Friday, 14 November 2014

Boris Johnson, Cronyism, sleaze and corrupution.


In 2007/8 I was subjected to a 6 month smear campaign by the London Evening Standard led by 'investigative journalist' Andrew Gilligan and the then Standard editor Veronica Wadley.  They accused me of 'misappropriating' £3.3 million pounds, of forcing GLA officers to fund 'my mates' organisations and for enforcing a culture of ' cronyism and sleaze'. Both were offered paid positions by Boris Johnson and continue to work for the Mayor.

Cronyism and corruption were the charges they gave me.

The standard over that time had made 143 separate speculative allegations and my name and that of my family were harangued and dragged through the mud. In addition 30 black organisations and 17 individuals were also accused

The then editor of the Sunday Times Patience Wheatcroft was drafted into to chair a Forensic Audit Panel to look into all the allegations. DeLoittes Forensic Legal Accountancy team was brought into poor over every penny of spending and all associated processes. The matter was referred to the Metropolitan Police and The Audit Commission, Companies House and the Greater London Assembly all conducted spirit investigation over the course of two and half years.

£1 millon investigation took nearly three years.

The Mayors investigation cost a £1m and took two years 6 months to complete. It took until July 2010 before all these investigations were completed. In that time all of us lived with the cloud of suspicion hanging over our heads. It was the most appealing time and lost of those accused became seriously ill as a consequence.

Result: No case to answer. 

These investigations all concluded without exception that there was no case to answer. Of 30 block organisations smeared not one was found to be guilty of single misdemeanour, not so much of a postage stamp out of place.

Of the 17 individuals accused alongside me, not a single person was charged or cautioned for any offence. I must be the most investigated black man in the UK almost every aspect of my private and professional and political life has been crawled over or looked into by press, police or politicians. The investigation was all encompassing, forensic in nature and emotionally exacting.

Lives and reputations destroyed. 

The reputations of friend and colleagues, in addition to my own, were brutally traduced. Many were left unemployable and struggling financially, some developed depression. . Many have never, ever recovered from this poisonous election campaign of 2008.

The legacy lives with all of this affected today and of course some people continue to believe what they read way back then. For me I have come to rationalise is it an horrendous experience, but as nothing to the suffering endured by Black activists through the ages.

Sure it was a 'modern high tech media lynching' and deeply traumatic for all concerned, but I was exonerated and we are still alive, that counts as plus. Once Boris had beaten Ken Livingstone by 60k votes the subsequent decimation of cuts to black organisation across the capital was what followed, in a brutal culling of London's black voluntary sector.

This was followed by Local Authorities and the the Tory Government who continued to slash funding to black groups.

 I said at the time, this was not an attack on me, but an attack on the whole black community' I was laughed at by some. Suffice to say they're not laughing now.

All this for an supposed £3.2 million pound 'misappropriation' that never was nor was there any substantive evidence for from the outset.

Boris and £1 billion land deal.

Now consider the news item below from Channel 4  reporter @MichealLCrick who raises significant questions about ABP Chinese developers  £1 billion pound purchase of the Royal Albert Dock, London.

Apparently ABP were this least experienced bidding company, in  terms of completing major capital projects and the largest firm, in terms of Tory party donations.

The issues raised in this piece are hugely important and pose serious and critical questions about the nature of Boris's seemingly suspect relationship with ABP. Huge donations to the Tory Party and major land acquisition in London.

There appears to be an unhealthy  synergistic and symbiotic, potentially corrupt relationship between the Mayors onward investment agency London Partners and ABP

There seems to the stench of corruption floating around this whole deal, yet I can guarantee you, that although the sums of money dwarf the amounts involved with me, I doubt whether Boris will be subjected to anything like the same level of scrutiny, neither will he be subjected to an ongoing relentless campaign by broad section of the British press.

Well done Channel 4 News and the Guardian for picking this story up.

Its a rough, cruel and unjust world we live in. More so if you're black, more so if you're poor. The rich and the powerful play games and destroy lives, whilst ensuring the really big money stays with them.

I hope the Greater London Assembly initiates an immediate independent investigation as should the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.  The Metropolitan Police Should investigate any possible corruption and the BBC and right wing press should press for answers each and every day until the General election.

Will that happen? I somehow doubt it. Now if Boris was a black man....



Thursday, 6 November 2014

02 Store Retail Racism. Store Phone's Police for Young Black Man Businessman

London is one of the most diverse cities in the world. With a long history of settled black communities you would expect that our city would be at ease with itself with such a long standing history of multicultralism.   

But scratch the surface of these glib statements and another reality becomes all too apparent. Young black people face a routine and unacceptable level of discrimination within the City of London retail shopping and business areas, in employment within London's financial services sector.

Here is a tale on twitter of one such young man's experience as he tried to simply upgrade his phone in the London 02 store, Cheapside.

I have summarised a lengthy number of tweets from  @Eddie_Fiasco as he described his experience of  02 retail racism;

At  3.23  Eddie exited Canon Street Station and walked into 02 store. A young black business owner, he wanted to upgrade his phone to the iphone 6.

He was advised by the  0sales assistant on what was required and told he would need a bank statement. So Eddie enquired as to where the nearest Barclays Bank was and set off to get a statement. 

He then printed off all the necessary information and headed back to 02

When arrived he presented the documentation, but was surprised to be told he then needed to provide more credentials,such as company letterhead, in order to prove he owned their business.

Eddie promptly called his office and had a business letter head sent to over to him.

The store then started to process the application and he sat paitently waiting.

Ubeknowns to them them store manager had secretly called the police, suspecting that Eddie was a fraudster.

To Eddie’s shock and horror, two City of London Police Officers entered the and began to question these young businessmen. Satisfied they were legitimate, they left. 

The store manager then had the termerity to tell Eddie, that he had called the police as a precautionary measure, before he had even checked the authenticity of their credentials!

After waiting between 2/3 hours they were refused a contract despite providing all the necessary paperwork.
Eddie, now outraged asked for an apology and was refused.

Having suffered this disgraceful racism he left the store. 

As he left they suffered on more humiliation, they were offered a ‘chocolate bar’ by 02 by way of reparation.

This is what racial profiling looks like. The police were called for Eddie because he was a young black man. 

The police were called with no objective evidence of criminality, they were called prior to the 02 store manager having checked their credentials.

Such is the racism young black people face everyday in the City Of London and as an eager, young business man,  Eddie suffered this total humiliation all because of the attitude and prejudice of the store manager.

Here's is a young black businessmen, striving for success, being treated as if he were nothing more than a common criminal.

Do  02 have a policy for calling the police when black people walk in their stores? 

Do they monitior the ethnicity of their customers and the service they receive? 

How many complaint of racist treatment have 02 had from black customers?
Whilst London remains the pre-eminent diversity capital of the 21st Century, the City of London retail and financial services sector, remains a strong bastion of white privilege and naked race discrimination. 

We remain economically excluded from the City. Its time we took matters into our own hands and ended retail racism and broke down the doors of employment discrimination in the City.

I suggest we complain to both 02 and Ofcom, the phone regulator and ensure they get the message that such behavior is entirely unacceptable.

02 Customer Service
0800 977 7337

Ofcom
Riverside House
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
Switchboard: 020 7981 3000
Complaints: 020 7981 3040
(9am-5pm Monday to Friday),
Textphone: 020 7981 3043 or
0300 123 2024




Louise Mensch and Lee Jasper? What's the connection

If Tory Louise Mensch and I agree on something this going to be news.

We both agree that former UKIP member Jasna Badzak has been badly treated.

We both agree that there appears to be a grave injustice.

We both agree that something must be done. Surprised? You can read more here

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Jasna Badzack, UKIP critic arrested after UKIP Gerrard Batten MEP complains to Met Police.


















Gerrard Batten MEP 
Many of you will have read with alarm the story of former UKIP Press Officer Jasna Badzack and her campaign to expose UKIP potential fraud, racism and possible links with sympathetic Metropolitan Police Officers.  You can read more on the background of this amazing story here. Recently this bizarre tale, took yet another dramatic turn.

So infuriated was Gerard Batten MEP with the contents of the article and the tweets form Jasna and I that followed, he complained to the Metropolitan Police of  feeling 'threatened, harassed and intimidated'.

The compliant from Batten, was that Jasna comments in the article above, an article that I wrote bear in mind, was causing him alarm and distress.

Despite suffering from a serious heart condition Jasna was summoned on the 4th November to an interview, under caution at Paddington Green Police station by Detective Sargent Christopher Page.

Yet there has been no police compliant or legal challenge to the accuracy of the piece from either UKIP or the Metropolitan Police.

In another terrible twist in this deeply worrying tale Jasna has been charged with 'harassment'.

Jasna Badzak 
The stress of this constant police attention has lead to serious deterioration of Jasna heart condition. I believe Battens hope is that through constant pressure he can force Jasna to remain silent. He is seemingly assisted in this endeavour, by a Metropolitan Police Service . Batten appears to have a hot line to Scotland Yard that allows him to have Jasna arrested on request.

Any complaints about Jasna political comments, should a civil not a criminal matter. Why are the Met so insistent in involving themselves as agents of Battens political campaign? How is it, that the Crown Prosecution Service has agreed that Jasna is guilty of harassment for calling UKIP fascists, accusing them of potentially committing serious EU expenses fraud, an accusation subsequently repeated by mainstream press.

I find her latest arrest, both alarming and deeply ironic.  Notwithstanding the very serious complaints and accusations Jasna makes in my original article that suggest a corrupt network of UKIP supporters in the Met Police,  possibly the Crown Prosecution Service, the fact that Batten is trying to silence her voice through criminal as opposed to civil law, is revealing.

For UKIP,  the libertarian leaning party of 'free speech' to seek to actively criminalise its critics, reveals the real political character of this 'party of the people'

I conclude that whilst Batten can't challenge the facts of the article, he is confident that he can get the Met to prosecute a case, he can't prosecute in the civil courts.

The serious complaints and questions articulated in my original piece remain unanswered.

It seems to me that Jasna is being subjected to a relentless and on going camping of police harassment.

What is clear, is that Batten and UKIP, don't want the information in this article to reach a wider audience. I

In supporting Jasna, I ask that you ensure the original article and this update ,get circulated far and wide.

Jasna will fight this case despite her failing ill health. The question I ask is why,  Greater London Authority Assembly Members or the Mayor himself have not asked serious questions in relation to these matters?

You can support Jasna by sharing this article. offering to join our small campaign team. In addition you could help by volunteering to help arrange a public meeting on these issues.

Both Jasna and I are willing to speak at any public meetings on these issues, please help us get this message out.

#Justice4Jasna 

NB Support facing political persecution as she attends court on 26th Nov 9.30am West London Magistrates Tollgarth Road, Hammersmith. London.

Thursday, 25 September 2014

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg wades into Exhibit B debate.


Having successfully campaigned against the showing by the Barbican Arts Centre, of Brett Baileys Exhibit B, otherwise known as the Human Zoo, with the full support of over a million people, the inevitable whitelash has begun.

Deputy Prime Minster Nick Clegg weighed into the debate today. Speaking on Nick Ferrari’s breakfast show on LBC. He spoke out against ‘censorship’ and suggested that the exhibition was too similar to that of ‘educational anti racist, Jewish holocaust exhibitions.’

There is a world of difference between the two. The fact is such exhibitions as referred to by Clegg, are supported by the Jewish communities who are rightly consulted, whose support is critical to such efforts. Part of the black condition here in the UK is that we as a people, were offered no such opportunity to engage nor are we afforded anywhere near the same level of respect.

It is deeply ironic that, we the supposed beneficiaries of this show have become further marginalised by the imposition of a Barbican and Bailey constructed, white definition of what constitutes ‘ anti racist art’. A definition that is being imposed upon us.

T his exhibition could be compared to the Aparthied era, whit  Krok brothers, Gold Reef City Casino where they opened "The Apartheid Museum."
We are told we don’t understand the art, we are told we should be pleased, we are told that this will help the fight against racism.

Let me make this absolutely clear, it is for the victims of racism to decide what constitutes anti racism, not white arts institutions or a Deputy Prime Minister who leads an all white Parliamentary Liberal Democratic Party.

Can you imagine the outcry if, let’s say a German artist, was to put on art exhibition that placed Jewish people in a tableaux of gas ovens, as a means of raising issues about the objectification, dehumanisation and oppression of Jewish people?


Truth is this idea wouldn’t get past the drawing board. The very idea would be deemed entirely unacceptable and rightly so.

Exhibit B closure: The whitelash begins.

The on going campaign by the Barbican and section of the press to smear our campaign as ‘extremist’ is laughable in one sense, however becomes more insidious upon closer examination.

When one begins to closely examine the nature of the Barbican response to our compliant, one begins to understand how the Barbican got itself into this unholy mess in the first place.

First, the mere suggestion that a virtually all white liberal arts institution could have made a mistake, on an issue of race has been treated as a complete heresy.

That they should then embark on a determined campaign to suggest that our opposition of this show was ‘ extreme’, exemplifies the latent racism that lurks beneath their seemingly liberal veneer.

Extremists.

Our demonstration attended by 600 people was noisy, dynamic and peaceful. This is irrefutable and is proven by the simple facts that there was not single complaint, not a single arrest, without anyone being injured and without any damage to property.  Yet Barbican continues to insist that the protest was’ extreme’ in nature. 

These are the facts that our white dominated media seemed determined to ignore. Over the last few days we have seen the press bend over backwards to ignore the facts and fall in line with the Barbicans well-worn racist trope.

Yet talk to the police and you get a different story. No arrests, no criminal complaints, no damage to property, no incidents to report.



The Barbican, in using the word ‘extreme’ choosing these precise words, very carefully and deliberately, has sought to brand the campaigners as ‘extremists’

I think is worth of noting this attempt to move legitimate black protest into the realm of dangerous extremism.

White Privilege.

We are, of course aware, as black people, that white psychology and perception of black people, determines that for some, any group of black people, whatever they may or may not be doing, will always likely to be seen as potentially dangerous and violent.

However, there were signs, from the beginning, that we were becoming victims of the Barbican’s own worst fears and imaginings. When we first met the Barbican board, in an effort to reach some consensus and understanding, outside the boardroom sat their Head of Security. Ask yourself why would they do that?

The answer is easily understood if you’re a conscious black person. Our daily reality for us we are routinely and constantly viewed by some whites including liberals as pathological, mad, bad or dangerous.

Call Security, Black People Are Coming!

It was clear from that point on, we were being regarded as a potentially ‘violent mob’. Brett Bailey himself describes us as such, in an interview published prior to the shows launch. He stated that the protest constituted nothing more than a ‘baying mob’. This racist trope, from an artist who we are told, is on our side and working in our best interest.

The sight of additional security whenever we met and at the public consultation organized by Nitro Theatre on behalf and in support of the Barbican was surrounded by security and this theme would become increasingly evident with our every interaction with the Barbican.

Conclusion.

Both the Barbican and Bailey are popularly considered, progressive liberal, good decent white folks. Yet they are intent on deploying in their defence, that most of popular and well worn of racist stereotypes, the ‘violent, unruly, baying black mob’.

This approach will further damage Barbican reputation and anyone associated with it, among London’s Black and genuine anti racist, communities.

We are set to begin a fresh campaign targeting the Barbican for its failure to tackle institutionalized racism and address its racism in the most diverse city, on the planet.

In the meantime in the words of US hi hop revolutionaries, Public Enemy, ‘Don’t believe the hype’.

Chinua Achebe talking about a white author writing about Africa said,
"...you cannot compromise my humanity in order that you explore your own ambiguity. I cannot accept that. My humanity is not to be debated, nor is it to be used simply to illustrate European problems.”


Thursday, 18 September 2014

Human Zoo Campaign Leaflets

Call to Action to Boycott the Barbican Human Zoo Displaying Africans in Cages. 



    

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Lee Jasper responds to black arts group Nitro’s support for the Human Zoo exhibition.

There is a raging debate about the forthcoming art installation Exhibit B, produced by South African artist, Brett Bailey due to launch at the Barbican on the 23rd September.

The show has attracted much criticism from a wide range of organisations, backed by an online petition representing a huge consensus of organisations, trade unions, campaigning groups, anti racists and a wide range of black arts groups and performers. I wont reaherse our issues again here as you can read more about the detail of our objections in a previous article I wrote.

Viewed as controversial, the exhibition more appropriately labeled the ‘Human Zoo’, features black actors in various settings, including Africans in cages and chained in bondage. 

This artwork installation is said to reflect the universal themes of bondage, oppression and power, seeking to make a statement about the legacies of colonialism reflected in contemporary racism.

Controversial indeed and, already there is an emerging and growing consensus that this misguided show should not go ahead. A campaign has been formed and you can join us here.

It’s notable that very few black organisations or individuals have sought to defend the show, thus far. Poet and author, Lemn Sissay has voiced his support for the show. Those in support remain far and few between, however today we read the fulsome support for this misguided exhibition from a serious black arts organization, Nitro Music Theatre.

On their blog, Director Felix Cross defends Brett Baileys work stating’

Exhibition B is an astonishing, moving, serious and thoughtful work that forces-us-the audience-to consider both historic and contemporary injustice to African peoples”.

Mr. Cross goes onto say that Nitro were “ highly sensitive to the potential controversial subject matter” but were reassured after they met Brett and visited the exhibition in Edinburgh.

He acknowledged the widespread anger that has erupted since the show was advertised as coming to London ‘ describing it as "very understandable” and the fact that the online petition, calling for a boycott, signed by almost 20,000 people, is attracting serious and substantial support. 

All well and good you may say, after all they’re entitled to their opinion.

What I’m not clear about is what is Nitro’s relationship with both Bailey and the Barbican? I ask this question because on their blog there is an actors casting advert specifically for the exhibition.

This begs the serious question have Nitro been paid for this work or as a result of their partnership with the Barbican?  If turns out Nitro are being paid, then Mr. Cross’s statement will lack any real credibility, unless supported by other credible black arts organisations.

In addition to the above, I am forced to ask if Nitro has, in the past, supported black artists, whose work’s has been seen as equally controversial?  Given their express support of Brett Bailey’s work, I would expect to see radical black artists, whose work challenges racism and attracts similar level of controversy, featured in their portfolio of works.

Another important question, prompted by Nitro’s statement, is why they have waited so long to make their position clear?

The public debate has been increasing in intensity since the petition was launched, what took Nitro so long to make a public statement? 

Given Nitro’s admission of the controversial nature of Brett’s work, did they then consult with other black organisations in a genuine attempt to asses their views prior to fully endorsing the artist?  Whilst claiming to work hard fighting to ensure that ‘missing voices, producing and sharing the artistic representation of the Black experience across the diaspora, They appear to completely 'miss the voice' of their family right here in the UK. 

I agree with the proposal from Mr. Cross, suggesting further discussion in the general issue of encouraging more black artistic voices; this should be explored further with Nitro. 

I do wonder though, why Nitro has not sought specific discussions, on this matter with any of the many sister black organisations that oppose this show, in a genuine effort to fully explore our concerns?

It strikes me that Nitro’s statement could be construed as being ‘too little, to late’. They should be given the opportunity to fully explain their position for sure, disappointingly however their statement falls woefully short of providing a credible explanation for their support for this dreadful exhibition.

Contact.


Forthcoming actions:
Thursday 11th September at 12:00

2. JOIN US TO HAND IN MASS PETITION OF BARBICAN SAT 13 SEPT 1.00PM   
The Barbican Exhibition Centre London EC2Y 8DS

3. Share this information attend the actions.