Talk:Lutfur Rahman (British politician)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction appears unduly favourable, even biased, given the extent of unfavourable coverage in the media. The statement that "much of his work has focused on assisting those affected by these cuts" is at odds with other reports suggesting he uses public money to effectively buy votes. Similarly the statement that his "political ability has been well commented on", is an unusual expression, and apparently a misunderstanding and confusion between there having been "much comment" and "favourable comment". There has been a lot of coverage, but much of it far from favourable. The February 2011 Guardian blog report, for instance, covering his early performance as Mayor, may well have concluded that he had proved "highly adept at political jujutsu". However that is a criticism, not a complement.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Cronyism
Lutfur Rahman has been accused of cronyism by various parties - Private Eye (Issues 1219, 1238, 1240) and The Evening Standard, to name a few. Should this be included in this article? NylonPylon (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More corruption

 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10581958/Borough-of-Tower-Hamlets-a-byword-for-sleaze.html
 * http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/01/mayor-denies-using-community-f.html
 * http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/tower_hamlets_named_by_election_commission_for_voting_fraud_danger_1_3206478

Needs to be added to article.--Helwingia (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Related article to update?
Does Election court need to be updated following the judgement against Lutfur Rahman? Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported guilty or found guilty?
Its been suggested that 'reported guilty' is the correct terminology following the election court ruling. I think this is not as strong as 'found guilty' and suggests there may be some doubt in the ruling; further the media seem to be using the 'found guilty' e.g.   Paulbrock (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly I do not give a toss what is reported in the media, because it is not being written by legal reporters but by news reporters who would not recognise the difference and do not know correct legal terminology.


 * The purpose of an election court is to determine whether an election was conducted according to the rules. It is not a criminal court but a unique court, mostly conducted to the civil standard (judgment, para 39). It is however required to determine whether criminal offences have occurred, and it does so to the criminal standard of proof. But this is not a criminal conviction. Instead what happens, if the court is satisfied to the criminal standard that someone has been guilty of electoral offences, is that the court reports its findings to the High Court, and in consequence of that report, the person is disqualified from participation in elections. But they have not been found guilty and have not got a criminal conviction.


 * The important thing to note is that it is possible for someone, after being reported guilty of offences by an election court, then to be tried for the very same criminal offences. Consideration was given to doing this in Watkins v Woolas, for instance; the CPS decided it was not in the public interest to do so. If criminal charges follow, the defendant would have certain defences open to them which are not relevant to the election court. Also note that in an election court, it is quite possible to be found guilty by one's agents of offences which the candidate was entirely unaware, and that the consequences of that are identical to the candidate having done them themselves. In that case there wouldn't be any question of criminal liability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in two minds here. Whilst I agree that technically the election court is merely "reporting" Lutfur as guilty, the use of that term is likely confusing to the non-specialist reader (at least without additional context, which could be included in the article but not the introduction). So perhaps preferable to say the election court "concluded" or "determined" Lutfur was guilty, or use some similar formulation? However I am conscious it is not for us to apply our legal expertise, but rather to follow secondary sources, and as far as I can see they are all saying "found guilty".


 * Any thoughts? LeContexte (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Wikipedia needs to go off what is reported in other sources, even if factually correct we can't say "the media are wrong" without backing it up with other sources, a google search for lutfur "reported guilty" doesn't get any usable sources at the moment.
 * Leaving Wikipedia policy minutae aside, at the very least 'reported guilty' should get an explanation for non-specialist readers Paulbrock (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Found guilty" seems to me to be the correct legal term. Judges make findings, in both civil & criminal courts. They don't make reports. The electoral court was in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division making rulings on British statutes, it was not some bureaucratic invention as some involved have tried to suggest. So, whilst the electoral court is not a criminal court, which may give some pause about the use of "found guilty", what is actually happening here is that the court has had to find him guilty of those offences to then find against him on the petition. So at most you're extending to "found against Lutfur Rahman and removed him from office because the court found him guilty of the matters listed from para 672 of the judgment" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/judgment.pdf. The court had to make a finding of guilt of those offences because there hadn't been a criminal court to separately make that finding - so it was for this court to do. But it is in my view a "finding", not a "reporting" (whatever that means). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.82.178 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Officially reported to be (or, as) personally guilty of corrupt or illegal (or, unlawful) practices, or both." -- Urquhartnite (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Tower Hamlets First were established by both the Election Court and the Electoral Commission [https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-corporate/media-statement-on-removal-of-tower-hamlets-first-from-the-electoral-commissions-register-of-political-parties? ] to be not a bona fide political party. They were anyway also deliberately structured in other ways falling just short of being a bona fide political party, such as the fact that they did not accept members or political donations, because the whole point of Tower Hamlets First was that Lutfur Rahman wanted (and still wants) to get back into the Labour Party one day, and he must had privately thought to himself that setting up a sham political party (although pretended to have been properly registered with the Electoral Commission (when they were in fact not)) might somehow be considered a lesser "crime" or offence, in the eyes of the (future) members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the Labour Party, than otherwise, were he to one day apply to be re-admitted into the Labour Party as a member. Anyway, potential WP:Content fork. A separate article for Tower Hamlets First would not even be useful for students, actual, professional or amateur, of British politics or of British political science, because a study of the story of Tower Hamlets First would always be incomplete without also studying the story of Lutfur Rahman himself, at least as a (debarred former) politician. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they should be kept [separate]. It was a [political] party for a while - implied by the the Electoral Commission wording "the party’s registration is no longer valid". Being involved in a fairly unique election court case gives it some persisting historical significance. Notability (organizations and companies) seems to be the applicable [notability] policy. The primary requirement there is "significant coverage in secondary sources", more detailed as "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability"; it seems to have enough mentions in national media to meet this criteria. Rwendland (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Tower Hamlets First (also known as Mayor Lutfur Rahman) were never notable in their own right independent of Lutfur Rahman. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally oppose the merge. Wikipedia is not an editorial opinion about a corrupt politician. We have (1) a person and (2) a political party that each separately existed (separate at least in terms of legal status). That suffices. Don't use wikipedia to make a purely political statement.109.134.190.181 (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lutfur Rahman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://labourbriefing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:breaking-news-press-release-21st-september-2010&catid=3:newsflash

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Lutfur Rahman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101125130801/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101216063807/http://www.channel4.com:80/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-54/episode-1 to http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-54/episode-1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101023141213/http://www.islamicforumeurope.com:80/live/ife.php?doc=articleitem&itemId=479 to http://www.islamicforumeurope.com/live/ife.php?doc=articleitem&itemId=479
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120414201621/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzU1MA== to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzU1MA==
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110902033821/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23961537-mayor-of-poorest-borough-spends-pound-115000-on-new-vanity-offices.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23961537-mayor-of-poorest-borough-spends-pound-115000-on-new-vanity-offices.do
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150614062542/http://www.london24.com/news/politics/henry_moore_s_old_flo_sculpture_withdrawn_from_auction_1_1751388 to http://www.london24.com/news/politics/henry_moore_s_old_flo_sculpture_withdrawn_from_auction_1_1751388
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140821034236/http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/08/tower-hamlets-election-detaile.html to http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/08/tower-hamlets-election-detaile.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lutfur Rahman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101125130801/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lutfur Rahman (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125130801/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23710301-council-execs-500k-after-falling-out-with-leader.do
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.threcorder.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED15%20Jul%202009%2022%3A06%3A19%3A867
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://labourbriefing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80%3Abreaking-news-press-release-21st-september-2010&catid=3%3Anewsflash
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414201621/http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzU1MA%3D%3D to http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzU1MA%3D%3D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgsl/1001-1050/1002_mayor.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)