Seriously?

1 May

CUP 2014 leaflet 2

This leaflet from the Communities United Party dropped onto my doormat the other day. It makes some bold claims.

Many people are indeed disillusioned and feel betrayed by the big parties, but before anyone is tempted to give the CUP their vote later this month – even as a protest – it is worth taking a closer look.

The party is led by Kamran Malik, a local solicitor. The leaflet makes a big deal of having ‘challenged public authorities in the UK High Court’ on a number of issues. Indeed they have. But the Court got so sick of their frivolous and baseless claims that they have been banned from bringing any further actions without the explicit permission of a judge. The party was ordered to pay Newham Council £2,000 in legal costs after the last of their “truly hopeless” cases failed.

The CUP claims to enjoy ‘increasing support’ but the fact is that they are running fewer candidates at this election than 4 years ago – just one for council and one for mayor. In 2010 they had 10. Wherever that extra support is, it’s not in Newham.

Finally, the party is so utterly incompetent that it once sent a press statement to the Newham Recorder with its own name spelt wrong.

If you are looking for someone to vote for who’s not part of the ‘politics-as-usual’ crowd (which very much includes UKIP, despite their claims to the contrary) there are far more deserving candidates than the CUP.

Advertisements

One Response to “Seriously?”

  1. E. Jonathan September 19, 2014 at 10:39 #

    The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

    28 August 2014

    On 10 June 2014 the Newham Recorder circulated a general notice relating to the case of Mr Kamran Malik. The notice, masqueraded as a legitimate article, was authored by none less than senior reporter, Mr F. Mayhew. This article is a response to that notice.
    The trial of the Communities United Leader, Kamran Malik, began and concluded with the lengthy and costly (to the taxpayer of course) pursuit of a prosecution by the Office of Immigration Services Commissioner on the basis of one (that’s right one) complaint from a non British National seeking permanent residence in the United Kingdom. In short, Mrs X was scheduled to return to her country of origin but applied for EEA Application Residence Card for five years in the UK. Mr Malik, serving as an intermediary, referred the matter to immigration specialists ‘Sky Solicitors’. Desperate for the application to succeed, Mrs X submitted a complaint about the initial failure of her application and demanded a refund.
    It is alleged that, in an unprecedented move, the Office of Immigration Services Commission supported this complaint and saw fit to spend taxpayer’s money instigating a prosecution against Mr Malik for his intermediary role in dealing with the matter.
    Naturally, this begs the question; it light of the government endeavour to clamp down illegal immigration, what would the possible motive be for a public body: that professes to ‘regulate’ immigration practice, spending British taxpayers’ money securing the residence of an over-stayer? As a consequence of her commanding role in the trial, Mrs X’s application for EEA Application Residence Card for five years in the UK together with her family was subsequently granted. It is ironic that the very organisation charged with regulating immigration practice played a more than significant role in guaranteeing leave to remain in the UK by somewhat unconventional means.
    OISC appeared neither to have its 2012 Criminal Prosecution Policy which calls for an evidential test that considers: relevance and admissibility of available evidence, reliability of evidence relating to the identity of an alleged offender and reliability of prosecution witnesses, nor any transparent investigatory procedures. This called the legitimacy of its case into serious question.
    To return to the response to the Newham Recorder piece, we are reminded that: despite Mr Malik standing for local elections on three occasions, this was not deemed worthy of the coverage from the illustrious echo chamber of the Mayor of Newham. All previous attempts by the Party to raise vital concerns within the local community were ignored: Newham Council’s expense of £111 million on its offices; £3.3 million on its failed Olympic enterprise ‘The Pleasure Gardens’; the investment of £40 million re-housing West Ham Football Club whilst there are 17,535 social housing properties in Newham; and 24,544 households currently on the waiting list coupled with a housing policy which dislocates the vulnerable from important family networks in its false claim of resolving the housing shortage problem; increased parking and business charges; the loss of public sector jobs and amenities in the falsehood of austerity. Every challenge in the name of public interest to the avaricious Labour policies aimed at forcing the majority in sufferance and hardship pay for the wealthy minority was certainly not reported on. Yet on this occasion the local journal has shown its standard of : poor reporting and inaccuracy.
    The case remains on appeal through judicial review in the High Court. It is without doubt that the truth will be revealed and, as with so many who challenge the system, the sacrifice of one’s own liberty is often the price one pays for the freedom of the many.

    Reported by E. Jonathan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: