gone on to win the by-election on Thursday. Its an unlikely scenario, I know, but in an infinite universe anything is possible… well, most things anyway - Praguetwat growing up and behaving like an adult is too much for anyone to expect.

Had that happened, and Sunrise had coughed up the other £4,000 the owe the Labour Party, then we would have had the rather embarrassing scenario of a fledgling Tory MP being exposed as the managing director of Sunrise Radio, a Labour Party donor, within his first three months in the House of Commons, with all the attendant adverse publicity that would go with it…

…unless said fledging MP had made a big public show of resigning as Managing Director of Sunrise Radio, right at the outset of his campaign.

Two or three months down the line, as an unremarkable backbench Tory MP and with the media’s attention on other matters by then, Sunrise’s donations might easily have crept through onto the Electoral Commission’s register almost unnoticed, especially as by stalling on payment of the £4,000 for the Atlanta trip until after by-election over, what the register would show is that this donation was made well after Lit has joined the Tory Party and resigned from Sunrise Radio, giving him a measure of plausible deniability that’s lacking once one become aware that both donations relate to same event, which took place only slightly before he became a Tory PPC and a time when he most certainly was the Managing Director of Sunrise Radio.

All that is conjectural of course, but the more you come to think about it, the more this last scenario, which has Lit resigning as MD of Sunrise Radio to put a bit of distance between himself and a couple of potentially embarrassing donations to the Labour Party sounds much more plausible than the suggestion than the story put out by Tory Home, which in the absence of any relevant regulations or laws to compel Lit to such a course of action, looks rather short on verisimilitude.

Of course, if Lit can produce correspondence with OFCOM, or a transcript of a discussion with them, which categorically demonstrates that he was advised by them to stand down as MD of Sunrise Radio on becoming a Tory candidate, then the matter of the veracity of the story put out by Tory Home will be settled conclusively in its favour.

Unless and until that happens, we seem to have two possible ways of accounting for his resignation from Sunrise Radio to  consider, of which that suggested by this weekend’s revelations current seems the more plausible.

Comments are, of course, open here as they always are, should Mr Lit wish to confirm which is the more accurate account of his reasons for resigning from Sunrise Radio…

It seem that dear old Boris is just a touch indecisive about whether or not to run for London Mayor, so I thought I’d give him a bit of hand by reminding just what a wonderful TV performer he is:

I see Iain Dale’s reporting that the Tories are planning to sue the Lib Dems for copyright infringement over use of a photo of Tony Lit in one of their leaflets, at the conclusion of which he makes this hilarious observation:

Whatever the result of this by-election Grant Shapps and his team have drawn a line in the sand and taken on the LibDems in a way which has rarely happened in the past.

Well, yes, Shapps has made quite an impression, whether by making unsubstantiated allegations about an alleged Lib Dem poster lottery (which would have been illegal had the Tories had any evidence to back up their claim) or by getting caught astroturfing using his own YouTube account.

That said, here’s another couple of Lit-related photos for Dale and Shapps to chew on…

Here’s the Minimum ‘Voted Tory all his Life’ Tone schmoozing with the Maximum Tone at the Labour Party fundraiser on 20th June 2007, a mere seven days before he joined the Tory Party and a mere eight days before he was installed by CCHQ as the Tory candidate for the Ealing Southall By-election -

Sky News has picked up the story and obtained a response from Lit -

Mr Lit insisted he was at the event in a business capacity as managing director of Sunrise Radio.

He has since quit the Asian station which serves London.

Mr Lit told Sky News he did not know the bash was designed to raise cash for Labour coffers.

“It was a diversity event and I attend them throughout the year,” he said.

“It was just part and parcel of my everyday job.”

I guess his former everyday job as MD of Sunrise Radio can’t have included signing cheques such as the one below, which paid £4800 to the Labour Party to cover Mr Lit’s attendance at this event…

If anyone does happen to recognise the signature on the cheque, please let me know who it belongs to…

UPDATE

No soon as I ask the question, the Torygraph provides the answer…

Mr Lit’s company, Sunrise Radio, paid £4,800 for a table at the event in a cheque made out to the Labour Party five days earlier and signed by his father Avtar Lit, chairman of Sunrise.

And there’s more…

During an auction, the Sunrise table also successfully bid £4,000 for a weekend trip to Atlanta, the highlight of which was two places at a fundraising dinner for Hillary Clinton.

Labour insiders said Mr Lit’s company had not yet paid the £4,000. If they had, in addition to the £4,800 for the table, it would have put them over the £5,000 limit requiring Labour to declare them as a donor.

Dale will be pissed off, especially as the byline on the story goes to Melissa Kite…

As for Dale’s story about the Tories suing the Lib Dem for breach of copyright, Lib Dem Voice has this to say…

After the all-round rubbishing of the Grant Shapps “but my password was set to 1234″ story which Iain Dale published (and is pretty much the only person to say they believe) you’d have thought Iain would be a bit more careful about stories he is fed in future.

But it would seem not … for his latest outburst about the Liberal Democrats using a photo of the Conservative candidate and thereby breaching the law, leaving themselves open to massive legal costs (and probably being guilty of eating babies too) is left looking really rather odd by one small fact.

Can you guess what the leaflet the Conservatives have been distributing today in the Ealing Cleveland council by-election includes?

Oh go on, I’m sure you can… (hint: it’s a photo, it’s of the Lib Dem candidate, and it’s taken from a Lib Dem website).

Now, if using such a photo is a heinous crime, do pray tell us Iain what that means the Tories in Ealing have been up to. After all, it’s not as if you would be saying that there is one rule for the Tories and another for everyone else is it?

Yep, that Grant Shapps sure is sticking it to the LD’s, isn’t he?

Short on time at the moment, so this will a touch cryptic but…

In my last post I pointed out that the Tories latest ‘defectors’ - ex Hounslow councillors Parmod Kad and Sarbjit Singh Gill - weren’t defectors at al, having left the Labour Party in 2006 to stand for election as candidates of the Hounslow Independent Alliance.

Well, since posting that, it has become apparent that there’s a bit more to this story - namely that it would appear that the two gentlemen in question didn’t so much leave the Labour - they were more expelled from the party for matters relating (allegedly) to this report of the Local Government Ombudsman:

London Borough of Hounslow (05/A/14008) NEW

Maladministration causing injustice

Hounslow Council’s Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee took irrelevant matters into account and failed to give weight to the Council’s own policies and planning guidance when it decided not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development, found the Ombudsman. He found fault in the way the decision was taken, and recommended that it be reconsidered by a different committee.

He said “It appears that there is still a need for training about planning matters for the members of this committee,” as information about the decisions of the Heston and Cranford Area Planning Committee suggested that this was not a solitary lapse.

‘Mr Smith’ and ‘Mr Jones’ (not their real names) lived in a conservation area. They complained about the way that the Council decided not to take enforcement action against a neighbour who had built a rear garage and added features to his house without planning permission. The development has had a detrimental effect on Mr Smith’s and Mr Jones’ enjoyment of their own homes, and they consider that it has reduced the value of their properties. 

The Council investigated Mr Smith’s complaint and agreed that that the development breached the Council’s policies and guidance for building in conservation areas and was detrimental to the local street scene. They made a recommendation to the Heston and Cranford area planning committee that enforcement action should be taken to make the neighbour remove the garage and other unauthorised features.

The area committee decided not to take action. In doing so, they took into account irrelevant matters and factually inaccurate information. They gave little weight to the Council’s policies and planning guidance. Some members of the committee had received no training in planning issues. One of the reasons given for their decision was factually inaccurate.

Mr Smith and Mr Jones were disappointed with the Council’s failure to consider the matter properly and had to make great and prolonged efforts to have the decision reconsidered.

A review of the Council’s records revealed that in recent years this area committee had refused a higher proportion of officers’ recommendations to take planning enforcement action than the Council’s other area planning committees, and that concerns about this committee’s planning decision making had been raised in a report to the Council’s Executive Committee by its Scrutiny Committee in 2003. 

The Ombudsman found maladministration causing injustice and recommended the Council to:

• put this case to the Council’s Sustainable Development Committee for it to consider afresh whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action;
• pay Mr Smith £500;
• pay Mr Jones £500; and
• review the report and recommendations adopted by its Executive in 2003, to see what can be done to build on this report and ensure the implementation of its decisions, and when this has been done, to write to tell the Ombudsman what further action the Council proposes to take.

16 May 2007

Back with a bit more in due course, including - with a bit of luck - the full Ombudsman’s report.

… from the Hounslow Independent Alliance.

Yes, that’s right - despite the Times billing Cameron’s planned meeting with Parmod Kad and Sarbjit Singh Gill, two former Hounslow Borough Labour councillors, as another defection from Labour to the Tories:

Two more local Labour politicians will defect to the Conservatives today in Ealing Southall, adding to Labour’s woes as a by-election campaign in the West London seat enters its final week.

David Cameron, making his third visit to the constituency, will meet two former Labour councillors from a neighbouring borough who are switching to join his party.

One is Parmod Kad, general secretary of the Indian Overseas Welfare Association UK, who was appointed MBE two years ago for services to community relations in Southall.

He lives in Southall although he was a Labour councillor in neighbouring Hounslow, as was Sarbjit Singh Gill, who will defect with him to the Conservatives. Their decision will be hailed by Mr Cameron as another sign of broadening support for his party.

…neither of Cameron’s new acquisitions are actually current Labour politicians or, it appears, even members of the Labour Party, as this table of election results from last year’s local elections (Cranwell Ward, Hounslow) clearly demonstrates:

And for the avoidance of any further doubt, here’s the Hounslow Alliance Party’s annual return to the Electoral Commission. (pdf)

I’ve left a comment on the Times article, by Greg Hurst, pointing out the very obvious, and frankly bizarre error, given that a simple Google search for ‘Parmod Kad Hounslow’ brings up the election result give above as the third item on the list - one slot above Hurst’s article.

Whether that gets past the Times’ moderators is anyone guess at the moment, but to some extent that’s a secondary consideration.

Of considerably more interest, given some of the events that have taken place over the last week, is precisely where Hurst got this incorrect information from.

Did it come directly from Tory Central Office? From their election co-ordinator, Grant Shapps? From Ealing Southall Conservative Association? Or is someone down in Ealing Southall doing a bit of ‘freelancing’ on their campaign?

Over the last week we’ve seen:

- several instances of apparent astroturfing of Lib Dem blogs, which is alleged to have come from Tory supporters, including one badly executed effort that used Grant Shapps own YouTube account (which has already been dubbed 1234Gate) and another in which the name of a Lib Dem councillor in Manchester was used, without his knowledge, to post a suggestion that the Lib Dems should withdraw from the by-election, leaving a straight Labour/Tory fight.
-  a Tory canvasser admit to stealing election leaflets put out by other party’s from local residents’ letterboxes.

- The ‘did she, didn’t she’ non-defection of a Labour councillor, Zahida Abbas Noori, which concluded with an allegation that a letter of resignation from the Labour Party had been inserted on a blank sheet of paper that she’d signed in the belief that it would be used to submit a complaint about Labour’s selection process.

One expects a few shenanigans, a bit of political knockabout and point scoring and a fair bit of spin during a hotly contested by-election, but the antics attributed to the Tory Party on this occasion seem to be going beyond spin and well towards downright dishonesty and a contempt for both the electors of Ealing Southall and the democratic process, particularly as Cllr Noori’s account of the defection that wasn’t raises, if it is true - and the Tories appear not to have attempted to rebut her allegation as yet -  serious questions about the honesty and integrity of a serving local councillor.

When all’s done and dusted and the results are in, its seems likely that serious questions may need to be asked about some of the campaign ‘tactics’ deployed by the Conservative Party and its supporters during this campaign.

That said, what is rather more worrying, in terms of the events of the last week, is the apparent lack of awareness in Tory ranks of the complexities of campaigning and building support in areas that have a diverse - and electorally significant - group of ethnic minority communities, particular ones with roots in the Indian Subcontinent, with all the communalist political frictions and tensions that go with such a background.

To go blundering around in such communities looking for cheap electoral gains, without a clear understanding of the extent to which local politics can be shaped as much by events taking place in the Amritsar, Islamabad and New Delhi and the political and religious divisions of the region, is to invite the potential for trouble of a kind that the Conservative Party (and the Liberal Democrats for that matter) have little or no experience of dealing with or managing.

Whether one likes it or not, in campaigning in such areas one has to be careful not to fall unwittingly into making alliances with or supporting sectarian interests in much the same way that one would do well to avoid running a campaign in Glasgow on openly Protestant or Catholic lines. To campaign in such a way as to invite local communities, even inadvertently, to view an election not as a contest between legitimate political parties but as one between defined sectarian, religious and/or ethnic interests is a dangerous road to go down and one that is, ultimately, more likely to damage community relations rather than promote community cohesion and integration.

While I’ve no reason, at present, to doubt Cameron’s sincerity in seeking to reach out to minority communities and his efforts to reshape the Tory Party into on that is genuinely inclusive of all communities, on the strength of their campaign in Ealing Southall I have serious doubts about the extent to which Cameron, and others amongst the current Tory ‘top brass’ understand and appreciate quite how complicated an arena they are entering or how important it is to build real and genuine relationships with all communities in such areas and not fall into the trap to short-cut their way to a few extra votes on the back of cutting deals with sectarian factions and playing at communalist politics.

Seeing that failed-aspirant-Labour-PPC-turned-Tory Gurcharan Singh is intent on asking a few questions, I thought I might ask a question or two of my own.

Gurcharan, I’d like you to think back a couple of months, to 19th May this year, and the events shown in this video…

Next, I’d like to read this account of events that took place in the Sri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, Southall, following this protest.

Re: Incident of Intimidation & Threats at Park Ave Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Southall on 19.5.07

Press/statement by the General Secretary, Executive Committee, Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha

I humbly wish to bring to the notice of the Sangat a disturbing incident that occurred at Park Avenue Gurdwara on the evening of the 19th of May 2007.

As a background to this, one needs to be aware that some so-called ‘Panthic organisations’ had organised a ‘demonstration’ to protest about the serious situation that had occurred in the Punjab and the very unfortunate loss of life that had occurred in relation to the ‘Sacha Sauda’ incident*. This demonstration had been called without the knowledge and any prior discussion with the management committee of the Gurdwara; although the demonstration was going to take place from Havelock Road Gurdwara to Park Avenue Gurdwara.

*This post of Sunny’s will explain some of the background to this…

The management committee had made regular announcements and giving detailed updates of the situation in the Punjab and also appealed to everyone for calm, and await the effort that senior organisations in the Punjab were making; and also advised that we should all wait for the announcement due on the 20th of May from the Akal Takht Sahib before taking further steps.

One of the apparent organisers of the demonstration, a Mr Gurcharan Singh, had come and met a representative of the executive committee on the 18th of May and advised us that the demonstration would be a peaceful one. He informed us that at the end of the demonstration, persons participating in the demonstration would come and congregate around the Nishan Sahib at Park Ave (the area in front of the Gurdwara) and do Kirten followed by Ardas in that area, and then disperse.

[Cllr Singh has asserted that this refers to a Gurcharan Singh other than himself. The electoral roll does show two individuals named Gurcharan Singh registered in the Southall area - see update at end of post]

However, subsequent events, which I will now detail, showed that this was a pre-planned politically motivated attempt at character assassination as well as an attempt to destabilise the Sabha. The Sangat became clearly aware of this as events unfolded in the Diwan Sahib (the main prayer hall).

he demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue Gurdwara (as previously discussed) but did not do any Kirten or Ardas. Instead they burnt an effigy and then proceeded into the main prayer hall. The Police left the scene at this stage.

Some of the persons who had led the march approached myself and the stage secretary Mr Tejinder Singh Samra and demanded that they be allowed to say Ardas at 6:30 p.m., which was in between when the Kirten was due to finish and the Katha (discourse) starting. We discussed this with them, and pointed out that this was most unusual and would cause a disturbance to the regular programme of the Gurdwara, and it was not something that had been agreed the day before. Some of those persons said, because of the situation in the Punjab, the Ardas had to be done; we then agreed that it could be done at the end of the programme at about 7:30 p.m. and requested that the entire congregation should join together in this.

However, they said this was not acceptable and that this (i.e. the Ardas) was going to happen whether we liked it or not! In order to defuse the situation as we could clearly see that these persons were demanding in a threatening and aggressive manner; we agreed to their demands, and so we agreed that we could take a short break in the programme and do the Ardas. Not content with that; they then demanded that one of the persons, a certain Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa, be given five minutes to speak to the congregation so he could make them aware of the events that were going on in India.

We politely reminded them that this was not in order and not something that had been agreed to. One of their lead persons, a Mr Jaswant Singh Dhillon requested that in order to defuse the situation we should allow this speech to go ahead. Also at that time his son, Gurpreet Singh, stated in no uncertain terms that it was going to happen anyway! We then agreed that this person be allowed to speak on the stage but only on the topic of the events going on in the Punjab and after his speech a trustee of the Gurdwara, Mr Surjit Singh Bilga, would also say a few words to the congregation. This was agreed by ALL present.

After the Ardas; I personally went over to Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa* and humbly requested that he speak only on the situation in the Punjab; which he did for a few minutes. However, after that he started making an attack on the president of the Sabha, Mr Himmat Sohi, for attending a RSS meeting; while this was happening, I realised that some persons had started to use the video screen and were going to put on a video, which apparently had also been put out on ‘Youtube’ (about Mr Sohi) when this was happening. Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me in a very emotional terms said to me that Mr Sohi was going to be removed as president of the Gurdwara today and I (Dr Garcha) would be declared as president! I was shocked and saddened at the state of events that were taking place. I made my way over to the corner of the prayer hall where the computer controlling the video screen was located. When I got to the computer six people gathered around me and I stated to them in a calm and collected manner that this is not what we had agreed, and as this was the Guru’s Diwan showing videos like this was not permitted. They just replied, “Who are you to stop us!”

*This post gives some of the background to Manmohan Singh Khalsa and his current organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation.

At the same time an Elderly volunteer at the Gurdwara (who I recognised as Mr Gill) was pulling me backwards with both his arms! I was shocked. I remonstrated with him very politely and respectfully and said that he should let go of me, but he refused. There was no way that I was going to involve myself in a physical tussle with him even though he was being aggressive and pulling me; he said that this video must be shown, as did the other young persons who were surrounding me at this time. One of those was Mr Harjit Singh who is known to me as a member of the Gurdwara. Mr Harjot Singh (the lead IT coordinator of the Gurdwara) was standing to my left and told me that if I requested him to switch the video off he would do so; to this Mr Harjit Singh said he would stop him from doing it. I did not request him to do so, as I felt that this would further inflame the situation and cause further disrespect to the sanctity of the Diwan. Just at this time Mr Gurpreet Singh came over to me again, and again in very emotional terms, said that the video will go on; and I again remonstrated with him that we had agreed the program with him, his father and Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

He was still very emotional and talking in an aggressive tone and said that I was the person who had expelled him from the membership (this was done by the Executive Committee in April 2006 after due process), and now he was a member of the Sangat and Waheguru (god) gives him permission and that the discussion and agreement made previously doesn’t count for anything and the video will go on!

While this was happening Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa had taken it upon himself to request another speaker, a Mr Dabinderjit Singh, again breaking the agreement that we had previously made in the Divan, right behind the Palki Sahib (I understand he is from Slough and from an organisation called the Sikh Federation).Once had spoken, Mr Tejinder Singh Samra took the microphone from him and switched it off. As soon as he had done this Scuffles broke out and he was manhandled and pushed to the back and a lot of commotion at occurred as other persons from the Sangat came to protect him from further assault (note that all this happened in the sanctitiy of the Divan and right beside the Palki Sahib where Guru Maharaj were present. At this time, the police were called (it has to be noted that the police that had accompanied the demonstration left soon after the demonstrators came into the front of Park Avenue). I then requested that the sound system be disabled, and this was duly done. This clearly upset many of the persons who were bent on causing trouble. We also requested at this time that the usual program be start and a final prayer of the day be done by the Granthi Sahib (he did a marvellous job during all this commotion; and was continually requesting everyone to be respectful and behave as good Sikhs; although he was being intimidated and asked to go from the Palki Sahib by one of the persons of the organising group; but we give him great credit that he did not move and continued to show the utmost of respect to everyone). So as not to continue to further disrespect to Guru Granth Sahib final prayers were said and the program finished. However, many of the demonstrators still stayed in the hall; and it was apparent afterwards, that some persons had also vandalised the sound system by pulling many of the wires. We thank Mr Harjot Singh, who stayed on, till well past midnight to resolve matters.

By this time the police had also arrived, and I spoke to the duty officer Mr Singleton, and appraised him of the situation; I also said that I expected, many of the persons to leave gradually but requested that he leave two of his officers to ensure that this took place.

It was clear that this was pre-planned and coordinated as many of the demonstrators went upstairs to the office to probably interfere with the video recording equipment; because of this officers were called up to the office to avoid a probable breach of the peace, as persons in the office were concerned that these persons had come with ulterior motives. This was in fact, probably the case as many of them quickly moved out when the police came. However, two or three of them took it upon themselves to shout and became very rude to the policemen. This is very unfortunate as the Police have a difficult enough role anyway.

I, on behalf, of the executive committee and trustees, humbly request all persons involved in this and all members of the Sangat that the Gurdwara is a place of worship and not a place for confrontation, ill feeling and un Sikh like behaviour; and we ask everybody to come together and pray for a peaceful resolution to the current situation in Punjab. We also would like to remind everybody that in order to address some of the issues regarding the Gurdwara where persons may have differing opinions; a working group has been formed, and that is the platform where these differing opinions should be discussed and not in the main Diwan Hall.

For further information regarding this please contact Dr Parvinder Singh Garcha on xxx xxxx xxxx

So, Gurcharan, were you one of the organisers of the protest that resulted in this rather unsavoury sounding incident?

And if so, is it really appropriate for a local councillor, one who is supposed to represent the whole community, to be involved (allegedly) in the organisation of sectarian protests about events taking place thousands of miles away?

Oh, and if, as you said in 2005, ‘No rational sikh will raise the demand for Khalistan’, what’s with all the people chanting ‘Khalistan Zindabad’ in the video? Are they just being irrational?

Feel free to use the comments box - unlike your blog, I don’t screen comments first…

RESPONSE FROM CLLR SINGH

The story from Ministry of Truth is nothing but a lie. I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard. The ministry has got wrong end of the stick. I believe they are talking about a Gurcharan Singh and not Councillor Gurcharan Singh. I would ask them to check their facts and apologise to me unreservedly for the offence they have caused to me and my family.I further believe that by putting this story and linking it with me is nothing short of my character assissinqation.
Cllr. Gurcharan Singh

MY RESPONSE

1. The article above is sourced from a press release issued by the Gurdwara Executive Committee and has been published in good faith. The press release itself is reproduced with only minor annotations to clarify the background to the event which took place at the Gurdwara on the date in question and the background to one of the main protagonists in those events, Mr Manmohan Singh Khalsa.

2. The article, as is evident, does not assert categorically that the Gurcharan Singh referred to by the Gurdwara is Cllr Gurcharan, rather it asks Cllr Singh whether he is the Gurcharan Singh mentioned in the press release and, in the event that he confirmed this to be the case, posed a couple of supplementary questions relating to matters of clear interest to both the Sikh community in Southall, and generally to electors in the area.

3. Having appended Cllr Singh’s response to this article, the demands of accuracy are thus satisfied, in so far as he has issued a denial in response to the questions posed.

4. His assertion that the article is ‘nothing but a lie’ and that it amounts to ‘character assassination’ is a nonsense. Given that a Gurcharan Singh was clearly identified by the Gurdwara has having informed that that the protest was to take place and that one of the main protagonists in the altercation within the Gurdwara following the protest, heads an organisation, the World Muslim Sikh Federation, which was was represented at a meeting in Pakistan attended by Cllr Singh a little less than a month later, it seems perfectly reasonable in light of the content of the Gurdwara’s press release, to enquire as to whether the Gurcharan Singh referred to as an organiser of the protest march was Cllr Singh, or not.

5. I would also not that Cllr Singh states clearly and unequivocally that:

I have never met either the Executive committee of Sri Guru Singh Sabha or any of their official and never made any representation to them in any regard.

However, this article from NRIinternet.com appears to contradict that statement:

Gurcharan Singh became the Mayor London Borough of Ealing

Sep. 16, 2003

Councillor Gurcharan Singh was born in the Punjab in 1948. He moved with his family to Uttar Pardesh, a neighbouring province, in 1954.At secondary school he received a merit scholarship for coming first in his O level exams out of more than 1000 students. He continued his studies at a college and graduated with a BSc in physics, chemistry and mathematics. He also holds a Masters of Science in mathematics. As Gurcharan did not belong to a rich family, he taught high school students to meet his college expenses. While other students travelled by bus, he cycled 13 miles to and from college every day. He also helped his father at his farm. He married Rajinder in 1971, moved to the UK in 1972 and they have three grown up children.

Gurcharan joined the Labour Party in 1976, becoming a councillor in 1982. He is actively involved in Sikh politics and has a strong base in the largest Sikh Gurdwara, Sri Guru Singh Sabha, in Southall.

Singh, who started as a British Rail guard, moved on to become a tax officer. By 1986, he had his own hotel in London. But, Singh says, life kept throwing up challenges his way. ‘‘Today, I have become Mayor with the support of the British, but woh bhi din tha jab mushkilen bahut ayin. Aakhir goron ka desh tha,’’ Singh told The Indian Express over the telephone from London.

When Singh migrated, things were different. Those were the days of racial prejudice. For an Indian to become acceptable, you had to prove yourself, which was not easy, Singh says. Asked why he migrated, he says: ‘‘kyonki koi sifarish nahin thi, Hindustan mein naukri nahin mili.’’

Gurcharan comes from a family with a military background. His father, grandfather, father in-law and grandfather in-law served in the British and Indian armies.

Notwithstanding any question marks over the content of the Gurdwara’s press statement, a matter that the Gurdwara itself seems best placed to clarify, Cllr Singh’s asserts that he has never met the Executive Committee of the largest Gurdwara in Southall (and in Europe, apparently) nor met any of its officers or made any representations to the committee in his 25 years as a councillor of ward with a Sikh population in excess of 4,000 (31.25% of the total population of the ward) that directly adjoins the ward in which the Gurdwara in situated - in fact all of Southall’s six Gurdwaras seem to be in pretty much the same area and within a mile or of each other (and also between 1.3 and 2.3 miles of Cllr Singh’s home, which is in the very ward he represents. One might reasonably assume, from that information alone, that a significant number of his constituents worship at the Sri Guru Singh Gurdwara.

Frankly it is difficult to see quite how Cllr Singh might have avoided meeting the Executive Committee of the Gurdwara and/or its officers, even without the claim that he is active in Sikh politics - an assertion that merit further clarification - and has a strong base at the Gurdwara.

6. So far as accuracy is concerned, and in the absence of further corroboration, Cllr Singh’s comments have been noted, published in full and a note has been inserted into the text of the press release noting his assertion that the individual referred to in the press release is a different Gurcharan Singh.

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?

This, from the Groan’s ‘Backbencher column’ -

WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE

What on earth are Conservative campaigners in Ealing Southall up to?First Tory byelection manager Grant Shapps appeared to post a message on Libblog LibDem Voice in the guise of a downbeat Lib Dem who was losing hope (this strategy, the Backbencher understands, is known as “astroturfing” in webspeak). Then Grant explains to Iain Dale that someone hacked into his YouTube account (the password was 1234) and was impersonating him. Now people calling themselves “Pete Burton” and “sadboy” - appropriate, the Backbencher feels - have been posting similarly defeatist comments. Both share an IP address with a Tory councillor in Sutton, Tim Crowley. The Lib Dems suspect, understandably, that the three are in some way related. Sadboys. Get off the blogs. Get some leaflets printed. Talk to some constituents.

And if you’re going to do subterfuge, have some ambition.

Led me to this:

There has been a series of three comments in the last few days on Lib Dem Voice under the username “timcrowley” (see this thread and this thread). They have all been from the same IP address, all give the same email address and it’s clear that the comments are either from Sutton Conservative Councillor Tim Crowley himself (or from someone pretending to be him, or from someone who has discovered his password is 1234 etc etc). That’s because of content in the comments such as:

When the voters of Sutton see how the Ruling Lib Dem cllrs are voting through retrospective allowance payments we will see how the electorate react.

Not surprisingly, he doesn’t really like the Liberal Democrats, but the comments have had some content rather than just being abuse or hectoring. All ok so far … so how dashed unlucky for him that the same IP address was then used to post a comment on the thread about Terry Sutton:

Why no comments on this disaster news. Have we still got our heads in the sand?

Note that use of the little word “our” as if it was a comment from a Liberal Democrat supporter. Moreover, it appeared in the name of sadboy (a new one on this site) and gave an email address with the name Pete Burton in it (another new one to this site).

Could Sadboy / Pete Burton by any chance by Tim Crowley in (not very good) disguise? I’m open to explanations, especially as it would really be very, very daft to be caught faking a comment as a Liberal Democrat just after the Grant Shapps affair broke now, wouldn’t it? If there is an innocent explanation, do let me know and I’ll be happy to amend the story.
There is something quite apt in the use of ’sadboy’ for a sockpuppet nickname.