KHOODEELAAR! Continuing the evidential rebuttal of the claims by CrossRail Big Business agenda touts that 'jobs are being created' in London

1148 GMT
London
Tuesday
05 January 2009

Editor © Muhammad Haque


KHOODEELAAR! Continuing the evidential rebuttal of the claims by CrossRail Big Business agenda touts that 'jobs are being created' in London

Thousands of jobs, they are claiming. But where are those jobs? NOT in sight in East London. Not available to the jobless in Tower Hamlets.

The same borough that does contain ‘Canary Wharf’!

THOUSANDS of people are jobless in Tower Hamlets.
Young jobless.
Middle aged jobless.
Older jobless.

Crossrail cannot give them jobs.

CRASS!

So why has the ‘local’ East London IDIOTIOSER published the headline ‘Thousands’ of jobs being created by Crossrail?


And this crass failure to tell the truth is at the root of the crassness of the Big Business CRASSrail scam.

The Crossrail scam is a device that is being used by Big Business to loot the ordinary public.

£Billions worth of contracts going to big business. They will only recruit those who can do the specialised jobs.

And there cannot be any dispute on the fact that only those who can actually do the tasks on the specified requirements will deserve to go for the jobs.

So this raises the other question: why aren’t there people in Tower Hamlets with the requisite skills to do those jobs?

This cannot be answered by any of the crass touts for the CRASSrail scam.

They, including the deeply ignorant CBI man Richard Lambert have over the past 18 months, uttered lies suggesting quite irresponsibly and in many cases dishonestly, that ‘big projects’ like Crossrail which require highly skilled people to build them, will themselves be able to train people to learnt those skills!


That is a comprehensive idiocy.

It is an additional insult to common sense. And to ordinary intelligence.

The fact is that it takes on average 20 years to actually place a person on course to a skill that is worth the mention.

Formal enrolment on a course and even formal acquisition of certification at the end of it is not enough. Training needs additional years of training. For the agreed skill to be applicable.

This applies in all material ‘sciences’ as well as in the fields of advocacy, cognitive disciplines and those of social interpretation.

And all good students of the world of education, skills and training would know this to be the case.

But with Crossrail peddlers and touts and agents of Big Business, we are not dealing with such students.

In fact with Crossrail, we are faced with dummies and Sleazeballs bent on robbery and looting.

They do not care about the finer details of relevance let alone of ethics or morality.

If they did then they could not have devised the CrossRail scam, and plotted to loot the UK public under that guise.
They would have attended to the existing London transport network and its repair, upgrade needs.

And secondly they would also address the unmet half of the needs of the travelling public- the quality and the standard of service that is actually delivered on the existing transport infrastructures.

The crassness, the irrationality, the craze which the Big Business interests promote and engender via their 'touts in place' [typified by the occupation the Onion in London SE1] are the tools for numbing the ability of the public to think rationally and to be able to maintain sustainable levels of rational perspectives on our lives and on our overall, real and the affecting environments.

This is why every single ‘trade news’ [Construction, Building, Railway, Big Projects and such like] item about Crossrail is couched in language that would be fit for crowds of crazy fans of lunatic games.

But then, we have said and shown with continuing demonstration of evidence and their updates for 6 years now, that to Big Business, looting £Billions from the UK public is like a game to them!

[To be continued]

KHOODEELAAR! Continuing the evidential rebuttal of the 'economic policy' of Big Business as flaunted by the two 'main Parties', HERE, NEXT

0940 GMT
London
Monday
04 January 2010

KHOODEELAAR! Continuing the evidential rebuttal of the 'economic policy' of Big Business as flaunted by the two 'main Parties', HERE, NEXT

[To be continued]

AADHIKARonline noting the evidence of the abuse of power by the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn who distorts the records to further his own ego

AADHIKARonline noting the evidence of the abuse of power by the Daily Mail's Richard Littlejohn who distorts the records to further his own ego


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165743/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Not-Augean-sleaze-Major-years-did-Home-Secretary-claiming-porn-expenses.html

Not even in the Augean sleaze of the Major years did we have a Home Secretary claiming porn on expenses
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 29th March 2009

Comments (0)
Add to My Stories

So now we know how Jacqui Smith's husband amuses himself while she's snuggled up in her sister's spare bedroom in South London.

Back at the family's 'second' home in her Redditch constituency, Richard Timney likes to relax in a gentleman's way in front of porno movies - which are then charged to the taxpayer as part of her parliamentary expenses.

When I christened the Home Secretary 'Jackboot Jacqui' I had no idea that her husband was into that kind of thing.


Clinging on: If Jacqui Smith loses her seat, it will have a lot to do with her husband's porn-viewing habits

This flagrant abuse has come to light after it was revealed that Smith claimed £67 for a cable television subscription - including access to the Playboy Channel, the Adult Channel and Television X, listed euphemistically as 'additional services' to spare the subscriber's blushes.

Purely in the interests of research, you understand, I visited the Television X website to check out the schedule.

In alphabetical order, it starts with 'Anal Boutique' and goes downhill from there. Suffice it to say, the line-up specialises in what we in the trade call 'acts too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper'.

Now, there is a charitable argument that any man married to a 'Blair Babe' should be entitled to pornography as a basis for negotiation. But whether the British taxpayer should have to pay for it is another matter altogether.

Jackboots says she knew nothing about the porn channels, which were wrapped up in her internet account. The BBC, quick to leap to her defence, assures us she has given her husband a 'good earbashing' (which I believe can be found under 'E' on the Television X website and costs £4.95 for the full half-hour).


More from Richard Littlejohn...

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: What on earth is Gordon Brown doing in Brazil?26/03/09
We don't need another whitewash inquiry, this is a matter for the police 23/03/09
LITTLEJOHN: This is the BBC Home Service. Keep calm, carry on and don't panic, D-Day is cancelled19/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Share her pain? No, this woman doesn't deserve a penny16/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Put these Toytown Talibandits on the first flight home12/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Celebrate gay history. P-p-pick up a penguin09/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Coming up after on ITV - Dancing On Thin Ice05/03/09
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Fred the Shred, found guilty by the court of public opinion 02/03/09
VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

She may not have known, but he certainly did. And Timney is not some na've house-husband, idling away the lonely nights while high-flying wifey is keeping the world safe from international terrorism.

Timney is a full-time politician, paid £40,000 out of the public purse to be Smith's adviser - in which capacity he has been known to write to their local paper singing her praises, while not actually mentioning that he's married to her.

He will have been well aware what 'services' were being claimed on her expenses - he filled them in. Maybe he genuinely believed that claiming for dirty movies was legitimate. After all, if Gordon Brown can claim for his Sky Sports and Sky Movies subscription, it's only a short stretch to the Playboy Channel.

In any event, Jacqui Smith signed the expenses claim. Even if it was an 'oversight' she put her name to it and she accepted the money. Are we to believe that the Home Secretary is so slapdash she signs anything shoved in front of her, without bothering to read it?

Actually, yes, seeing as half the time she appears to have no idea what is going on in her department.

In the scheme of things, a few quid for some filthy films is a mere bagatelle when viewed in the context of the £100,000 Smith fraudulently claims from the taxpayer by pretending that her sister's box room in Southwark is her 'main' home.

As I have pointed out since this scandal broke, the Home Secretary has a perfectly serviceable grace-and-favour house in Belgravia at her disposal. It's a short, chauffeur-driven hop from her department and, befitting the holder of one of the four great offices of state, is a great deal smarter than a scruffy terrace in South London, which from the outside looks one step up from a squat.


More...
Porn shame of Mr Jacqui Smith: Will their marriage survive this latest controversy?
Humiliation of a minister: Jacqui Smith 'could face axe' after claiming taxpayers' cash for husband's pornographic films
MAIL COMMENT: Bare-faced fraud that taints every MP
But if she lived rent-free in Belgravia, she wouldn't be able to fiddle her expenses. Listing her sister's address as her 'main' residence means she has been able to lavish a small fortune on her real family home in Redditch, all courtesy of the mug taxpayer.

She's even claimed for the kitchen sink - a £550 stone job. You couldn't make it up.

The Home Secretary, above all, must realise that ignorance is no defence. Even if she didn't know what her husband was slipping through on her expenses, she should have done. It may not have been her fault, but it was her responsibility.

At this stage, it is customary to say that if she had a shred of decency she would resign. But if she had a shred of decency she would have resigned when it was revealed that she was lying about her 'main' home in order to claim £100,000 of public money to which she is not entitled.

Smith will probably cling on, for now. But when she's voted out by the people of Redditch it will be her husband's dirty movies which do for her, not the far greater 'second home' swindle, just as it was the income tax evasion not the murder which claimed Al Capone.

It won't be enough for her to protest that they're all at it, even though they are - as became increasingly apparent over the weekend.

While these latest home truths about the Home Secretary's expenses dominated the headlines, there were fresh revelations about the creative accounting methods of employment minister Tony McNulty and Left-wing MP Harry Cohen.

It now appears that, as I have maintained all along, McNulty has committed a criminal offence in claiming allowances for his parents' home in Harrow.

And it has been revealed that Cohen, MP for Ilford, Essex, claims his 'main' home is a single-bedroom cottage and seaside caravan 70 miles from his constituency.

Cohen has received a staggering £310,000 in 'second' home allowances since he was elected. But he remains quite brazen about it all, claiming that when he entered parliament, MPs were encouraged to fill their boots.

This is how it always ends, in a torrent of sleaze. With Labour mired in corruption and Gordon's mini-me Nigel Griffiths caught having sex in the Commons with a stockinged slapper, we can almost look back on the final days of Johnny Major as a golden age of probity and propriety.

Not even in the Augean squalor of Major's government did we have a Home Secretary claiming pornography on expenses.

The Smith-Timneys epitomise the kind of institutionally-corrupt, smug New Labour entitlement junkies who believe that the taxpayer should pick up the entire bill for their work, rest and play - even if that includes hard-core porn.

Richard Timney has been wheeled out for a ritual apology, but it's too late. We can only imagine Jackboots's reaction when she got the phone call informing her what the cat got up to when the mouse was away.

And you know what? Next time she claims that her sister's spare room is her 'main' home, she might just be telling the truth for once.


Print this article Read later Email to a friend
Share this article:

Digg itDel.icio.usRedditNewsvineNowpublicStumbleUponFacebookMySpaceFark
Add your comments Comments (0)
No comments have so far been submitted. Why not be the first to send us your thoughts?

Muhammad Haque on London mayor Ken Livingstone's stunt

Editor in Chief © MUHAMMAD HAQUE.
These pages are regularly updated and the contents moved from here and archived after short displays.
The 5th Edition 1710 Hrs GMT / 1810 Hrs UK time Saturday May 2006 LEGAL NOTICE
The materials published here are originally authored items that are only published for education and information purposes only. None of the materials is intended for any commercial, party political, unethical, immoral purposes or uses or applications disseminations or citations whatever.None of the material must be referred to without the full legal and moral parameters being recognised and that recognition must be reasonably and accurately identical to one that is hereby and herewith stated and implied.All legal and authoring rights belong to the rights-holders who are identified with each appropriate itemsPermission must be sought before any material is used in anyway that the law and morality warrant should be done only by seeking the authors’ and the rights holder’s prior written permission.Where no by-line is included the IPRs and other rights are asserted by the Editor in chief and by the publishing organisation the AADHIKAR Foundation.These pages are regularly updated and the contents moved from here and archived after short displays. The Oldest files posted here will be deleted or moved off this site or pages first.Visitors and viewers are advised to bear this fact in mind.mailto:aadhikarlibrary@yahoo.co.ukTo send a general e-mail to AADHIKARonline, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail addressaadhikaronline@yahho.co.uk
To VIEW a Khoodeelaaronline campaign against CrossRail hole file about the ouster from Tower Hamlets Council of CrossRail-hole-promoter Michael Keith posted on Friday 5 May 2006 on the UK indymedia site, CLICK HERE
Why the East London Idiotiser is a serious threat to the democratic health of the people in the East End of London : did the Idiotiser have any right to lie about the Khoodeelaar !campaign against CrossRail hole?
By Muhammad HaqueTo understand the evidence of the perniciously falsifying role being played by the East London Idiotiser in its ‘news’ coverage on the campaign against CrossRail hole, it is important to understand the relevant events that are only very marginally and typically misleadingly included in the ‘reports’ in the ‘East London Idiotiser’[‘The East London Advertiser’].For me at the moment, there is no more appropriate subject than the subject of the Khoodeelaar! Camapgn and how it has been three years of non-stop battle to get the East London Idiotiser to reflect the truth of what is actually going on in the community in the context of the KHOODEELAAR! camapgn of NO Crossrail hole in Brick Lane E1 area.When I heard from a Khoodeelaar! campaign supporter that the UK Conservative Party ‘leader’ was due to make a stunt appearance in the Brick Lane Area on Monday 24 April 2006, I was not in the least bit interested.I had been one of the very first, if not THE first, commentator on the internet to deride the Tories’ choice of him at allSo I had no intention of taking any campaigning steps or arranging any Khoodeelaar! Camapgn actions around that piece of information at allFor the fact is that David Cameron is not a holder of public office that I am bothered about.Contrary to the hypes that have been accorded him by default even today [Saturday 6 May 2006], I remain of the view that this Cameron character is another Blair-type plastic entity which will do serious damage to the cause of democracy and substance unless it is tested to reveal what if any, democratic, ethical and moral integrity and commitment and fibres it has.And on Monday 24 April 2006, I was of this same view about him,He has not got the intellectual depth let alone the moral character that will be of any real significance to the defence of the Brick Lane London E1 area against the attacks by CrossRail.So how was it that I was in Brick Lane and in fact recorded a conversation with the Conservatives’ ‘Chairman’ Francis Maude?When I found out that the information was inaccurate in one respect and that the person who was due to stage the stunt appearance in Brick Lane on behalf of the UK Tories HQ was in fact Francis Maude, I decided to see what he had to say.For the evidence is that Maude is someone who does have an intellectual profile, not that I would vote for him in an election. But he does.And in so far as the record of the post-Thatcher conservative Party goes, Francis Maude has been arduous in his own bid to hang on to the front page or in the Tory limelight.So for the purpose of collective hard evidence about what exactly the Conservative HQ was 'thinking' about the issue of the CrossRail hole attack on the Brick Lane London E1 area I decided to test him out.The second motivator was that the ‘local Conservatives the ‘Tower Hamlets Conservatives’ were absent from the electoral campaign scene as far as any remarkable opposition to the Crossrail hole was concerned.yet there was this stunt being staged in the actual Brick Lane itself allegedly to mark some sort of publicity recognition on the part of the Conservative Party implying that they did know that a place called Brick Lane existedIt was plain stunt for the publicity around the 4 May council elections at which the Tories were fielding candidates.That the result of the elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [where the CrossRail hole target of the Brick Lane London E1 area is] , confirmed yesterday [5 May 2006] shows that ALL the Tory 'wins' took place at the other end of the Borough from where Brick Lane is, is significant and it adds doubly to the significance on 24 April 2006 of my decision to test Francis Maude out if I was able to do so without getting inside the venue of their 'event'.There is a limit to what I would do even to defend the Brick Lane London E1 area against the CrossRail assault.So when approached by a number of Khoodeelaar! Supporters who saw me in the vicinity, I agreed to hear from them what they said they would witness inside during the visiting Tory Chairman’s stuntAnd so I spent the necessary time before I got a moment which I spent in asking the questions that I did ask. [to view that transcript of my Questions and Francis Maude’s answers, visit http://www.khoodeelaar.com] As I asked those questions, I noticed that the photographer and the reporter whom I had noticed for the previous at least two hours [there for the ‘East London Idiotiser’], were also still present.I did see them hanging around for a few minutes after Francis Maude had left Brick LaneIn fact, as I was leaving Brick Lane, I saw the East London Idiotiser’s reporter again and he was saying goodbye to me when I gave him the facts of how his paper had published a pack of Crossrail-hole-Michael Keith-plugging lies on the occasion of the Ken Livingstone stunt [24 March 2006]. The East London Idiotiser reporter did not want to hear the details.Here are the details in very concise form: That on the day of the Ken Livingstone stunt , the East London Idiotiser published a very inaccurate and a very stupid plug for the CrossRail-hole peddling ‘leader’ of Tower Hamlets Council, Michael Keith.The Idiotiser web site lied in describing Michael Keith as ‘campaigner’’. It was like calling a criminal the prosecutor in his own case!Khoodeelaar! immediately sent messages demanding that the Idiotiser’s editor and publish demands for their publish the corrections and that they apologies to the local community for the outrageous lie they had perpetrated for saving the pathetic councillor career of the CrossRail-hole-Keith.In the print edition of the East London Idiotiser that appeared on Thursday 30 March 2006, the Idiotiser repeated the very lies that had appeared on their website on 24 March 2006 .As if that were not bad enough, the Idiotiser printed a gallery or a parade of fiddlers who had nothing whatever to do with opposing the CrossRail hole attack on the Brick Lane London E1 area at all.But the Idiotiser gave them credit for having done so.I shall pinpoint why it matters who the ‘reports’ identify as being opposed to the hole and who they suppress>It makes the difference of day and night.In so far as the ‘record’ is concernedOne such fiddler wrongly and perniciously promoted by the East London Idiotiser was a man that the Idiotiser had not even spoken to about the Camapgn against the CrossRail hole assault on the Brick Lane London E1 area!That particular fiddler was only eager to see his face in the paper and he did that by handing to the Idiotiser's visiting ‘reporter’ a picture of himself that the East London Idiotiser r printed.The main [alleged] caption next his printed picture was in implied reference to the alleged conversation the East London Idiotiser reporter [Jules Hunter] had with an altogether different person.That person was indeed present at the scene of the conversation but he had not said what the East London Idiotiser invented in its report.[To be continued]
AADHIKARonline – Updating the introduction to Qazi Nazrul Islam – the ‘national poet’ of Bangladesh and more – with a revised translation of his poem - The girl and the wood cat [First published by Muhammad Haque in 1984]
Who forgot May Day in the East End in 2006?
And why it is time to learn about that very awkward bishop in exile who was hounded out of Namibia…. [Coming here shortly]
From the previous, the 3rd. edition, London Saturday 6 May 2006
From 1500 Hrs GMT on Saturday 6 May 2006 on AADHIKARonline exclusive news and commentary including these new features::
Muhammad Haque Daily commentary
London Saturday 6 May 2006 how odd that the london radio station, dubbed lousy Brian’s con [in the 1985 historic analysis of the British racist media] because of the station’s lack of depth and lack of morality or ethics as caused by its racist composition and editorial agenda, has today [Saturday 6 may 2006] been broadcasting a ‘news’ snippet linking the ‘fight against racism’ to an event to be staged in July 2006 under the encouragement of london mayor ken Livingstone! Opposing racism and being a political post holder in Britain do not go together. Yet Livingstone has been given the undeserved association with opposing racism So much so and so persistently misleadingly that any random look at any of the millions of plastic publications that are geographically based in Asia and Africa, will show that invariably and without any significant exception they single out Livingstone as one of a handful of ‘British politicians that are opposed to racism’. And by extension of that ill-informed reasoning, Livingstone is also painted as an anti-racist himself. <>Then the question arises:- wasn’t Christine Gilbert supposed to look out as the returning officer to prevent corruption?Had Christine Gilbert not been told that her conduct as the ‘acting’ returning officer at the May 2005 general elections were shamble?So why didn't she not address those concerns expressed in May 2005>Why did she allow the year to pass and for the same , or in some cases even worse,. Shambles to occur around the voters’ most precious token of democratic rights?Christine Gilbert has not answered these questionsShe can’tbecause if she even attempts to answer these questions then the secret agenda which she is in place to advance will be exposed[To be continued]From the previous editions 5 May 2006:
Which ‘leading’ ‘Labour councillor’ acted as the second ‘Brick Lane area mafia boss’ to fix the elections results that have now been ‘declared in their favour’? Khoodeelaar to ask Police to investigate allegations of bribery that has been carried out by the abuses of Tower Hamlets Council cash and facilities
An aadhikaronline investigation-part 1 Filed 1040 GMT Friday 5 May 2006
The ‘results’, whatever the final count, were produced in a significant way, by the sue of bribery carried out at the initiative of a number of [officially-registered as ] Labour Party candidates whop have been declared as re-elected councillors.We understand that a number of those including at least two in the Brick Lane London E1 area, in fact sued bribes, and other council-linked resources to secure the ‘block’ votes which were delivered through the misuse of Council-paid grants to these community groupsThe groups include at least one ‘religious’ body whose ‘management committee’ acted as the agency for the bribery and the corruption of the electoral systemEarly indications on Friday 5 May 2006 from campaigning group Khoodeelaar! have shown that they would refer the allegations to the Police as soon as certain formalities have been completed.
Tower Hamlets Council web site is not workingWho in what ‘community organisations’ were paid how much bribe by sitting councillors to produce the results in Tower Hamlets?
From a previous edition: Friday 5 May 2006 An aadhikaronline report 0910 GMT
Just as the corrupt clique on Tower Hamlets Council got a serious blow with its key cliquester Michael Keith being kicked out of the Shadwell by the voters, so was its propaganda outfit showing signs of treachery.aadhikaronline writers contacted the Council’s ‘web team’ who could not give any acceptable explanation except to confirm the undeniable that their web site was down. They could not say either when the site would be operating again.
Tower Hamlets Council officials delaying publication of full results. The reasons have not been explained either.We shall be reporting on that delay and the associated tactics by what must be the servants of the corrupt clique which has just – AADHIKARonline RESULTS and analysis of the Local Council elections, in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere in London will be published here throughout the day Friday 5 May 2006. We should have been given the results by now by the Christine Gilbert ‘returning officer’ staff but they have been unavailable at the time of publishing this edition. mailto:aadhikaronline@yahoo.co.uk . mailto:aadhikareditor@yahoo.co.uk
geovisit();