It was on both BBC and ITV’s London news, in the national media (here) and in London’s Evening Standard (here) this week: the country’s highest-paid council chief executive is leaving London’s poorest borough after only two years in the job. Despite intense media enquiry and speculation, no-one can or will find out why. This, after all, is the hyper-spun media-manipulating one-party New Labour borough of Newham. Think Peter Mandelson. Think Alastair Campbell. Throw in a budget-busting annual £2.5m publicity spend and you’ll get the picture. But you won’t get the facts.

Joe Duckworth was appointed chief executive just two years ago. It had been a long interregnum since the departure of predecessor Dave Burbage (who Box and Cox’d with Duckworth, ending up in the latter’s previous chief executive job on Isle of Wight council). Duckworth was installed in Newham with the brief of improving delivery of services and preparing the borough for the 2012 Olympics.

However it was his pay that became the story (here). Inevitably there is built-in organisational tension between Newham’s two chiefs, the elected executive mayor and the chief executive. To avoid Blair/Brown-style bad blood, mayor Sir Robin Wales fixed Duckworth with UK councils’ top pay packet of £241,000 a year (over £280,000 with pension and perks) and allowed him to continue to live in the Isle of Wight.

Throughout his two-year tenure Duckworth simply visited the borough for just three days a week and enjoyed a four-day weekend at home on the Isle of Wight.

(I called to see him about an urgent legal issue one Monday earlier this year. I sat on the phone in his plush office in Newham talking to him on the Isle of Wight. “It’s a detailed complicated matter,” he said. “It would be much easier if we could discuss it face to face.” Er… really?)

This was an appalling abuse of taxpayers’ money but Wales arranged it to buy Duckworth’s cooperation and amenability. Power-conscious Wales is the boss and he likes it that way. With classic Canning Town coarseness local people called it ‘Duckworth’s bend-over pay’.

The speculation now is that he will receive a £500,000 golden handshake (here), no doubt partly to buy his silence. The poor taxpayers of this deprived borough are likely to be screwed once again.

Why did Duckworth leave? Two separate sources have indicated the chief executive was escorted (‘frog-marched’ said one) out of the town hall on Tuesday evening. A middle-manager told me council bosses are internally promoting a story that Duckworth gave a £600,000 contract to a friend of his called Steve – which sounds to me like Mandelsonian dark arts of character assassination. Others have spoken of repeated clashes between Wales and Duckworth – which seems unlikely in view of the above.

One thing is for sure, we’ll never know for certain. We don’t know what goes on in Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. Why should we know what goes on in Sir Robin Wales’ Newham?

I am hoping that the Labour government’s £145m Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) initiative will get the chop as part of the new ConLib coalition’s spending cuts. The programme has been ineffective, wasteful, puts public money into extremists’ hands (here) and finds our avowedly secular and religiously-neutral government pouring £millions into anything from schools to soccer clubs, whose common identity overwhelmingly is that they are Islamic. As far as the UK is concerned, Buddhists don’t do violent extremism so their religion doesn’t get state financial support. Nor do Christians. Nor Hindus. Nor Jews. Nor Sikhs. Odd isn’t it?

It is also awful but ironic that a senior member of the government that introduced PVE has himself been assaulted allegedly by one of the violent extremists that PVE was intended to prevent.

Stephen Timms is the personally likeable Labour MP for East Ham. He was a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet and he also held senior portfolios outside the cabinet under Gordon Brown. He lives in Newham, describes himself as a Christian Socialist and is recognised as a hard-working constituency MP.

The alleged assailant Roshonara Choudhary, 21, lives with her parents and four younger siblings in East Ham, just a mile away from Timms. According to neighbours she is a devout Muslim who has given private English lessons to local kids for £5 an hour (here) . She is also bright. A reliable source says that she was an A-star student at a London college who dropped out and became unemployed earlier this year when she started getting involved in radical Islam and studying Islamist websites.

The same source says it appears the suspect would have preferred to get Tony Blair but, reckoning she wouldn’t be able to approach him because of security, she chose Timms instead as an easier target.

Apparently wearing an orange hijab and carrying two kitchen knives she attended Timms’ first constituents’ surgery after the 6th May general election when he was returned with the largest majority in the country. Unusually for a devout Muslim woman she allegedly put out her hand to shake the male MP’s hand – then apparently she suddenly plunged one of the knives into his stomach.

The wounds were not life-threatening and after a spell in hospital Timms has now recovered enough to attend both parliament and his surgeries. He also appeared at the Global Day of Prayer at West Ham FC, Upton Park, on Sunday (see previous post here) where he said he’d been helped by the large number of people praying for him.

(“The church is growing in London,” he also told the 10,000 worshippers, contra Alan Wilson’s Guardian article quoted in the previous post too, “and is a remarkably diverse group of congregations, but one in their faith in Christ.”)

Two thoughts struck me about the stabbing:

First, Timms’ alleged assailant is likely to spend the next decade or so in jail – what a waste of a promising young life. But even more, what a tragedy for the accused’s family who by all accounts are normal local people who will now have to live with the bewilderment, horror and shame that the attack has brought upon them. They deserve our sympathy.

Second, what is it about Islam that regular and socially-integrated people from normal families with good futures ahead of them serving other people can suddenly turn into monsters and killers who perpetrate unspeakable evil?  The Glasgow car bombers were doctors working in NHS hospitals and the leader of the 7/7 bombers was a primary school teacher with a young family. Outwardly there was little sign of the dark destructive thoughts that were corroding their inner beings.

The issue is a spiritual one of course and the crisis lurks deep within the consciousness of the individuals. I have noted before (here) the inner moral collapse that was the result of one intelligent middle-class Englishman’s conversion to Islam. How much more must have been the moral and spiritual collapse of the suicide bombers cited above?

PVE is not the answer. A spiritual problem requires a spiritual solution. As a committed Christian Stephen Timms will know this too.

In the event it wasn’t so bad. I had watched Jacqui Smith leave her election count in tears and seen Charles Clarke’s look of defeat as his result was read out, and I’d wondered if that’s how all incumbents feel when they’re defeated at the polls.

All I can say is that it wasn’t so for me, partly because of the conduct of Labour supporters. As I had also seen and experienced at innumerable Council meetings, the tribal and primitive nastiness of Newham Labour Party is a wonder to behold. I was the butt of it when first elected in May 2002 when Tony Banks MP and Cllr June Leitch led the hissing and booing; CPA was the butt of it this time when Mayor Sir Robin Wales led the noisy Labour celebrations of our defeat with an inelegant jig. If you can find some kind of perverse pleasure in seeing human nature at its most graceless and infantile, then there was quite a lot of enjoyment – of sorts – available at the Newham count. Unlike the outgoing Labour prime minister, the Labour Party in Newham doesn’t do dignity.

We ran an effective campaign and I don’t think as a small party that we could have done much more. For the first time CPA was criticised in Labour Party election leaflets but I don’t think these scored much with the voters, and certainly we rapidly answered their points with our own flyers. This was good election stuff, kept CPA accountable to our voters and there can be no objection to Labour doing their job in this way.

The decisive problem for us was the fact that the general election took place on the same day as the local elections; voters’ focus was inevitably on national issues and on the three main national parties. As far back as January we’d talked privately about the possibility of a Labour tsunami in Newham – and so it proved. The parliamentary votes were counted first and once I saw the significantly increased majorities – against the national trend outside London – of Newham’s Labour MPs, I realised CPA’s time on the Council was up, for now at least.

In the event Labour wiped out all opposition and once again holds all elected seats at all levels. Their total grip on the borough is amazing and unique.

For me the most revealing event at the count was Mayor Sir Robin Wales’ acceptance speech in which he rounded on CPA and accused us of lying. Of course we’ve become used to this allegation over the years as it is the bog-standard reaction of the Mayor and his colleagues when their activities are exposed and their policies criticised yet they have no answer. Frustration, anger and bluster are their usual response.

I first came across this in 2001 when I led local residents in their campaign against the brutal Canning Town housing regeneration project. At meeting after meeting Sir Robin publicly accused me of lying. I wasn’t of course, but in the Orwellian one-party state of Newham where everyone is expected to view the world through the Labour Party prism, speaking an alternative truth to power is tantamount to treason.

Also I have previously posted about another incident when I was absurdly accused of lying (here).

So Sir Robin’s accusation this time was neither abnormal nor unexpected, although it was made more entertaining by two amiable young hijab-wearing members of Respect who shouted back “You’re the liar; you’re the liar!” However CPA supporters kept their cool despite the Mayor’s torrent of vitriol; turning the other cheek is an important ethic.

But Sir Robin’s spite was revealing. Clearly the exposure of his parking habits deep in the basement of the Council’s Building 1000 (see previous post) was still rankling. He has no explanation for his abuse of the disabled parking space apart the strutting self-important self-promotion that is symptomatic of his administration, so in his embarrassment he lashed out at CPA. An urgent FoI request by his campaign manager Lisa Buckingham (here) revealed that as usual Sir Robin hoped to pass the buck and blame Council officers. But unfortunately for him he’s in charge, he’s the boss, and daily he chose to park his car right over the disabled logo. So he’s stuffed.

Of themselves, of course, his parking proclivities are no great shakes. But as a metaphor for the corrupting self-centredness of the Mayor’s image-conscious spin-addicted administration, they are superb. And his reaction to our publication of the photo – the uncontrolled anger, the bullying solicitor’s letter, the responsibility-ducking FoI request and the false accusations – exactly highlight much that is wrong in the Mayor’s office.

And the future for CPA in Newham? We’ll have a break and then review the options. After eight good years I don’t think I’ll stand for Council again. But there are good people in the party who want to serve the wider community through CPA and Newham urgently needs an Opposition party. I’ll be happy to support them.

Personally, I’ve always found election time in Newham enjoyable but regrettably there’s rarely any real debate. The democratic deficit created by the all-powerful Labour Party – that’s produced effectively a one-party state in the borough – ensures that there’s little scope for sparks to fly or temperatures to rise. Labour labours hard to close down debate and to ensure that everyone sings from their Town Hall song sheet.

So it was with some amusement that we received a letter from the solicitor of Newham’s Mayor Sir Robin Wales. It seems we’ve scored a significant hit and one of our election leaflets has incurred Sir Robin’s wrath: “It will be understood by those reading (the leaflet) that the Mayor has put his own interests above those of disabled drivers and (it) makes derogatory comments on the Mayor’s motives and values,” said the solicitor’s letter. “(It) will undoubtedly cause serious and ongoing damage to the Mayor’s reputation, feelings and chances of re-election.”

Our intention is not to upset the man himself but rather to expose his self-serving secular administration. So… yes, it’s election time and we are objecting by all valid means to the values and policies that this all-powerful executive Mayor has imposed on Newham during his second term of office. And yes, we believe from the evidence that the Mayor puts his own interests above those of disabled drivers and many others. And yes, we wish to do all we can to swim against Newham’s traditional Labour tide, to spoil his chances of re-election and to offer a better and Christian alternative.

So we’re guilty as charged by his solicitor – but welcome to democracy and legitimate democratic politics, Sir Robin.

The letter continued by listing 11 demands to which CPA should agree including the disclosure of all the names and addresses to which the leaflets have been distributed (we had 23,000 printed and most have been delivered!); the publication of a full apology; the payment of Sir Robin’s legal expenses; and the donation of £5,000 to a charity of his choice.

“Typical,” said one wit in the office, “God had Ten Commandments so Sir Robin has to have eleven.”

The source of all this controversy? It centres primarily on a photo taken with my family camera in the basement of Newham Council’s sparkling new glass offices close to London City Airport. It’s a picture of the parking space that is closest to the lifts and stairs to the offices above.

Before Newham Council moved in, it rightly had been reserved for disabled drivers. Now it’s reserved for you-know-who who parks his car daily over the blacked-out disabled logo. Case closed.

You can see how we’ve used the photo in the latest edition of the Newham Recorder – turn to page 15 on the online digital edition here.

We’ve used it too on the Christian Peoples Alliance pages in the Mayoral election booklet that is sent free to every voter across Newham. In view of Sir Robin’s legal letter it’s significant that all party inserts in the booklet have to be approved for their accuracy and fair comment by the Council’s Chief Executive & Returning Officer and also by the Council’s Head of Legal Services.

We’re also promoting it on a lorry that is driving around Newham for the last two weeks of the campaign.

Our aim is to highlight the strutting preening self-promoting values that are at the heart of New Labour’s showcase project in Newham – in direct contrast with the caring serving Christian values that were taught to us by the Son of God. Newham Labour operates at the Town Hall through the unholy trinity of power, control and self-promoting spin, and we are attempting to hold up a mirror so that all Newham can see just how ugly is this secular ‘we-don’t-do-God’ (here) New Labour project beneath its smooth glossy exterior.

We replied to the solicitor’s letter suggesting that Sir Robin should recognise that our leaflet is part of the rough and tumble of election politics and is therefore protected as such by the law. The alternative is that he’ll have to take us to court.

So far we’ve heard no more. It seems Sir Robin has blinked first.

My apologies to any readers who have missed my posts over the past few weeks. I’ve been taken over by preparations for the Newham elections on 6th May. The Christian Peoples Alliance is putting up candidates for Newham Council right across the borough; I’m standing as CPA candidate for Newham’s executive Mayor; and in the national General Election on the same day we’re running a candidate – Stan Gain – in the West Ham parliamentary constituency.

This is a massive exercise for a small party that relies almost entirely on volunteers. But we’re up and running, the initial exhausting preparation and organisation is over, the campaign is going well and I’ve now a little more time for blogging.

On the doors it appears many people are confused about how to vote in the General Election. “They’re all the same” and “I can’t tell the difference” is a common refrain, and apathy a common result. Many it seems won’t vote at all.

So I was amused to see this refusenik position being bolstered recently by handbills that suddenly sprouted on walls and advertising hoardings around my neighbourhood. ‘Voting is Haram’ they announced – ‘haram’ being an Arabic term for ‘forbidden by Islamic law’. Muslims were being urged not to vote in the elections.

This is of course a minority position within the Muslim community (here) that is propounded mainly by extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun and its successors. And it’s in interesting contrast to Premier Christian Radio’s worthy initiative called ‘I Promise To Vote’ (here) which attempts to mobilise Christians for the elections.

Personally I’ve always insisted on going to the polling station and fulfilling my civic duty. But in the past, when faced with the mind-numbingly anodyne and limiting choice of one of the three main parties (which is Box and which is Cox?), I’ve often scrawled ‘Christ is King’ across the ballot paper and stuffed it in the box.

It may have been a spoilt ballot paper, but at least I’ve expressed my views.

Back in early July, the town hall sent me the following Councillors’ briefing about an incident not far from my home: “At 4pm on Saturday (4th July) 100 people gathered in Green Street, Upton Park, with banners proclaiming “Jesus was Muslim”. At approx 6.45pm a fight broke out. A man being chased by a group of youths of Asian appearance collided with a 328 bus and suffered a head injury… Green Street was closed for a couple of hours.”

In this week’s New Statesman cover story ‘The Muslim Jesus’ (anyone still doubt that religion is rising rapidly up the agenda in secular Britain?), the senior political editor Mehdi Hasan approvingly quotes Jonathan Bartley of the left-leaning Ekklesia think-tank (here): “There is a fundamental tension at the heart of interfaith dialogue that neither side wants to face up to, and that is that the orthodox Christian view of Jesus is blasphemous to Muslims and the orthodox Muslim view of Jesus is blasphemous to Christians.”

Hold those two thoughts for a moment.

Last Thursday I was panellist at a well-promoted ‘Big Debate’ at Conway Hall in Bloomsbury. It was organised by the Muslim Debate Initiative on the subject ‘Islamification of Britain: Myth or Reality?’ (here). Courageously MDI – represented on the panel by Abdullah al Andalusi – had invited the BNP as well as the quietly impressive Andrew Copson from the British Humanist Association, a pleasant but woolly Anglican clergyman billed as ‘Princess Diana’s spiritual adviser’, the chairman of the English Democrats who gave an inappropriate party political puff, and myself. BBC, CNN and Press TV covered the event inside while the militant Unite Against Fascism protested outside against the inclusion of the BNP in the programme.

400 people listened for nearly 3 hours while the six-man panel (no women of course, this is Islam) debated the hot issue. The BNP contribution was muted; Andrew Copson was articulate and credible; Abdullah al Andalusi struggled to convince; questions from the floor were frequently penetrating. At one point two members of UAF broke in to the hall to rant “No platform for fascists”, but they were rapidly shown the door by police and stewards.

I take my hat off to MDI Muslims for organising the event. It went smoothly and to time. The discussion was robust yet respectful. MDI faced down UAF’s objection to their Open Platform policy for the BNP, arguing that it’s better to debate than come to blows. Of course there was no agreed conclusion about the Islamification of Britain, but the event was democracy in action. Debate and discussion is the answer to our differences.

(Journalist and blogger Umar Farooq was the first out of the blocks with a detailed review of the debate including the publication of his YouTube videos of the event (here). Flatteringly, he marked me the highest of the panellists (rating 8/10), reckoned I had “massive influence on the crowd” and thought that the audience were impressed at the way I put my points across. Many thanks Umar!)

So now onto another Muslim ‘Big Debate’, called Jesus 4 Sharia – yes, really (here)! It’s to be held on Friday this week and is being promoted by Islam4UK, the latest front name for the fundamentalist al-Muhajiroun group led by Islamic lawyer and self-publicist Anjem Choudary.

A couple of months ago posters sprouted across Newham – including on my street – and elsewhere, advertising a ‘March 4 Sharia’ from Westminster to Trafalgar Square. Organised by Choudary’s group, it was cancelled at the last minute citing ‘security concerns’ – to the delight both of secular Muslims and of non-Muslims. “Lack of support more like,” muttered pundits and bloggers. Maybe.

Undaunted the irrepressible Choudary has now issued his challenge to Christian leaders to publicly debate Jesus with him a week before Christmas. Like the angry Green Street demonstrators and despite the fact that Islam first appeared 600 years after Christ, Choudary argues that the Founder of Christianity was in fact a Muslim – a view universally affirmed by mainstream Islam. “If Jesus were alive today he would… wholeheartedly embrace the Sharia law of… Muhammad,” Choudary says provocatively.

“Don’t touch this debate,” emailed a friend. But in the NS article Bartley points out that the different Christian and Muslim understandings of Jesus are ‘deal-breakers’ between the faiths. And it is better the differences should be debated rather than fought over, as happened on Green Street in July.

So I’ve contacted Choudary and, together with Christian friend and Islam expert Jay Smith, we’ve taken up the challenge.

Let’s see if Choudary accepts.

(Update: In the event Choudary “postponed” the debate, admitting that he was having difficulties in obtaining a venue. He also said that Jay Smith and I were not of appropriate calibre for such a topic and audience, and that he would prefer to debate with a particular Anglican bishop that he named.

I reckon that Choudary’s real reason is that he is fearful of debating with Jay who has already soundly beaten Choudary’s al-Muhajiroun boss Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad in debate – before the latter inadvertently exiled himself in Lebanon.

Jay can publicly prove the Christian gospel from the Quran. Anjem Choudary knows he could not stand up under the challenge of such expertise, and that’s the real reason why he’s “postponed” the event.)

There is a publicity horror that pollutes community life in Newham. So watch and learn Kim Jong-Il, ‘Dear Leader’ and dictator of North Korea, you are about to receive a master-class in personality-cult politics courtesy of the Labour Mayor of London Borough of Newham – who of course is not to be confused with the Tory Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Supported and promoted by a bloated council PR department with its annual budget – last time I looked – of over £1m of taxpayers’ money, public life in Newham is dominated by one man, Newham’s elected executive Mayor, who preens, pouts and promotes himself at every photo opportunity. He never graces a function or event without the council cameraman in tow. On bus stops and billboards, in council offices and doctors’ surgeries, at train stations and community centres – the Mayor advances himself and his message at every opportunity.

Newham Council is currently installing a running track in a small park in my ward. So who takes the credit for the project? The residents who requested it? The taxpayers who fund it? The council officers who design and manage it? The contractors who undertake the work? No, a large notice by the park gate tells us that it’s “Brought to you by the Mayor of Newham” and that investing in Newham’s parks is the fulfilment of the Mayor’s (election) promise number 15.

Of course the notice itself (estimated all-in cost: £500) is also paid for by Joe Public.

Every fortnight the Council (aka ‘the Mayor’) distributes a free glossy ‘Newham Mag’ into every home in the borough – and guess who always features prominently in it? A cynical wager has developed amongst those who bother to open it; they bet on how many photos of himself the Mayor will publish in each edition. It’s never less than a narcissistic six.

So it was a breath of fresh air when recently I attended a meeting at neighbouring Redbridge Council. Newham Mayor’s publicity machine cannot bulldoze alternative viewpoints in Redbridge as it does here; Redbridge residents and councillors of all parties including Labour are up in arms about Newham’s decision to allow a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport, which has a direct impact on Redbridge people living under the flight path. I also joined a related demo in Redbridge organised by Fight The Flights campaign (here) .

There has been a similar response in Waltham Forest too. So I wrote the following letter to the main newspaper in our borough, the Newham Recorder:

Dear Editor,

The Mayor must be very frustrated.

Each year he spends a fortune of Newham taxpayers’ money on public relations promoting himself and his administration. In glossy magazines and newspaper adverts; on billboards and bus stops; at borough events and in the borough parks – all over Newham there are photos of the Mayor and messages telling us how much wonderful work he is doing in the borough.

But his story doesn’t seem to have seeped over Newham’s boundaries into neighbouring boroughs. I recently went to a Redbridge Council meeting at Ilford where councillors of all parties, including Labour, were unanimous in strongly condemning Newham for lack of consultation over the approved increase of flights at London City Airport. Redbridge residents live under the flight path too, yet like Newham residents they have been sidelined and stitched up. One Redbridge councillor said that the lack of dialogue from Newham “was politically insensitive and morally reprehensible”.

The previous month, Waltham Forest councillors from all parties including Labour unanimously agreed to make strong representation to Newham’s Mayor over the airport expansion. They are also considering legal action about the flight changes over their borough about which they were not consulted. Waltham Forest residents too have been sidelined and stitched up by Newham Council.

Clearly the Mayor’s public relations campaign hasn’t reached into these other boroughs. They can see his administration for what it really is.

Perhaps he ought to spend another fortune preening and promoting himself there. But this time, not at our expense.

Yours sincerely,

So far the Newham Recorder has declined to publish my letter.

I wonder why?

I’ve joined a Christian debating team called Codgers and recently found myself enjoying the new experience of leading on a couple of Muslim/Christian debates. The first topic was ‘Islam or Christianity: Which offers comprehensive solutions for Britain?’ with Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute (here); the second was ‘Jihad on trial’ with Sami Zataari of the Muslim Debate Initiative (here). 

They’ve been well-attended and amicable affairs with friendly relations across the faiths. The Muslim organisers are pleasant guys (yes, only guys, no girls of course – this is Islam) who seem genuinely interested in grappling with the issues. They undoubtedly see the debates as Islamic da’wah (call to Islam, or Muslim proselytism) but there’s nothing wrong with that. The events provide for open argument and discussion, with a level playing field for all sides.

The debates themselves were robust and illuminating, the main result for me being a new understanding of what a wooden rule-bound religion is Islam – at least, the Islam promoted by my debating opponents. It is amazing how little Muslims refer to spiritual things or to invisible matters of the Spirit, and the Islamic after-life seems entirely carnal; paradise is where they (Muslim men; women are much more likely to be found in hell according to Muhammad [Sahih al-Bukhari hadith 1.301; 7.125; and 8.554]) will be rewarded with up to 72 virgins, fresh-faced boy servants, rivers of milk, wine and honey, an abundance of fruits, dates and pomegranates and a life of leisurely luxury the Quran and reliable Hadith tell us, but with apparently few signs of Allah.

My guess is that the negative social impact of such primal, corporal, unspiritual Islam is the root reason why so many of the 57 Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries are failing states – an issue I have begun to address (here). It is also one of the reasons why Islam is certainly no more appropriate for Britain than the materialist ideological secularism (read atheism) that dominates public life today.

My involvement with the Muslim Debate Initiative led me to peruse the blog of one of their organising team, Paul Williams, an intelligent mild-mannered English convert to Islam. There I received a shock.

In his 14th August post under the astonishing question ‘Should Apostates Be Executed?’ (here) Williams writes, “I’ve been mulling over this issue recently, and although I’m no scholar, I would like to outline the arguments for and against executing apostates in an attempt to clarify some of the arguments involved…”

What? “Should apostates be executed?” “Arguments for and against executing apostates.” I couldn’t believe what I was reading! Was this a sick joke? An apparently decent human being brought up in a civilised society was asking seriously whether someone who leaves their religion should be killed. Should slaves be shipped to the West Indies? Should witches be burnt at the stake? Should gays be stoned? Should traitors be hanged, drawn and quartered?

Williams didn’t have time to finish his article on this “hot issue” as he calls it (yes, he really does; check the article yourself) – so instead he posted an historical survey of the subject by Tim Winter. But Williams’ question is in the present tense and posed in 21st century Britain. The subject may possibly be a hot issue in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan but it is shockingly offensive in the UK and alarming for the growing number of ex-Muslims in this country. It is by definition a life-threatening question for many that simply shouldn’t be asked.

As an example, I can highly recommend ‘The Imam’s Daughter’ by Hannah Shah (here for Times review). It’s unputdownable. It’s a sickening but ultimately heart-warming true story about the conversion to Christianity of an Imam’s daughter here in England, her abuse at the hands of her father and his attempts to kill her because of her change of religion. I’ve met ‘Hannah’ – not her real name for obvious reasons – and she’s a very courageous young woman. You can buy her book here.

Regrettably Hannah’s case is far from unique. A few months ago another UK Muslim convert to Christianity – who was born and bred in Newham – sat in my front room telling me how the Imam of an East Ham mosque had indicated to her face that the consequence of her apostasy should be death. And this was from a pillar of the community in Newham!

A few weeks previously I had sat in a coffee bar in Stratford with a further Muslim convert to Christianity who was about to move out of London partly for similar personal safety reasons.

None of these British-born citizens needs an intelligent mild-mannered Englishman asking publicly whether apostates should be executed.

So how come Williams’ normal moral framework has so collapsed that he can seriously ask such a question? How has his conscience become so seared and insensitive?

Sadly, the culprit is clearly his conversion to Islam.

Newham Labour Party has an interesting turn in personal insults, and their primitive invective is an outer reflection of the inner nature of the party. ‘Things that come out of the mouth come from the heart… evil thoughts… false testimony… slander. These are what make a person unclean.’ (Jesus Christ)

I previously have quoted Labour activist John Gray’s views about CPA members (here), among the most revealing of which are his opinion that my colleague Simeon Ademolake is a ‘thoughtless thug’ and a ‘bigot’, and that I am a ‘squalid, grubby, tin-pot politician’ and a ‘super-egotist’. I’m not sure a senior local activist dolling out such personal abuse helps the high calling of politics in Newham, but it certainly tells us a lot about Gray.

Now we have some more, the crown of which is that ‘CPA are a bunch of scumbags’ – according to Clive Furness, Labour councillor and Newham mayoral adviser, who attributes this scintillating soubriquet to his colleagues. As you see, Newham’s power-driven ruling party doesn’t do sophistication, nuance or self-restraint – or even maturity; the cave-man’s club and the brutalist’s bludgeon are their weapons of choice.

This Labour name-calling came about as follows: 

Colleagues and I recently commissioned an independent ComRes poll of opinion in the borough about the mega-mosque proposed for West Ham close to the site of the 2012 London Olympics. Amongst other things ComRes came to the promising conclusion (here) that the majority of Newham Muslims would prefer a mixed-use development on the site rather than a mega-mosque. However this is the first such survey and it is early days to come to a settled conclusion.

Furness has been an avid proponent of the mosque project. He even used his executive authority at the town hall to invite voluntary sector leaders in the borough to the mega- mosque’s botched Open Day last year. Such promotion would normally be the responsibility of the project’s smooth PR agents, Indigo Public Affairs, but Furness stepped in and instructed a council officer to dispatch Open Day invitations to over 270 community workers across the borough. I publish the facts; you join the dots.

Last week Furness had a letter published in the Newham Recorder that criticised our survey and contained factual errors about our campaign (here). I’ve been wanting to raise public discussion about the mega-mosque and to this end I even made it one of the main planks in my London Mayoral campaign last year (here) – but Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson both managed to cleverly skirt round the issue at hustings and elsewhere. So last Friday I emailed Furness (copy to the Recorder) challenging him to a public debate about the mega-mosque, never thinking he’d agree. Why should he? Labour doesn’t do democracy or public debate within its Newham fiefdom as it can see no party advantage, and Furness’ favoured mosque project has survived so far by keeping its head down and avoiding public scrutiny wherever possible.  

(Interestingly Indigo has been increasingly mocked by journalists for being the only hired PR agency that refuses to promote their client to the media. A Finnish TV crew became so incensed at Indigo’s Trappist silence one day, that after covering the mosque story they went off to film the company’s office building in Berkeley Square for a news piece about a dumb London PR agency – apparently to be accompanied in part by a silent soundtrack.)

At first it appeared I might be wrong. Furness seemed to rise to the bait and by return he accepted the challenge. We agreed on an independent chair for the debate and he proposed some rules for the event to be held sometime in September. But then came the sucker-punch that laughably – and presumably deliberately – torpedoes the whole event. He emailed his Labour colleagues’ preferred motion, ‘The CPA are a bunch of scumbags pandering to racism’, before making his own ‘more moderate’ suggestion.

Receiving such mindless abuse from the ruling party goes with the territory in Newham, and CPA has been in Labour’s sights for years. Furness’ colleague James Butler got in early by opining in the national press that CPA ‘are every bit as evil as the BNP’ (Sunday Express, 1 October 2006).

I am of course interested to know which of my warm-hearted colleagues in our multiracial Christian and democratic party is a BNP racist scumbag. Is it…

Councillor Denise Stafford or Councillor Simeon Ademolake?

Or perhaps, maybe… it’s me!

Furness is now on holiday but he’ll be wriggling following his rash acceptance of the challenge. The Labour Party will be leaning on him to not engage in public debate as democracy is against party policy in Newham. He’ll be looking for a way out, and proposing silly motions and setting impossible conditions should provide him with a smokescreen for escape.

Watch this space. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

When Lyn Brown was elected MP for West Ham in 2005, it seemed she would be an improvement on her outspoken predecessor Tony Banks who had stunned even his supporters by complaining on retirement that 22 years of helping his constituents with their problems had been “intellectually numbing, tedious in the extreme” (here)

Ms Brown is a Newham-girl-made-good and it was reckoned that after Tony Banks she would be a breath of compassionate fresh air, who could easily identify with local people and their issues. And so it seemed – until the expenses scandal hit home and she was exposed as having claimed for a second home near Parliament when her first home in Plaistow is less than 7 miles away. It’s a luxury funded by the taxpayer that not many of her constituents who also work late in central London – such as nurses, cleaners and hotel receptionists – can afford.

(The News Of The World also reckons Lyn Brown claimed for two SatNav systems purchased on the same day (here). However Ms Brown says one system was faulty and had to be returned. Ah, so that’s all right then: using just the one taxpayer-funded SatNav system, Ms Brown can navigate between her first and second homes without getting lost, to the great benefit of us all.)

It’s been interesting to see how Lyn Brown has responded to the second-home exposure and the change in her reputation from ‘local-girl-made-good’ to ‘MP-on-the-make’.

At first she took a back-handed side-swipe at her fellow local Labour MPs, Stephen Timms and Jim Fitzpatrick, both of whom are government ministers and neither of whom claims for a second home. (Actually Fitzpatrick can’t, as over half of his constituency is in the inner London borough of Tower Hamlets.) Ms Brown explained that she needs the second home as she doesn’t have a ministerial car to get her home late at night!

When Stephen Timms made it clear that he rarely uses the ministerial car at home and that he commutes to work like his constituents, Ms Brown tried another tack. She put a story in the Newham Recorder (here) about how she had been attacked when a young woman and how this still affects her life choices today; the second home enables her “to manage late night and early morning working in the Commons” without concerns over her safety.

Certainly we can sympathise with her in her on-going distress from the attack. But many of her constituents who work in central London either fear or have experienced similar attacks. And they don’t have the luxury of a second home courtesy of the public purse; they have to use public transport.

No, the Recorder article was simply a cynical and nauseating use of the victim card by Ms Brown that demeaned her as an MP and as a modern independent woman. If personal security was her issue, why didn’t she book women-only taxis and take personal safety advice from the respected Suzy Lamplugh Trust (here) like any sensible citizen? Doh!

She is clearly out of her depth, caught on the make, panicking in the spotlight and grabbing at any excuse for milking the Parliamentary expenses system.

Like the brazen Hazel Blears with her repayment cheque, Lyn Brown has publicly denied but tacitly admitted she has done wrong – in her case by announcing she is giving up her Westminster flat.

But she needn’t have worried. She’s since been well compensated. Gordon Brown has just appointed her an Assistant Government Whip.

Does anyone know whether a ministerial car goes with the job?