J K Galbraith - why the BBC must apologise for LSE-DEsair outrage
Editor in Chief
©MUHAMMAD HAQUE.
These pages are regularly updated and contents removed from here and archived after short displays.
Visitors are advised to bear this fact in mind.
To access AADHIKAR library and archives, please send your name and postal address and specify the date and subject [starting from 19 December 1980 to the present date] CLICK HERE to send an email request or to send an email directly from your own e-mail sender to aadhikarlibrary@yahoo.co.uk
To 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 address aadhikaronline@yahho.co.uk
From the previous edition: Sunday 30 April 2006
AADHIKARonline PUBLISHING LAW note at 2120 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
Due to the Khoodeelaar! campaign taking legal action against the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democratic Group, the scheduled aadhikaronline feature about the Liberal Democratic councillor Louise Alexander and her blogs, has been postponed indefinitely.
That feature would have appeared here at 2350 Hrs GMT on Sunday 30 April 2006.
That publication will not now go ahead as the contents involved would include materials that are now being presented to the High Court in the action by Khoodeelaar! against Janet Ludlow and her Liberal Democratic Group on Tower Hamlets Council.
Aadhikaronline legal note: 2120 Hrs GMT
2220 Hrs UKtime
Sunday 30 April 2006
J K Galbraith - why the BBC must to apologise for that LSE-Desai outrage
©MUHAMMAD HAQUE.
These pages are regularly updated and contents removed from here and archived after short displays.
Visitors are advised to bear this fact in mind.
To access AADHIKAR library and archives, please send your name and postal address and specify the date and subject [starting from 19 December 1980 to the present date] CLICK HERE to send an email request or to send an email directly from your own e-mail sender to aadhikarlibrary@yahoo.co.uk
To 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 address aadhikaronline@yahho.co.uk
From the previous edition: Sunday 30 April 2006
AADHIKARonline PUBLISHING LAW note at 2120 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
Due to the Khoodeelaar! campaign taking legal action against the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democratic Group, the scheduled aadhikaronline feature about the Liberal Democratic councillor Louise Alexander and her blogs, has been postponed indefinitely.
That feature would have appeared here at 2350 Hrs GMT on Sunday 30 April 2006.
That publication will not now go ahead as the contents involved would include materials that are now being presented to the High Court in the action by Khoodeelaar! against Janet Ludlow and her Liberal Democratic Group on Tower Hamlets Council.
Aadhikaronline legal note: 2120 Hrs GMT
2220 Hrs UKtime
Sunday 30 April 2006
J K Galbraith - why the BBC must to apologise for that LSE-Desai outrage
MUHAMMAD HAQUE daily political commentary
London Monday 1 May 2006
The world has lost a great contributor to caring and civilised thought. J K Galbraith has passed away.
I will always remember him for the great service he performed by explaining to the world so clearly how the Military Industrial Complex operates.
But the BBC are not content to let the memories of one of the most active social thinkers remain untarnished.
they brought in one of the most embarrassing emblems of ethnicity-linked careerism, a man they described as ‘emeritus professor’, and addressed as ‘Lord Desai’.
He does not deserve the BBC’s promotion. Let alone complicity in the awful insult he heaped on the just-deceased thinker. Desai compared Galbraith with the British faker and convicted criminal Jeffrey Archer!
We the licence payers have something to say about the BBC’s choice of ‘work’ which they spend our money on.
>br>that work, that interview with the ignoramus Desai, constituted neither work, nor service.
Is there no end to the idiocies at the heart of the BBC?
Or, to be precise, at the heart of the Radio Four Today programme?
The Radio Four Today programme broadcast an alleged interview with one of the UK’s most corrupt and ignorant ‘professors’, linked with the London School of Economics [LSE], who exhibited once again just how pathetically backward and sewer-like the world of Big Business academia is.
In the alleged interview, the LSE-linked ignoramus Professor Desai displayed his own total ignorance of the discipline of economics and what is more he showed just how deeply sunk in the mire of selfishness, greed and corruption he himself was.
He dismissed JK Galbraith as an economist and then sang the praise of Market capitalism, globalisation in the most shameless way possible. He then said that he never liked Galbraith, anyway!
The licence payers of the UK must demand to know why our licence paying money is being wasted and misused by the BBC giving airtime to such completely bad elements who spread the gospel of capitalist uncare, discare where there should be much more space and time given to the propagation of the truth about our world and how the truly liberating ideas of educators must be at the centre of our knowledge about events.
The ignoramus Desai is not any description of source for anything remotely to do with the truth. He is a fabricator and the BBC should know better than to allow a practised fabricator and surrogate to be given any platform where only the truth about capitalism will be acceptable. No room for lies. For to allow any lies about economics to be aired as if it ahs any backing of scholarship would be to violate the rights of so many millions whose very existence is threatened and denied by the oppressive gospel of market economics and capitalism.
Galbraith’s contributions included the fact that he brought out into the open some of the crucial evidence about how the corrupt market capitalism – and Globalisation in today’s terminology- operates. In the society that is dominated by the worlds vilest violators of human rights.
If nothing else, that achievement by Galbraith was much more significant than the stupid LSE Desai has any ability to recognise.
The question is: what agenda was the BBC Radio Four editor or programme commissioners operating under?
Did they have to bring in that ignorance spreader Desai?
Why did they have to broadcast that sickeningly ignorant string of lies by the LSE moron Desai?
Since when had that punter become a source of anything to do with civilised discourse? Let alone of anything to do with the truth about this world and how the gospel of free market economic lies has been sued to violate and massacre millions?
How dare the BBC let the LSE moron Desai utter stupidities about J K Galbraith?
What does Desai know about Economics?
Ed Stourton should now be renamed Ed Stupidone for his own stupidities in conducting that unforgivably ignorant interview giving undeserved airtime to this LSE-linked peddler of corruption and Big Business perversion of the wealth of nature and the wealth of societies.
A transcript of the BBC Radio Four idiotic interview with LSE moron Desai going on at the just-deceased economist and social condemnatory J K Galbraith will be published here shortly
This filed 0815 Hrs GMT
Monday 1` May 2006
From the previous edition :
The 3rd Edition AADHIKARonline London 1330 Hrs GMT / 1430 Hrs Sunday 30 April 2006
Why Janet Ludlow the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council Lib Dem Group leader [opposition councillor] is being issued with court action notice by Khoodeelaar! this week and the relevance of the EVIDENCE from the past elections to Tower Hamlets Council – the worrying legacies of the Liberal Democrats 1990-1994 [Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs]
Full report here shortly [This filed 1330 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006]
From the pervious, the 2nd Edition:
Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs
How in Tower Hamlets, any consequence of an electoral fluke, resulting in Lib Dems getting any say on how the Council is run, will cause serious problems and lose the community vital support at a time when the East End needs a Council made up of honest people who are actually actively opposed to liars and lying in public office!
By Muhammad Haque
London 1100 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
Yet they could bring changes for the better.
If they had good people standing as candidates.
More importantly, if they had good people standing with good prospects of getting elected/
There are all across London good people about.
May be not as many of them who are willing to stand under those circumstances as there should be but there are enough of them that could really make a difference if they were among the people on elected councils in London after the 4 May scheduled polls.
But the present political parties, groupings and the consequent system of elections do not want good people. running local councils in London
Tony Blair does not want them
None of Blair’s ministers wants them
And the Odiously Parasitic Department's Minister John Prescott would not definitely want them
So, come 5 May 2006 in the euphoria and mad rush for photocells, celebrations and the odd neo-fascistic grabbing of the headlines, there will be a great deal to mourn in London.
The loss of an opportunity to stop at least some of the crooks and thieves robbing the people of our rights.
Those thieves may be smaller in size and in terms of the individual access they would have to the vaults of our freedoms than their counterparts to be found in the inflated egos of the ministers included in Blair’s current entourage
. But looting – ‘voting’ ‘in cabinet’ and ‘in committee’ together, those crooks posing and ‘conducting’ as elected councillors will represent a very serious threat to liberties and the properties of the people in the communities covered by their councils.
Just as the crooks in control of the Tower Hamlets Council did during the five years of the INVITING of the CrossRail hole threat to the East End of London, 2000-2005.
Does it mean that the removal of that clique of crooks on 4 May 2006 by the voters, would usher in a morally clean group of councillors?
It does not.
How?
Because we have already seen the evidence of their immorality, their ingratitude to the community even before the last week before the scheduled polling day has run out
Some of them are already changing their gaits, the demeanours and their ways of addressing people in the community
They are behaving as if they are due for something like a coronation and the only thing that remains to be done is for the final finishing touches to be applied to the thrones!
Their heads are bigger than even Brenda could make her’s look on an especially good day based on her 60 plus years of experience of carrying the ‘right’ to sit in a real thrown.
In the Brick Lane London E1 area where the political heat surrounding the 4 May 2006 elections was actually launched at the end of December 2005 by the Khoodeelaar! 2006 election Manifesto, every single ‘legit’ party and candidate has had a pad.
This has been either in the form of a particular eating house – a Brick Lane Curry house- or a café or a similar, business location.
So vital is the place of Brick Lane in the political locations list. Locations to be seen at
Even the Isle of Dogs-bent property takeoverwallahs , the Conservatives, have been able to sneak into Brick Lane and pretend to be ‘friends’ with elements that have feigned enough abilities to give out ethnicity-linked noise that they [these Conservatives] have convinced themselves that they are on the way to taking over the democratic centre of the East End borough of Tower Hamlets.
If not in their own elected rights then by an actively encouraged alliance with the sub-Conservatives who are now expectantly moving nearer to the centre of a collation with the Conservatives to control Tower Hamlets
The Ies of Dogs estate-agents-Conservatives have no problem in dismissing the community in the Brick Lane London E1 area.
They know that they can do this by openly
[To be continued] From the pervious edition published at 0750 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006>/u>
The Muhammad Haque daily Political Commentary
Why I had described Prescott’s ODPM as the Department for the ODiously Parasitical Moron
By Muhammad Haque 0750 Hrs GMT 0850 Hrs UK time Sunday 30 April 2006
My battle against john Prescott centred on two factors.
His moral bankruptcy and his incredible stupidity about what the Labour Party was about
Those would take another 25 years to be recognised by the Mail on Sunday and by everybody else.
Everybody else that is occupying a place or similar in the mass propaganda, media business.
But the Mail on Sunday has already messed up any remnants of a moral message arising from the Prescott adulterous irresponsibility.
Prescott, like the conniving corrupting Charles Clarke, Prescott’s cabinet colleague and fellow travelling time-server in public office, has always been a bogus member of ‘the movement’.
He is petty, small-minded and has always lacked the basic depth that he must have had if he warranted being taken seriously as a true and trusted champion of the people whose lives literally depended on the deeds and or more likely the misdeeds of people like Prescott occupying positions of public authority and ‘power’ in the country.
I had asked him to explain one of the hundreds of contradictions in the then Labour regime in the UK.
It was about fiddling the official statistics and I asked him to explain why the official statistics on joblessness were being fiddled>
I assumed that he would direct his officials to address the details, as I knew that he lacked the necessary abilities to do that himself but I did know that even he knew the meaning and the implications for ‘democracy’ of the unacceptability, even in the context of the 1970s Britain, of fiddling the figures.
Prescott’s reply was staggeringly stupid.
And it missed the point
As always Prescott misses the main picture
That is why, more than 20 years since my previous attempt at getting him to tell the straight facts about Government behaviour I came across the fact that he was back in office and that his office had been given the shorthand name of ODPM. I immediately described his Department’s acronym ODPM as the ODiously Parasitical Moron’s Department [and permutations to similar effects]
The shocking truth about the UK political system [!!!] is NOT that there is no moral authority from the people in the country for the likes of Prescott to be in public office.
Th shocking truth is that the likes of Prescott are ALLOWED to get into public office.
And that they are even revered! Whilst holding those offices
The ‘revelations’ only leak out by default
The political system in Britain is a thoroughly corrupt immoral system
It is an opportunistic, insensitive,, uncaring, unethical system that will only be replaced by anything remotely resembling an ethical, moral one when the inevitable critical convergence occurs between all the crooked couriers of careeristic missions and manifestos
Even in the Mail on Sunday today [Sunday 30 April 2006]
there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plugs for the ‘wonderful boss’ that John Prescott alleged was.
And this is being attributed to Mac Clifford’s latest prize cash-machine –Tracey Temple, whom Clifford has been trailing for the past 48 hours to the media in advance of the splash in the Mail on Sunday.
That build up was typically corrupt and untruthful.
In the over-hyped Yet the fact that the are is a living devastating condemnation of the assumed democratic system.
How dare someone like Prescott – and the dozens of others who have been exposed as being dishonest, corrupt and immoral in office, although not exhaustively - is the although to those who are not ‘card-carrying’ members of the UK Labour Party, the likes of Charles Clarke, Tony Blair and John Prescott do what they do with the consent of the members of the Labour Party.
They don’t.
It is a myth to say that there is any democratic mechanism in the Party which I have re-named the Blaired party,
The Labour Party of the past which had certain organisational structures for some debate and for at least partially holding party officials and representatives to account has been killed off by the combined corruption epitomised and personified by Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock and the rest of their petty, small-minded time-serving pocket-enhancing small-time ‘political leaders’ that have hijacked the Party and have now consolidated their hold all over Britain.
That Labour Party will not come to life again.
Not in the foreseeable future.
If there is any revival of the Labour Party, it will take a very serious social upheaval before the Blaired sort of Party is consigned to the dustbin and modestly democratic Party is created in its place.
As things ordinarily stand today, there is no likelihood of any social upheaval occurring in the immediate future in Britain.
And therefore there is no likelihood of any fundamental change away from the Blaring away of society.
This Blairing way of Britain will of course logically run into grounds at one point.
That point is as yet not visible.
Not as I write
But things may change
Events may occur that will defy all assumptions underlying all these observations.
Which also includes and affects the roles and the relevance of other so-called mainstream Parties.
And for the same reasons and by the extension of the same logical and ethical analysis I can mark the renaming the Liberal Democratic Party as the Lib Dims. Party
I was beaten to the post on that by Andrea Perry, who has been in my view one of the rarest of British political journalists!
A witty intelligent and humorous woman with a very identifiable moral stance about the role of holders of public office
So I updated Andrea’s file as it were and renamed the Liberal Democrats the Liberal Dumbs Party
I illustrate this by a recent sample of the Lib Dumbness of Simon Hughes who made an appearance on BBC Weekend News and answered parrot-like questions being put to him by presenter Michelle Hussain [Saturday 29 April 2006] One of the first things he did say was that his party was not known for calling for people to resign!
That is so morally inept!
And so typically Liberally Dumbish!
[To be continued]
previous editions
:
Coming on aadhikaronline in the next 48 hours [ordinary working day times] exclusive reports including these:
From the previous editions:
Who will audit Christine Gilbert, chief executive of Tower Hamlets Council, given an undeserved CBE by Tony Blair in January 2006 and married to Home Office minister Tony McNulty? – a report shortly
From the previous edition:
Who is funding the ‘Independent’ candidates in Tower Hamlets and anywhere else in the UK for that matter
Who funds the ‘ethnicity-linked’ groups based at the ‘community centres’? Who are these groups and to whom are they accountable?
Who told the Council that we needed the packs of lies under covers of Local Area Partnerships? Who are these ‘partners’? Are there crimes being committed under the guises of LAPs? And if there are, why haven’t there been prosecutions?
Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
From the previous edition:
aadhikaronline reports and commentaries on Saturday 29 April 2006
With the BBC now acknowledging that the vote fraud and corruption regime is out of control in Tower Hamlets and with George Galloway’s long time business partner and RESPECT spokesman making a contribution to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in the past ten minutes about Tower Hamlets Council vote fraud, the scene is set for massive abuse in the Borough even after the scheduled 4 May Council elections.
No matter who is in control, there is utter disbelief on the part of ordinary people in the Borough at the way the Council is descending into deeper depths of sleaze and corruption.
Bridget Prentice, the elections minister speaking now on the Today programme’s John Humphrys is making incredible utterances of protestations ..
She is not taking responsibility for the fraud that took place in Tower Hamlets last year over the 5 may 2005 general elections.
So the question aadhikaronline is asking throughout this 'May Day bank holiday weekend' is: Who will hold a post election Tower Hamlets Council to account?- an aadhikaronline report
Why is Oona King reportedly making such an open deal with the Lib Dems in Bow East? How deep do the roots of the deal go? Will Oona King ‘revive’ her own political career in Tower Hamlets via the blossoming career as a councillor of her as-yet-unnamed favourite candidate in the Bow East council seat?
Did they have to abuse the Friday congregation prayer-goers in the mosque in Tower Hamlets so brazenly with their ‘pray-for-the candidates’ routine on 28 April 2006, barely a week before the 4 May scheduled local elections? Would they have also prayed for a prosperous career for every single adulterer, liar, interest-taker, and alcohol-user?
Those latter categories often feature in the actual speeches and sharia discussions within the Muslim community.
So, whose idea is it to corrupt the sanctity of the mosque by openly turning the congregations into captive audiences for spiels for some of the most undesirable elements that are known in the community?
Or are we witnessing in the inner cities in Britain the Blair-regime’s encouragement of a sleazy version of the ‘political imam’ who is as corrupted as any characterisations of Abu Hamza has been found to have been justifiable on the facts? I-an aadhikaronline investigative report here shortly
From the previous edition of aadhikaronline published ion Friday 28 April2006
Who will speak for the RESPECT 'councillors' if they are in a position to become the focus of attention resulting from the 4 May 2006 elections in Tower Hamlets?
Will it be George Galloway’s business partner Ron McKay?
Or will there be a democratically constituted body that will answer to the people for the behaviour of Ron McKay?
What lies behind Ron McKay's assumption that he knows more about Tower Hamlets than the local people do?
And is his nervousness at being asked questions about the actual manifesto of the RESPECT 'party' anything to do with the fact that there is an atmosphere of really serious and fundamental problems within the RESPECT 'coalition'?-an aadhikaronline investigation [report due here in the very near future]
Who has sent the former Tower Hamlets Labour Party Local Government Committee into permanent exile?
Why won’t the chair and the secretary of the former Tower Hamlets labour Party Local Government Committee speak out against the sleaze the corruption, the illegalities, the careerism that they witnessed as they ‘observed’ the behaviour of the ‘leader’ of the ‘labour Group’ on Tower Hamlets Council during 2002-2005?
Why are there so much postal voting and other vote-related corruption and abuses in the East End borough of Tower Hamlets?
Why didn’t Christine Gilbert, the ‘returning officer’ in post in Tower Hamlets, resign after she was publicly described by George Galloway as being responsible for the disastrous electoral fraud that occurred during the 5 May 2005 [a year ago] general elections ?
Who decided that Christine Gilbert was a morally fit person to be given an Honour by Tony Blair?
Monitoring the morality show in the UK
who has been plugging away for Margaret Hodge, the peddler for the ‘BNP threat’ as described by Bethnal Green and Bow MP George Galloway? And why should the London DAILY MAIL suddenly discover that the BBC has been lying to the public? Will the Daily Mail continue to argue for accountability from the BBC after the 4 May 2006 council elections? And, by the way, why is the Daily Mail never found guilty of many wrongdoings by the Press Complaints Commission?
Why does PRIVATE EYE shield and protect all those unaccountable local Councils in the UK? And whatever happened to their 2003 ‘discovery’ of Tower Hamlets as one of the UK’s sleaziest, rottenest Borough Councils? Is the PRIVATE EYE suspension of any examination of the corruption that goes on in most local councils in any way linked with the fact that the ‘writers’ have personal links with so many involved directly or indirectly in the corruption institutions that are the bureaucracies in these Councils? And when was the last time that PRIVATE EYE did any investigation into the biggest spending publicly funded bodies in the UK? If the answer is NOT recently then the question surely must be: why not? ‘Shurely’ we should be told
Who pays for the printing and the districting of so many ‘Bangla language’ ‘whosepapers’ published from addresses in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets?
Who was behind the latest ‘Bengali TV’ channel attacks on the Bangladeshis ion the UK?
Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
The scheduled report “What makes Louise Alexander blog?” has now been postponed indefinitely due to aadhikaronline legal decision based on the Khoodeelaar! campaign against CrossRail hole court action programme due to begin against the Tower Hamlets Lib Dems Group of councillors on Tuesday 2 May 2006
Louise Alexander was reported as doing her own blogs, in a diary piece published in the East London Advertiser earlier this year.
Who is she?
She is ,oddly, a councillor on the embattled London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
So rare is it to find someone from that Council doing an ordinary-sounding blog that we assigned a team of students to find out how many others were doing similar blogs from Tower Hamlets.
Not one was found.
One that could compare with Louise Alexander as a blogger.
No other party produced a counterpart.
Louise’s own party, the opposition Liberal democrats, did not produce one either.
Our reporters were given almost unlimited access to aadhikaronline library which stores 25 years of local political information.
There is no other local councillor on Tower Hamlets Council with anything like the frequency of publication on a comparable medium in the pre-internet era.
So, what has Louise been upto as a Liberal democrat councillor who is a frequent blogger? We found that she is very consistent in her promotion of her party. Ever so slightly, though.
But you can’t mistake her blog for any other party’s.
So we asked many in her Weavers Ward: Can Louise defend her patch from the threat of George Galloway’s RESPECT?
Can she salvage the sinking reputation of the Lib Dems Group who are often accused of [or are 'seen as'] being politically neutralised and in bed with the clique in control of Tower Hamlets Council now?
Shujata Mandal reports here on SUNDAY 30 April 2006
The Blair Corruption of the inner cities in Britain Project – a special report here shortly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006
Who are ‘the Muslims’, ‘the Bengalis’,’the Bangladeshis’,’ the Asians’,’ the Sylhettis’,’the Seelotees’ in Tower Hamlets? And how many ‘languages’ in fact are spoken in the East End of London?
Who are the ‘candidates’ that represent the people on the ground, regardless of what ethnicity, race and religion the people are?
AADHIKARonline reports start here at 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006-04-27
Why does the East London Advertiser
get it wrong again in its print edition [and web site story about an election public meeting held at the Brady Centre in the Hanbury Street on Tuesday 25 April 2006 ? The ‘local paper’ says “Muslim sect attacks Bengali voters”, when the fact is that in Tower Hamlets, the word “Muslim” is almost synonymous with the word “Bangladeshi” [which is the word the paper should have used but has failed to use].
What lies behind this failure to refer accurately to any groups’ identity in context?
If there is any group that is to be referred to or identified by its home use of a language then the group is not even ‘Bangladesh’. It is Seelottee. That is the more accurate word. And the most communicative.
Why, then, does the local paper fail to recognise this reality?
After all. The Seelottee language has been spoken as a major language in the East End for the best part of the past 100 years.
It has not been Bengali.
? That is a different language.
And a very different story.
[To be continued]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the 1st edition AADHIKARonline Thursday 27 April 2006
exclusive khoodeelaaronline investigation into Tower Hamlets Council
Khoodeelaar! language of accountability dominates the Third Brady Centre humiliation of Michael Keith over “Crossrail hole collusion”!
an AADHIKARonline investigation
. To 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 address aadhikaronline@yahoo.co.uk
. To make a direct communication on a mater of policy addressing the Editor and Publisher, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail address aadhikareditor@yahoo.co.uk
London Monday 1 May 2006
The world has lost a great contributor to caring and civilised thought. J K Galbraith has passed away.
I will always remember him for the great service he performed by explaining to the world so clearly how the Military Industrial Complex operates.
But the BBC are not content to let the memories of one of the most active social thinkers remain untarnished.
they brought in one of the most embarrassing emblems of ethnicity-linked careerism, a man they described as ‘emeritus professor’, and addressed as ‘Lord Desai’.
He does not deserve the BBC’s promotion. Let alone complicity in the awful insult he heaped on the just-deceased thinker. Desai compared Galbraith with the British faker and convicted criminal Jeffrey Archer!
We the licence payers have something to say about the BBC’s choice of ‘work’ which they spend our money on.
>br>that work, that interview with the ignoramus Desai, constituted neither work, nor service.
Is there no end to the idiocies at the heart of the BBC?
Or, to be precise, at the heart of the Radio Four Today programme?
The Radio Four Today programme broadcast an alleged interview with one of the UK’s most corrupt and ignorant ‘professors’, linked with the London School of Economics [LSE], who exhibited once again just how pathetically backward and sewer-like the world of Big Business academia is.
In the alleged interview, the LSE-linked ignoramus Professor Desai displayed his own total ignorance of the discipline of economics and what is more he showed just how deeply sunk in the mire of selfishness, greed and corruption he himself was.
He dismissed JK Galbraith as an economist and then sang the praise of Market capitalism, globalisation in the most shameless way possible. He then said that he never liked Galbraith, anyway!
The licence payers of the UK must demand to know why our licence paying money is being wasted and misused by the BBC giving airtime to such completely bad elements who spread the gospel of capitalist uncare, discare where there should be much more space and time given to the propagation of the truth about our world and how the truly liberating ideas of educators must be at the centre of our knowledge about events.
The ignoramus Desai is not any description of source for anything remotely to do with the truth. He is a fabricator and the BBC should know better than to allow a practised fabricator and surrogate to be given any platform where only the truth about capitalism will be acceptable. No room for lies. For to allow any lies about economics to be aired as if it ahs any backing of scholarship would be to violate the rights of so many millions whose very existence is threatened and denied by the oppressive gospel of market economics and capitalism.
Galbraith’s contributions included the fact that he brought out into the open some of the crucial evidence about how the corrupt market capitalism – and Globalisation in today’s terminology- operates. In the society that is dominated by the worlds vilest violators of human rights.
If nothing else, that achievement by Galbraith was much more significant than the stupid LSE Desai has any ability to recognise.
The question is: what agenda was the BBC Radio Four editor or programme commissioners operating under?
Did they have to bring in that ignorance spreader Desai?
Why did they have to broadcast that sickeningly ignorant string of lies by the LSE moron Desai?
Since when had that punter become a source of anything to do with civilised discourse? Let alone of anything to do with the truth about this world and how the gospel of free market economic lies has been sued to violate and massacre millions?
How dare the BBC let the LSE moron Desai utter stupidities about J K Galbraith?
What does Desai know about Economics?
Ed Stourton should now be renamed Ed Stupidone for his own stupidities in conducting that unforgivably ignorant interview giving undeserved airtime to this LSE-linked peddler of corruption and Big Business perversion of the wealth of nature and the wealth of societies.
A transcript of the BBC Radio Four idiotic interview with LSE moron Desai going on at the just-deceased economist and social condemnatory J K Galbraith will be published here shortly
This filed 0815 Hrs GMT
Monday 1` May 2006
From the previous edition :
The 3rd Edition AADHIKARonline London 1330 Hrs GMT / 1430 Hrs Sunday 30 April 2006
Why Janet Ludlow the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council Lib Dem Group leader [opposition councillor] is being issued with court action notice by Khoodeelaar! this week and the relevance of the EVIDENCE from the past elections to Tower Hamlets Council – the worrying legacies of the Liberal Democrats 1990-1994 [Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs]
Full report here shortly [This filed 1330 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006]
From the pervious, the 2nd Edition:
Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs
How in Tower Hamlets, any consequence of an electoral fluke, resulting in Lib Dems getting any say on how the Council is run, will cause serious problems and lose the community vital support at a time when the East End needs a Council made up of honest people who are actually actively opposed to liars and lying in public office!
By Muhammad Haque
London 1100 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
Yet they could bring changes for the better.
If they had good people standing as candidates.
More importantly, if they had good people standing with good prospects of getting elected/
There are all across London good people about.
May be not as many of them who are willing to stand under those circumstances as there should be but there are enough of them that could really make a difference if they were among the people on elected councils in London after the 4 May scheduled polls.
But the present political parties, groupings and the consequent system of elections do not want good people. running local councils in London
Tony Blair does not want them
None of Blair’s ministers wants them
And the Odiously Parasitic Department's Minister John Prescott would not definitely want them
So, come 5 May 2006 in the euphoria and mad rush for photocells, celebrations and the odd neo-fascistic grabbing of the headlines, there will be a great deal to mourn in London.
The loss of an opportunity to stop at least some of the crooks and thieves robbing the people of our rights.
Those thieves may be smaller in size and in terms of the individual access they would have to the vaults of our freedoms than their counterparts to be found in the inflated egos of the ministers included in Blair’s current entourage
. But looting – ‘voting’ ‘in cabinet’ and ‘in committee’ together, those crooks posing and ‘conducting’ as elected councillors will represent a very serious threat to liberties and the properties of the people in the communities covered by their councils.
Just as the crooks in control of the Tower Hamlets Council did during the five years of the INVITING of the CrossRail hole threat to the East End of London, 2000-2005.
Does it mean that the removal of that clique of crooks on 4 May 2006 by the voters, would usher in a morally clean group of councillors?
It does not.
How?
Because we have already seen the evidence of their immorality, their ingratitude to the community even before the last week before the scheduled polling day has run out
Some of them are already changing their gaits, the demeanours and their ways of addressing people in the community
They are behaving as if they are due for something like a coronation and the only thing that remains to be done is for the final finishing touches to be applied to the thrones!
Their heads are bigger than even Brenda could make her’s look on an especially good day based on her 60 plus years of experience of carrying the ‘right’ to sit in a real thrown.
In the Brick Lane London E1 area where the political heat surrounding the 4 May 2006 elections was actually launched at the end of December 2005 by the Khoodeelaar! 2006 election Manifesto, every single ‘legit’ party and candidate has had a pad.
This has been either in the form of a particular eating house – a Brick Lane Curry house- or a café or a similar, business location.
So vital is the place of Brick Lane in the political locations list. Locations to be seen at
Even the Isle of Dogs-bent property takeoverwallahs , the Conservatives, have been able to sneak into Brick Lane and pretend to be ‘friends’ with elements that have feigned enough abilities to give out ethnicity-linked noise that they [these Conservatives] have convinced themselves that they are on the way to taking over the democratic centre of the East End borough of Tower Hamlets.
If not in their own elected rights then by an actively encouraged alliance with the sub-Conservatives who are now expectantly moving nearer to the centre of a collation with the Conservatives to control Tower Hamlets
The Ies of Dogs estate-agents-Conservatives have no problem in dismissing the community in the Brick Lane London E1 area.
They know that they can do this by openly
[To be continued] From the pervious edition published at 0750 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006>/u>
The Muhammad Haque daily Political Commentary
Why I had described Prescott’s ODPM as the Department for the ODiously Parasitical Moron
By Muhammad Haque 0750 Hrs GMT 0850 Hrs UK time Sunday 30 April 2006
My battle against john Prescott centred on two factors.
His moral bankruptcy and his incredible stupidity about what the Labour Party was about
Those would take another 25 years to be recognised by the Mail on Sunday and by everybody else.
Everybody else that is occupying a place or similar in the mass propaganda, media business.
But the Mail on Sunday has already messed up any remnants of a moral message arising from the Prescott adulterous irresponsibility.
Prescott, like the conniving corrupting Charles Clarke, Prescott’s cabinet colleague and fellow travelling time-server in public office, has always been a bogus member of ‘the movement’.
He is petty, small-minded and has always lacked the basic depth that he must have had if he warranted being taken seriously as a true and trusted champion of the people whose lives literally depended on the deeds and or more likely the misdeeds of people like Prescott occupying positions of public authority and ‘power’ in the country.
I had asked him to explain one of the hundreds of contradictions in the then Labour regime in the UK.
It was about fiddling the official statistics and I asked him to explain why the official statistics on joblessness were being fiddled>
I assumed that he would direct his officials to address the details, as I knew that he lacked the necessary abilities to do that himself but I did know that even he knew the meaning and the implications for ‘democracy’ of the unacceptability, even in the context of the 1970s Britain, of fiddling the figures.
Prescott’s reply was staggeringly stupid.
And it missed the point
As always Prescott misses the main picture
That is why, more than 20 years since my previous attempt at getting him to tell the straight facts about Government behaviour I came across the fact that he was back in office and that his office had been given the shorthand name of ODPM. I immediately described his Department’s acronym ODPM as the ODiously Parasitical Moron’s Department [and permutations to similar effects]
The shocking truth about the UK political system [!!!] is NOT that there is no moral authority from the people in the country for the likes of Prescott to be in public office.
Th shocking truth is that the likes of Prescott are ALLOWED to get into public office.
And that they are even revered! Whilst holding those offices
The ‘revelations’ only leak out by default
The political system in Britain is a thoroughly corrupt immoral system
It is an opportunistic, insensitive,, uncaring, unethical system that will only be replaced by anything remotely resembling an ethical, moral one when the inevitable critical convergence occurs between all the crooked couriers of careeristic missions and manifestos
Even in the Mail on Sunday today [Sunday 30 April 2006]
there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plugs for the ‘wonderful boss’ that John Prescott alleged was.
And this is being attributed to Mac Clifford’s latest prize cash-machine –Tracey Temple, whom Clifford has been trailing for the past 48 hours to the media in advance of the splash in the Mail on Sunday.
That build up was typically corrupt and untruthful.
In the over-hyped Yet the fact that the are is a living devastating condemnation of the assumed democratic system.
How dare someone like Prescott – and the dozens of others who have been exposed as being dishonest, corrupt and immoral in office, although not exhaustively - is the although to those who are not ‘card-carrying’ members of the UK Labour Party, the likes of Charles Clarke, Tony Blair and John Prescott do what they do with the consent of the members of the Labour Party.
They don’t.
It is a myth to say that there is any democratic mechanism in the Party which I have re-named the Blaired party,
The Labour Party of the past which had certain organisational structures for some debate and for at least partially holding party officials and representatives to account has been killed off by the combined corruption epitomised and personified by Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock and the rest of their petty, small-minded time-serving pocket-enhancing small-time ‘political leaders’ that have hijacked the Party and have now consolidated their hold all over Britain.
That Labour Party will not come to life again.
Not in the foreseeable future.
If there is any revival of the Labour Party, it will take a very serious social upheaval before the Blaired sort of Party is consigned to the dustbin and modestly democratic Party is created in its place.
As things ordinarily stand today, there is no likelihood of any social upheaval occurring in the immediate future in Britain.
And therefore there is no likelihood of any fundamental change away from the Blaring away of society.
This Blairing way of Britain will of course logically run into grounds at one point.
That point is as yet not visible.
Not as I write
But things may change
Events may occur that will defy all assumptions underlying all these observations.
Which also includes and affects the roles and the relevance of other so-called mainstream Parties.
And for the same reasons and by the extension of the same logical and ethical analysis I can mark the renaming the Liberal Democratic Party as the Lib Dims. Party
I was beaten to the post on that by Andrea Perry, who has been in my view one of the rarest of British political journalists!
A witty intelligent and humorous woman with a very identifiable moral stance about the role of holders of public office
So I updated Andrea’s file as it were and renamed the Liberal Democrats the Liberal Dumbs Party
I illustrate this by a recent sample of the Lib Dumbness of Simon Hughes who made an appearance on BBC Weekend News and answered parrot-like questions being put to him by presenter Michelle Hussain [Saturday 29 April 2006] One of the first things he did say was that his party was not known for calling for people to resign!
That is so morally inept!
And so typically Liberally Dumbish!
[To be continued]
previous editions
:
Coming on aadhikaronline in the next 48 hours [ordinary working day times] exclusive reports including these:
From the previous editions:
Who will audit Christine Gilbert, chief executive of Tower Hamlets Council, given an undeserved CBE by Tony Blair in January 2006 and married to Home Office minister Tony McNulty? – a report shortly
From the previous edition:
Who is funding the ‘Independent’ candidates in Tower Hamlets and anywhere else in the UK for that matter
Who funds the ‘ethnicity-linked’ groups based at the ‘community centres’? Who are these groups and to whom are they accountable?
Who told the Council that we needed the packs of lies under covers of Local Area Partnerships? Who are these ‘partners’? Are there crimes being committed under the guises of LAPs? And if there are, why haven’t there been prosecutions?
Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
From the previous edition:
aadhikaronline reports and commentaries on Saturday 29 April 2006
With the BBC now acknowledging that the vote fraud and corruption regime is out of control in Tower Hamlets and with George Galloway’s long time business partner and RESPECT spokesman making a contribution to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in the past ten minutes about Tower Hamlets Council vote fraud, the scene is set for massive abuse in the Borough even after the scheduled 4 May Council elections.
No matter who is in control, there is utter disbelief on the part of ordinary people in the Borough at the way the Council is descending into deeper depths of sleaze and corruption.
Bridget Prentice, the elections minister speaking now on the Today programme’s John Humphrys is making incredible utterances of protestations ..
She is not taking responsibility for the fraud that took place in Tower Hamlets last year over the 5 may 2005 general elections.
So the question aadhikaronline is asking throughout this 'May Day bank holiday weekend' is: Who will hold a post election Tower Hamlets Council to account?- an aadhikaronline report
Why is Oona King reportedly making such an open deal with the Lib Dems in Bow East? How deep do the roots of the deal go? Will Oona King ‘revive’ her own political career in Tower Hamlets via the blossoming career as a councillor of her as-yet-unnamed favourite candidate in the Bow East council seat?
Did they have to abuse the Friday congregation prayer-goers in the mosque in Tower Hamlets so brazenly with their ‘pray-for-the candidates’ routine on 28 April 2006, barely a week before the 4 May scheduled local elections? Would they have also prayed for a prosperous career for every single adulterer, liar, interest-taker, and alcohol-user?
Those latter categories often feature in the actual speeches and sharia discussions within the Muslim community.
So, whose idea is it to corrupt the sanctity of the mosque by openly turning the congregations into captive audiences for spiels for some of the most undesirable elements that are known in the community?
Or are we witnessing in the inner cities in Britain the Blair-regime’s encouragement of a sleazy version of the ‘political imam’ who is as corrupted as any characterisations of Abu Hamza has been found to have been justifiable on the facts? I-an aadhikaronline investigative report here shortly
From the previous edition of aadhikaronline published ion Friday 28 April2006
Who will speak for the RESPECT 'councillors' if they are in a position to become the focus of attention resulting from the 4 May 2006 elections in Tower Hamlets?
Will it be George Galloway’s business partner Ron McKay?
Or will there be a democratically constituted body that will answer to the people for the behaviour of Ron McKay?
What lies behind Ron McKay's assumption that he knows more about Tower Hamlets than the local people do?
And is his nervousness at being asked questions about the actual manifesto of the RESPECT 'party' anything to do with the fact that there is an atmosphere of really serious and fundamental problems within the RESPECT 'coalition'?-an aadhikaronline investigation [report due here in the very near future]
Who has sent the former Tower Hamlets Labour Party Local Government Committee into permanent exile?
Why won’t the chair and the secretary of the former Tower Hamlets labour Party Local Government Committee speak out against the sleaze the corruption, the illegalities, the careerism that they witnessed as they ‘observed’ the behaviour of the ‘leader’ of the ‘labour Group’ on Tower Hamlets Council during 2002-2005?
Why are there so much postal voting and other vote-related corruption and abuses in the East End borough of Tower Hamlets?
Why didn’t Christine Gilbert, the ‘returning officer’ in post in Tower Hamlets, resign after she was publicly described by George Galloway as being responsible for the disastrous electoral fraud that occurred during the 5 May 2005 [a year ago] general elections ?
Who decided that Christine Gilbert was a morally fit person to be given an Honour by Tony Blair?
Monitoring the morality show in the UK
who has been plugging away for Margaret Hodge, the peddler for the ‘BNP threat’ as described by Bethnal Green and Bow MP George Galloway? And why should the London DAILY MAIL suddenly discover that the BBC has been lying to the public? Will the Daily Mail continue to argue for accountability from the BBC after the 4 May 2006 council elections? And, by the way, why is the Daily Mail never found guilty of many wrongdoings by the Press Complaints Commission?
Why does PRIVATE EYE shield and protect all those unaccountable local Councils in the UK? And whatever happened to their 2003 ‘discovery’ of Tower Hamlets as one of the UK’s sleaziest, rottenest Borough Councils? Is the PRIVATE EYE suspension of any examination of the corruption that goes on in most local councils in any way linked with the fact that the ‘writers’ have personal links with so many involved directly or indirectly in the corruption institutions that are the bureaucracies in these Councils? And when was the last time that PRIVATE EYE did any investigation into the biggest spending publicly funded bodies in the UK? If the answer is NOT recently then the question surely must be: why not? ‘Shurely’ we should be told
Who pays for the printing and the districting of so many ‘Bangla language’ ‘whosepapers’ published from addresses in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets?
Who was behind the latest ‘Bengali TV’ channel attacks on the Bangladeshis ion the UK?
Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
The scheduled report “What makes Louise Alexander blog?” has now been postponed indefinitely due to aadhikaronline legal decision based on the Khoodeelaar! campaign against CrossRail hole court action programme due to begin against the Tower Hamlets Lib Dems Group of councillors on Tuesday 2 May 2006
Louise Alexander was reported as doing her own blogs, in a diary piece published in the East London Advertiser earlier this year.
Who is she?
She is ,oddly, a councillor on the embattled London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
So rare is it to find someone from that Council doing an ordinary-sounding blog that we assigned a team of students to find out how many others were doing similar blogs from Tower Hamlets.
Not one was found.
One that could compare with Louise Alexander as a blogger.
No other party produced a counterpart.
Louise’s own party, the opposition Liberal democrats, did not produce one either.
Our reporters were given almost unlimited access to aadhikaronline library which stores 25 years of local political information.
There is no other local councillor on Tower Hamlets Council with anything like the frequency of publication on a comparable medium in the pre-internet era.
So, what has Louise been upto as a Liberal democrat councillor who is a frequent blogger? We found that she is very consistent in her promotion of her party. Ever so slightly, though.
But you can’t mistake her blog for any other party’s.
So we asked many in her Weavers Ward: Can Louise defend her patch from the threat of George Galloway’s RESPECT?
Can she salvage the sinking reputation of the Lib Dems Group who are often accused of [or are 'seen as'] being politically neutralised and in bed with the clique in control of Tower Hamlets Council now?
Shujata Mandal reports here on SUNDAY 30 April 2006
The Blair Corruption of the inner cities in Britain Project – a special report here shortly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006
Who are ‘the Muslims’, ‘the Bengalis’,’the Bangladeshis’,’ the Asians’,’ the Sylhettis’,’the Seelotees’ in Tower Hamlets? And how many ‘languages’ in fact are spoken in the East End of London?
Who are the ‘candidates’ that represent the people on the ground, regardless of what ethnicity, race and religion the people are?
AADHIKARonline reports start here at 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006-04-27
Why does the East London Advertiser
get it wrong again in its print edition [and web site story about an election public meeting held at the Brady Centre in the Hanbury Street on Tuesday 25 April 2006 ? The ‘local paper’ says “Muslim sect attacks Bengali voters”, when the fact is that in Tower Hamlets, the word “Muslim” is almost synonymous with the word “Bangladeshi” [which is the word the paper should have used but has failed to use].
What lies behind this failure to refer accurately to any groups’ identity in context?
If there is any group that is to be referred to or identified by its home use of a language then the group is not even ‘Bangladesh’. It is Seelottee. That is the more accurate word. And the most communicative.
Why, then, does the local paper fail to recognise this reality?
After all. The Seelottee language has been spoken as a major language in the East End for the best part of the past 100 years.
It has not been Bengali.
? That is a different language.
And a very different story.
[To be continued]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the 1st edition AADHIKARonline Thursday 27 April 2006
exclusive khoodeelaaronline investigation into Tower Hamlets Council
Khoodeelaar! language of accountability dominates the Third Brady Centre humiliation of Michael Keith over “Crossrail hole collusion”!
an AADHIKARonline investigation
. To 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 address aadhikaronline@yahoo.co.uk
. To make a direct communication on a mater of policy addressing the Editor and Publisher, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail address aadhikareditor@yahoo.co.uk
posted by editormuhammadHaque at 1:09 AM
0 comments
