Community news and investigative journalism for Wapping E1W and Tower Hamlets London

Greenbankgate: More lies presented as the truth

Well that was interesting was it not? For those loyal readers (both of you) who have been following the ‘Greenbankgate’ saga since its start back in 2013 the details of the report into the ‘dodgy canvassers’ who came knocking on the door of LW HQ should be some small reward for all the political crap you have read.

But what does it all mean?

First thing to do is to refresh our memories a little and have a look at this film which is referred to in paragraph 4.12.2 of the report by Tower Hamlets Council which states: “However, the women filmed by Mark Baynes in the second incident have been identified by the Mayor.”

So. First of all let us consider paragraph 4.11.1 where our beloved ex-Mayor is questioned about the original odd canvassing incident on 7th November.

4.11.1 In relation to the incident on the 7th November he [Rahman] confirms that volunteers were canvassing on his behalf and that they identify themselves as canvassers working on his behalf. Having been made aware of the allegations he has tried to identify the women concerned in the alleged incident but has been unable to do so because no one has come forward. He does not know how the misunderstanding has come about but comments on the rumours and that the allegations may be politically motivated.

The usual bollocks.

Confirms the canvassers who knocked on the door of LW HQ were canvassing on his behalf, is aware of the allegations but has not been able to identify them because ‘no one has come forward’. And guess what? He thinks the allegations are politically motivated.

More bollocks.

Oddly enough he (Rahman) does know the women in the film made during the second event on 16th January 2014.

4.12.2 However, the women filmed by Mark Baynes in the second incident have been identified by the Mayor.

Maybe he admits to knowing these women because they were, er, filmed?

The author of the report eventually gets one of the women identified by the ex-Mayor into the Town Hall for a chat.

4.12.4 At the beginning of the interview I produced a photograph , a still from the MB video highlighting 2 women door knocking on an estate, and she identified herself as one of the women in the photograph

Again a straight admission when faced with photographic evidence.

4.12.7 She says that she was not given details of people to call on, or any other information about residents. She would simply door knock and explain what she was doing.

Lies. I watched these two women walk to a specific flat which I knew was occupied by a Bangladeshi family.

The mystery woman whose identity is known to the ex-Mayor then starts to dig a hole for herself.

4.12.8  … When asked about the papers that she was given, as highlighted in the MB video. She says that they were blank, that she didn’t know what ‘ME’ meant and would just write a telephone number in the blank box provided. She was clear that she was never given any personal information about who lived in the property and that she would just knock on doors to see what response she received.

Such sweet innocence. Such complete and utter lies.

Have another look at the video further up the page (still amazes me these women did not notice me standing next to their car filming them).

You can see forms with ‘ME’ (which stands for Members Enquiry an enquiry raised by a member of the Council on a specific issue. ) written all over them, you can see names and addresses, you can see maps of the area.

Also in plain sight is the trademark clipboard with ruled forms on. Every one of the small army of canvassers that could be seen that summer in Tower Hamlets carried the same clipboard with the same forms.

The film does not really show that these two women each had a small mountain of paperwork on their laps.

They knew where they were going, they knew who they were going to call on. They may or may not have not the real reason why but they knew that their job – sorry, role as unpaid volunteers – was to work their way through their lists so every possible target voter who might vote for Lutfur Rahman was covered.

That operation was carried out across the entire London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

The next paragraph is amusing.

4.1 2.9 She is no longer door knocking and feels vulnerable and unsafe when out because of the amount of interest that this blog has stirred up.

This is the exact same line that ex-Cllr Alibor Choudhury came out with in a Council meeting when he accused LW of ‘perving’.

To save you having to click over to the original post here is the quote:

Cllr. Alibor Choudhury.

Cllr. Alibor Choudhury.

Cllr. Alibor Choudhury:

“You decided to deploy a voyeuristic journalist who was perving, I believe, these are the words of these female volunteers… who were out there knocking on doors to find out if people needed any help.

Their words were that they felt ‘violated, intimidated’ by this person who they felt was a pervert.”

Cllr. Alibor is responding to Cllr. Rachael Saunders when he says ‘You decided to deploy a voyeuristic journalist who was perving’.

Just to be clear ‘voyeuristic journalist’ is LW. And LW has never been ‘deployed’ by Cllr. Saunders or any other Councillor for that matter.

Sounds like everyone had exactly the same coaching to ensure they all followed the same line. Or all told the same lies, whichever you prefer.

Redacted is redacted is ‘MP’

Let’s back up a little before coming to our conclusion. Have a look at this paragraph:

## 4.9 REDACTED
4.9.1 REDACTED is REDACTED the Mayor’s Office and is responsible for all of the LBTH staff that is employed in the office. Her manager is REDACTED.

4.9.2 MP is aware of the political restrictions that apply to officers. She explained the role of her office and that no officers were engaged canvassing on behalf of the Mayor in contravention of the political restrictions or while working as a council employee.

4.9.3 When she was shown the images of 2 women taken from the Love Wapping website she had no idea who they were.

‘MP’ may be redacted but her initials were not so this (and the fact that ‘MP’ is a she) might help identify her at some point.

In summary we still do not know who the mystery canvassers were, either the first three who knocked on the door or the second two who didn’t but were filmed.

We now know the ex-Mayor knew who the second lot of two mystery canvassers are.

We now know that the ex-Alibor knew who the second lot of two mystery canvassers are.

No surprises there but it is interesting to read the report.

And of course both the ex-Everythings knew who the first group of canvassers are. Because they are all part of the same operation.

Of which more later.

 

 

 

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

There Are 2 Brilliant Comments

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Oldflowspeaks says:

    mark – what report are you referring to (paras 4.12 etc)?

Top