Sunday, 10 May 2009
"Baroness of Bethnal Green": a 'nephew' was reportedly employed by the Sunday Times.
"Baroness of Bethnal Green": a 'nephew' was reportedly employed by the Sunday Times.
Friday, 8 May 2009
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
0750 Hrs Friday 8 May 2009
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Print
Email
Share
Comments (1)
Save
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Readers' comments (1)
EastEnder | Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50 GMT
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
An EASTENDER comment about Spitalfields Housing Association is published by INSIDE HOUSING
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Share
Comments (1)
Save
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Readers' comments (1)
EastEnder | Fri, 8 May 2009 05:50 GMT
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" is featured in a new report published by the Times newspaper HERE
0620 Hrs UK London Friday 8 May 2009
EAST LONDON PRESS report
An EASTENDER has just posted a commnet on the web site of INSIDE HOUSING concerning their report about the Spitalfieds Hosusing Association:
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
EAST LONDON PRESS report
An EASTENDER has just posted a commnet on the web site of INSIDE HOUSING concerning their report about the Spitalfieds Hosusing Association:
Your headline does not match the contents. From what you quote of the statement by the Spitalfields Housing Association it is not clear what codes of conduct that organisation itself has in place. Also, you do not suggest anything about the Spitalfields Housing Association itself. Did they in any way aid the behaviour by the particular individual? What is the record of the Housing Association in these matters. Has the media bothered to report on this and other so-called social landlords? What has been their role? And how if any are the management personnel of the Spitalfields Housing Association related to the Baroness of Bethnal Green politically?
EAST LONDON PRESS launches THE FRIDAY LECTURE 8 May 2009
EAST LONDON PRESS launches THE FRIDAY LECTURE 8 May 2009
Why a Friday lecture?
Because in East London, Friday is observed by significant numbers of people at congregational prayers held at mosques.
One main part of the prayers is the Friday Sermon delivered inside the mosques and before the full formal congregational prayers are said on Friday at lunchtimes.
The EAST LONDON PRESS is launching the Friday lecture to report on the implications of those sermons on the people in East London.
One question we shall be seeking to find answers to is this:
What is really going on in East London today?
Do the people know what is going on?
We intend to help the people get to find out what is going on about their community.
Their estates. Their streets. And about their lives.
Things that may be of relevance to all in East London.
Of course people know what they see and feel.
But how much is there to know that is of so much relevance to our lives that we don’t know.
About the mosques themselves, for instance.
Why are the mosques so much in the Govt. news?
Why do the Police keep talking about the mosques so much?
Do the Police know something about the mosques that we don’t know?
And if so, what is that they do know and have not told us?
How about the other religious sections in the population and their places of prayers and worship?
What are they doing for the community?
Why are the Govt. and the Police silent about the churches, the synagogues and the temples
Why a Friday lecture?
Because in East London, Friday is observed by significant numbers of people at congregational prayers held at mosques.
One main part of the prayers is the Friday Sermon delivered inside the mosques and before the full formal congregational prayers are said on Friday at lunchtimes.
The EAST LONDON PRESS is launching the Friday lecture to report on the implications of those sermons on the people in East London.
One question we shall be seeking to find answers to is this:
What is really going on in East London today?
Do the people know what is going on?
We intend to help the people get to find out what is going on about their community.
Their estates. Their streets. And about their lives.
Things that may be of relevance to all in East London.
Of course people know what they see and feel.
But how much is there to know that is of so much relevance to our lives that we don’t know.
About the mosques themselves, for instance.
Why are the mosques so much in the Govt. news?
Why do the Police keep talking about the mosques so much?
Do the Police know something about the mosques that we don’t know?
And if so, what is that they do know and have not told us?
How about the other religious sections in the population and their places of prayers and worship?
What are they doing for the community?
Why are the Govt. and the Police silent about the churches, the synagogues and the temples
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" is helped by the useful prevarication of the 'Spitalfields Housing Association'
0525 UK London Friday 8 May 2009
The following headline [“Labour peer faces eviction”] to a story published this week by INSIDE HOUSING is inaccurate. A read of the contents exposes the truth.
That the Spitalfields Housing Association that owns the Wapping House is not all that bothered about any of the 'deeds' of Pola Uddin.
We produce the item as a reference here and we promise to answer all the questions that have arisen about Pola Uddin's achievements.
Labour peer faces eviction
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Print
Email
Share
Save
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status over possible breach of tenancy
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Have your say
Required fields | Terms and conditions
Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.
Name
E-mail
Comment
Your name will display with your comment, but feel free to use a pseudonym. Email addresses are not displayed.
Comments are moderated before they appear on the site, so there may be a delay between a comment being posted and it going live.
I have read and agree to the terms and conditions
Print
Email
Share
The following headline [“Labour peer faces eviction”] to a story published this week by INSIDE HOUSING is inaccurate. A read of the contents exposes the truth.
That the Spitalfields Housing Association that owns the Wapping House is not all that bothered about any of the 'deeds' of Pola Uddin.
We produce the item as a reference here and we promise to answer all the questions that have arisen about Pola Uddin's achievements.
Labour peer faces eviction
Labour peer faces eviction
08/05/2009 | By Clara Story
Share
Save
Housing association probes Baroness Uddin’s second home status over possible breach of tenancy
A Labour peer is being investigated and could face eviction after naming her housing association property as her second home.
Baroness Uddin, a tenant of Spitalfields Housing Association in east London, claimed in her House of Lords expenses for 2007/08 that her main residence was a flat in Kent.
She claimed £29,675 a year for overnight subsistence - the allowance for residency at a second home in London - in the same year.
But legally a tenant with an assured or secure tenancy must live in the social home as their ‘only or principal home’, meaning she could have breached her tenancy. Baroness Uddin is understood to share a joint tenancy on the home with her husband.
Although last year’s claim was the first in which she named the location of her main residence, Baroness Uddin has been claiming between £15,000 and £24,000 each year for overnight subsistence since 2001.
Asked whether Baroness Uddin faced eviction Omar Mapara, chief executive of Spitalfields Housing Association, said the association ‘is investigating this matter which it takes very seriously’.
‘We have written to her requesting that she confirms that she and her husband continue to occupy our property as their only or principal home and we await a response,’ he added.
Avril Smith, senior lawyer at Lawrence Graham, said: ‘If she maintains that the Maidstone property is her principal residence, she could fall into difficulty with her tenancy.’
Ms Smith confirmed the ultimate sanction available for the breach of a tenancy agreement could be the loss of the tenancy.
If the tenancy is joint with her husband, she could claim it was his main residence only, which could comply with the rules, Ms Smith added.
The baroness became the first Muslim woman life peer in 1998. She is named as a company director of business and management consultancy Manzil Associates.
Baroness Uddin said she welcomed the review of her expenses that will be carried out by the clerk of Parliament. She said she had not broken the rules of the House of Lords and would not comment further until the review was finished.
Have your say
Required fields | Terms and conditions
Please do not complete the following form field for security reasons.
Name
Comment
Your name will display with your comment, but feel free to use a pseudonym. Email addresses are not displayed.
Comments are moderated before they appear on the site, so there may be a delay between a comment being posted and it going live.
I have read and agree to the terms and conditions
Share
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" continues to “contribute her very own role and conduct" to aid the flames of hatred against "Muslim” community in the UK
"Baroness of Bethnal Green" continues to “contribute her very own role and conduct" to aid the flames of hatred against "Muslim” community in the UK
EAST LONDON PRESS report
0525 UK Time
London Friday 8 May 2009
The "Baroness of Bethnal Green" has now become so famous that the plain Pola Uddin will no longer be able to claim that she was not being given media attention.
EAST LONDON PRESS report
0525 UK Time
London Friday 8 May 2009
The "Baroness of Bethnal Green" has now become so famous that the plain Pola Uddin will no longer be able to claim that she was not being given media attention.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Parliamentary Matron Caught Looting the Coffer American Style
http://www.glossynews.com/artman/publish/baroness-uddin-inquiry-financial-scandal-1647.shtml
Parliamentary Matron Caught Looting the Coffer American Style
By Rusty
May 6, 2009, 10:45
Email This Article
Printer friendly page
Bangladeshi skimming sensation Uddin seen here at a press conference with her formal microphone.
A New Labour Muslim peer, who lives in the predominantly Shylock populated East End of London, has claimed in excess of £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a derelict flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied since the Dawn of Time.
Baroness Uddin, a Bangladeshi immigrant who worked closely with the money-grasping Bliars when they occupied 10 Downing Street, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only a couple of short miles from the House of Lords.
Inquiries by The Sunday Shitraker have established that Baroness Sleeza Udders bought a two-bedroom flat at Skidrow Hamlets on Asbo Avenue in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.
The baroness, who became Britain’s first Muslim woman peer in 1998, has actually lived with her family in a house in Wopping (Little Bangladesh) east London, since the early 1990’s – with neighbours telling reporters she is a daily
fixture there - both morning and night.
Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Udder’s property are all ready to swear under oath that they have never seen her – or anyone else - at the flat, with investigating journalists able to see through the windows that the two-bedroom property was totally unfurnished.
Rita Skank, a recouperating rhubarb addict, who has lived next door to Udder’s flat for ten years told reporters after being shown a photo of the Baroness “I ain’t never seen any fat little Paki’ sluts like ‘er round ‘ere. In fact no cunt lives there.”
Ms. Skank further revealed that until recently, there were piles of leaves on the balcony harbouring a nest of rats - and sheets of newspaper stuck over the crap-encrusted bedroom windows.
Last weekend, hours after The Sunday Shitraker had challenged Udders about her “main residence” and felonious expense claims, the Baroness’s gas-guzzling BMW 4x4 Chelsea tractor was spotted at the Skidrow Hamlets flat and members of her extended family arrived and moved in like a troop of conveniently-timed squatters.
Cracow Pete, the local Polish plumber who went into the flat to bodge up a broken GCH boiler said: “The entire place is a shithole – crap and dust everywhere, and they told me they were just moving in.”
By Sunday night, curtains covered the windows, a light was on in the hall, a mat was placed outside the front door, Mohammed and the Meercats new album was on the stereo and belting out sitar music at full volume - and the entire place stank of mutton vindaloo.
The Sunday Shitraker has also challenged Udders about a further £83,000 worth of expense claims she made before she bought the Skidrow Hamlets flat in September 2005.
She claims that her main residence has been outside the capital since 2001 but evasively refuses to say where, despite repeated questions and rumours it might actually be in Bangladesh.
Last night Angus McTwat, the leader in Westminster of the Scottish Men in Skirts party, which has campaigned for a bigger share of Parliamentary financial perks, said he wanted two inquiries into the baroness’s expense claims. “I will be writing to the police, and to the House of Lords authorities, asking them to investigate this report of blatant criminal activity.”
Lord Shitshott, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, said: “An empty property can’t be a peer’s main residence. The Lords authorities must check the facts of this case and investigate – even a thick public school twit like me knows that much.”
“This cow Udders is milking the system tits up and back again – and lying through her NHS dentures.”
Insisting she had done nothing wrong, the stony-faced Udders told the press: “Should the House of Lords authorities wish to investigate the matter I will, of course, cooperate fully.”
She further stated that “A lot of people are homeless and have to rough it – that’s why I keep the flat unfurnished and sleep on the floor so I can empathise with their suffering myself.”
Hence, one might well posture, in light of the recent scandals involving New Labour politicians and their fabricated expense claims, would Diogenes question if a single honest man belongs to their disgraced party (or woman viz Jacqui Smith / Sleeza Udders).
Is it simply base human nature that compels one to take pecuniary advantage of a lax expenses system and fiddle it for all it is worth - or is it that governments – past and present - only elevate larcenous scumbags to these perk-bestowed positions and titled ranks?
Rusty appears courtesy of The Satire Stall.
Parliamentary Matron Caught Looting the Coffer American Style
By Rusty
May 6, 2009, 10:45
Email This Article
Printer friendly page
Bangladeshi skimming sensation Uddin seen here at a press conference with her formal microphone.
A New Labour Muslim peer, who lives in the predominantly Shylock populated East End of London, has claimed in excess of £100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a derelict flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied since the Dawn of Time.
Baroness Uddin, a Bangladeshi immigrant who worked closely with the money-grasping Bliars when they occupied 10 Downing Street, has been claiming allowances intended for peers living outside London although she resides only a couple of short miles from the House of Lords.
Inquiries by The Sunday Shitraker have established that Baroness Sleeza Udders bought a two-bedroom flat at Skidrow Hamlets on Asbo Avenue in 2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords.
The baroness, who became Britain’s first Muslim woman peer in 1998, has actually lived with her family in a house in Wopping (Little Bangladesh) east London, since the early 1990’s – with neighbours telling reporters she is a daily
fixture there - both morning and night.
Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Udder’s property are all ready to swear under oath that they have never seen her – or anyone else - at the flat, with investigating journalists able to see through the windows that the two-bedroom property was totally unfurnished.
Rita Skank, a recouperating rhubarb addict, who has lived next door to Udder’s flat for ten years told reporters after being shown a photo of the Baroness “I ain’t never seen any fat little Paki’ sluts like ‘er round ‘ere. In fact no cunt lives there.”
Ms. Skank further revealed that until recently, there were piles of leaves on the balcony harbouring a nest of rats - and sheets of newspaper stuck over the crap-encrusted bedroom windows.
Last weekend, hours after The Sunday Shitraker had challenged Udders about her “main residence” and felonious expense claims, the Baroness’s gas-guzzling BMW 4x4 Chelsea tractor was spotted at the Skidrow Hamlets flat and members of her extended family arrived and moved in like a troop of conveniently-timed squatters.
Cracow Pete, the local Polish plumber who went into the flat to bodge up a broken GCH boiler said: “The entire place is a shithole – crap and dust everywhere, and they told me they were just moving in.”
By Sunday night, curtains covered the windows, a light was on in the hall, a mat was placed outside the front door, Mohammed and the Meercats new album was on the stereo and belting out sitar music at full volume - and the entire place stank of mutton vindaloo.
The Sunday Shitraker has also challenged Udders about a further £83,000 worth of expense claims she made before she bought the Skidrow Hamlets flat in September 2005.
She claims that her main residence has been outside the capital since 2001 but evasively refuses to say where, despite repeated questions and rumours it might actually be in Bangladesh.
Last night Angus McTwat, the leader in Westminster of the Scottish Men in Skirts party, which has campaigned for a bigger share of Parliamentary financial perks, said he wanted two inquiries into the baroness’s expense claims. “I will be writing to the police, and to the House of Lords authorities, asking them to investigate this report of blatant criminal activity.”
Lord Shitshott, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, said: “An empty property can’t be a peer’s main residence. The Lords authorities must check the facts of this case and investigate – even a thick public school twit like me knows that much.”
“This cow Udders is milking the system tits up and back again – and lying through her NHS dentures.”
Insisting she had done nothing wrong, the stony-faced Udders told the press: “Should the House of Lords authorities wish to investigate the matter I will, of course, cooperate fully.”
She further stated that “A lot of people are homeless and have to rough it – that’s why I keep the flat unfurnished and sleep on the floor so I can empathise with their suffering myself.”
Hence, one might well posture, in light of the recent scandals involving New Labour politicians and their fabricated expense claims, would Diogenes question if a single honest man belongs to their disgraced party (or woman viz Jacqui Smith / Sleeza Udders).
Is it simply base human nature that compels one to take pecuniary advantage of a lax expenses system and fiddle it for all it is worth - or is it that governments – past and present - only elevate larcenous scumbags to these perk-bestowed positions and titled ranks?
Rusty appears courtesy of The Satire Stall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Poverty of the MPs is in the grotesque shamelessness... and petty greed
EAST LONDON PRESS says at 0510 Hrs on Tuesday 31 March 2009: It is not just Harry Cohen, the east London MP who used to flaunt a faker beard and spout strings of calculated socialistic confections... Having lost BOTH in order to stay on the bandwagon, Cohen seems to have also lost any sense of rationality. And dignity. How else could he be saying those things, comparing himself to Churchill in that way? There were indeed many flaws in Churchill’s life and character. But Harry Cohen is not remotely convincing as a comparable Member of Parliament...Or as a member of society... What Cohen’s banal boast tells us about him is that he belongs to a parliament of political, mental, moral pigmies with no evident shame...
