No, not really. It is a safe Labour seat, does not have defections galore, and is too far ‘uup north’ for most of our posters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZus7bVndoY

You are calling Sunny inarticulate? ‘Pot’ and ‘kettle’ springs to mind.

“Hardly suprising when considering you [Sunny] are the capital T in tokenism.”

Note that tokenism remains lower case, despite there being a promise of a capital ‘T’.

“Its clear that the liberal elite to which you [Sunny] aspire and who have allowed you write a few bland articles, which were suprisingly published.”

They allow Sunny to write articles, and then agree to publish them? Wow.

“Dear mr inarticulate Sunny shouldn’t this post read, Southall by-election where do I stand?”

Oh dear. Much of the rest is in the same vein. Criticise Sunny if you want, but please do not call him inarticulate.

Hardly suprising when considering you are the capital T in tokenism. Its clear that the liberal elite to which you aspire and who have allowed you write a few bland articles, which were suprisingly published.

In so far as analysis is concerned you lack significantly.

Oh well as they say you can take the boy out of southall but you can’t take the pedu homeboy out of the boy.

Criticism of faith groups for the sake of criticism never gets us far..you of all people should know that.

from one rudeboy to another

From: jagtar singh [mailto:jagtarkhalsa@...]
Sent: 01 December 2003 07:00

Subject: Re: BSCF Response to the Home Office

Dear All

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

It is surprising and regrettable that Jasdev Singh Rai
has chosen to mention my name in his e-mail response
to Gurmukh Singh (and those copied his e-mail). He no
doubt knows why he has decided to do this; perhaps to
provoke some sort of reaction.

I will not disappoint in terms of a reaction and
apologise in advance for the length of the reply in
exposing further the lack of trust with Jasdev Singh
Rai. I will try and point out a few simple facts
concerning the issues raised and leave recipients
themselves to make their own judgments regarding the
integrity (or lack of it) with which Jasdev Singh Rai
operates in comparison to the likes of Gurmukh Singh.

Many will have their own personal experiences, good
and bad, of Jasdev Singh and the way he operates.
Good luck to those, that for reasons of convenience or
need, choose to work with him or at least give the
impression they can tolerate or prefer to work with
him. Since 1984 many have experienced the way he
works and decided to bear with him or work at arms
length as they have found his behaviour and deception
unacceptable.

Anyone that knows Gurmukh Singh will know he is
independently minded and will advice and assist anyone
involved in promoting Panthic matters, including many
if not all those that have been e-mailed. He does not
hesitate in providing positive criticism and sometimes
it is not always possible to agree on every issue.
However, it is for those that seek his guidance to
respect any criticism and move forward if they believe
in the Panthic good.

Moving to Jasdev Singh’s e-mail in which he appears to
give a brand new meaning to “putting the record
straight”.

Let me remind Jasdev Singh of a few of the facts as he
has invited me to clarify the run up to the formation
of the BSCF and it appears his memory is not what it
was in 1984 having “endured” a lot in the “last 18
years” (although it’s probably closer to 20 years
since 1984). Anything that involves numbers,
including money matters has never been one of Jasdev
Singh’s strengths, as many that have parted with their
hard earned B#s will vouch!

Jasdev Singh states in his e-mail that “BSCF was an
idea that I gave at the Home office during the kirpan
meetings” – ANOTHER LAPSE IN HIS MEMORY I SUSPECT!

The first Kirpan meeting took place on 12 December
2001. This was to be a meeting of 10 Sikh
“representatives” with the Home Office and the
Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions (DTLR) as it was known then, to discuss
restrictions on wearing the Kirpan by Sikh workers at
airports.

The Sikh Secretariat became aware of the meeting and
informed the wider Sikh community – Gurdwara
representatives and active Sikh organisations were
told via e-mail and telephone as the 10 Sikhs were
being hand-picked by Jasdev Singh. When the “cat was
out of the bag” Jasdev Singh stated 5 representatives
would be from Gurdwaras and were being arranged by Dr
Garcha (Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southalll) and 5 would be
from Sikh organisations of which 3 would be from the
Sikh Human Rights Group (SHRG).

Many did not appreciate the way in which the meeting
was being secretively organised with representatives
being hand picked and many active Sikh organisations,
that were likely to take a bold stand on the Kirpan
issue, being excluded or told about the meeting at the
last minute. There was also a heavy bias towards SHRG
in terms of representation. Many therefore chose to
stay away due to the way SHRG had organised the
meeting.

In the end Jasdev Singh only managed to get 6 Sikhs of
which 3 were from SHRG, 2 were from the Council of
Gurdwaras Birmingham and 1 from the Executive of the
Network of Sikh Organisations. In the days running up
to the meeting Jasdev Singh was adamant that the Sikh
Secretariat should not attend. However, about two
hours before the meeting he telephoned to ask if I
could attend. As the issue was of importance I made
changes to my diary and attended the first Kirpan
meeting.

What many of you will not know is that when I arrived
at the Home Office Jasdev Singh asked me not to
mention that I was from the Sikh Secretariat. I told
him that it was not important for me to say who I
represented but to discuss the issue at hand, namely
the Kirpan. However, I told Jasdev Singh that I would
speak about the Sikh Secretariat if government
officials raised the subject themselves.

As is commonplace, before the meeting commenced, a
blank sheet of paper was circulated by the government
officials for each person attending to provide a name
and the organisation being represented. I was not
prepared to LIE. I suspected the officials knew
exactly who I was and who I was representing.
Therefore, against my name I wrote Sikh Secretariat.
When the paper reached Jasdev Singh he came over to me
and said I should not have written the Sikh
Secretariat against my name. I asked him what else I
should have written. The only thing he could come up
with was SHRG, so the paper was changed.

At no time in this first Kirpan meeting (on 12
December 2001) was the subject of the BSCF (or some
representative body of the Sikhs discussed).
Incidentally, the Home Office officials did raise the
subject of the Sikh Secretariat at this meeting and I
explained more about its structure and associations.

In the next two weeks it emerged that Jasdev Singh had
been briefing Home Office officials about the Sikh
Secretariat and the briefings were subject to Chatham
House rules. For those unfamiliar with Chatham House
rules, they may wish to know this is a phrase used by
civil servants and refers to “secret” discussions,
briefings, exchanges etc. between two or more parties
that should not be shared with others. I first learnt
of this from Jasdev Singh himself as I believe I was
mistakenly forwarded an e-mail exchange between him
and a Home Office official. This exchange took place
prior to the first Kirpan meeting. What Jasdev Singh
may not know is the same Home Office official met with
the Sikh Secretariat less than a week after the first
Kirpan meeting as they were not impressed with the
“representation” at the first meeting and wished to
improve representation or were trying to create
divisions in the Sikh community.

The second Kirpan meeting took place on 6 March 2002
and was this time attended by 13 Sikhs. Before
meeting Home Office and DTLR officials a 45 minute
pre-meeting of the 13 Sikhs took place at the Home
Office where Jasdev Singh was rebuked for suggesting
such things as Amritdhari Sikhs carry ID cards to
prove they were Amritdhari. One young Sikh pointed
out to Jasdev Singh that his suggestion was foolish as
the 5 Ks were a statement in itself of being an
Amritdhari rather than an ID card. Stipulation of a
specific size for the Kirpan was also raised by Jasdev
Singh himself at this pre-meeting. Perhaps Jasdev
Singh was being “devils’ advocate” or acting as a
“go-between” between Sikhs and government officials.
Either way stipulating a specific size for the Kirpan
was not accepted by Sikhs at the pre-meeting.

Jasdev Singh then raised the controversial issue of
Sikh “representation” at the pre-meeting of Sikhs. He
was told in no uncertain terms by virtually all those
in attendance that this was not a subject to discuss
with government officials as this was a matter for the
Sikh community itself. Instead it was agreed that
Sikhs should meet themselves at a future date – this
was what eventually resulted in the first BSCF meeting
on 11 May 2002 (which I refer to later).

The issue of representation (let alone the BSCF) was
NOT discussed at the second Kirpan meeting with Home
Office and DTLR officials. However, as Jasdev Singh
had clearly told the officials prior to the meeting
that this was to be discussed he quickly backtracked
at the meeting and told them Sikhs would be meeting to
discuss Sikh representation. Two of those copied
these series of e-mails – Indarjit Singh (Network of
Sikh Organisations) and Balvinder Kaur (Sikhs In
England) were also present at the second Kirpan
meeting and are encouraged to confirm whether the BSCF
was raised at the second Kirpan meeting as claimed by
Jasdev Singh.

This was how we got to the first BSCF meeting on 11
May 2002. The first BSCF meeting was organised by
SHRG who prepared a “note” of the proceedings of the
meeting. I will make reference to this “note”
prepared by SHRG itself, to blow a few other myths
being trailed by Jasdev Singh in his contemptuous
attempt “to put the record straight”.

The SHRG notes of the first meeting organised by SHRG
prove the meeting was deliberately not open to all.
The SHRG note states “The organisations invited were
the ones who were asked (by SHRG) at the Home office
meeting. 2 further organisations who were missed out
last time (by SHRG) were also invited.” 18 individuals
took part in the first BSCF meeting, but only 3 of the
18 were also at the Home Office meeting. The first
meeting organised by SHRG was held at South Birmingham
College, unlike other BSCF meetings that have been
held at or organised by Gurdwaras.

The SHRG note of the first meeting shows at item 10
that none other than Jasdev Singh himself suggested a
BODY be set up called the “British Sikh Consultation
BOARD”. The SHRG note shows that I was the one that
said it should not be a board or organisation but a
FORUM. A forum then emerged called the British Sikh
Consultative Forum (BSCF). To this date Jasdev Singh
has developed such “thick skin” or is it “deafness”
that he incorrectly keeps talking about a Forum, (a
meeting place) as an organisation with a Chair,
General Secretary etc.

Item 4 in the SHRG note of the first meeting also made
it clear that Jasdev Singh was trying to make the
Forum exclusive, partly as he was thinking of a
“Board”. When questioned by the British Sikh
Federation, as indicated in the SHRG note at item 4,
it also became obvious that Jasdev Singh was wanting
to exclude Panthic organisations, such as the
Federation of Sikh Organisations (FSO), which was
mentioned by name. It would therefore be helpful for
the record for Sikh organisations that have been
copied this e-mail (Akhand Kirtani Jatha UK, Council
of Khalistan, Sikhs In England, Sikh Nari Manch UK,
British Sikh Federation, Network of Sikh
Organisations, Sikh Community Youth Service, British
Sikh Council, Sikh Missionary Society etc.) to confirm
if they support or are part of the paper-based
ORGANISATION that the Home Office has recently
confirmed has been set up which is “chaired by Bhai
Mohinder Singh and with Dr Jasdev Singh Rai as General
Secretary” and probably excludes Panthic
organisations.

Jasdev Singh has also requested some clarification
reagrding the second meeting of the BSCF held at
Shepherds Bush Gurdwara on 6 July 2002. He has
indicated I know why the meeting HE organised was
first switched from the Nishkam Sewak Jatha, Soho
Road, to Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southall and finally to
Shepherds Bush Gurdwara. I was aware that people in
the South thought it more appropriate that the second
meeting be in the South considering the first meeting
was in Birmingham and because an important meeting was
taking place between Sikhs and the police in London
prior to the second BSCF meeting. However, I was
surprised as anyone when the meeting was switched from
Sri Guru Singh Sabha Southall to Shepherds Bush
Gurdwara very late in the day. I have no reason to
doubt the “official” or “unofficial” reasons given by
Jasdev Singh for the switch to Shepherds Bush
Gurdwara. However, Jasdev Singh has missed the point
again.

Gurmukh Singh has pointed out – that Jasdev Singh
wished the second BSCF meeting to be CLOSED and not
open and all-inclusive as stated in the SHRG note of
the first meeting. Perhaps Jasdev Singh has forgotten
the colourful vocabulary he put in writing to me when
he realised the Sikh Secretariat had informed a wider
Sikh audience of the OPEN and ALL-INCLUSIVE meeting at
Shepherds Bush Gurdwara. From what I recall he
apologised for his unacceptable written outburst after
the President of Shepherds Bush Gurdwara was obliged
to read out what he had written. Several of those
copied this e-mail were present at the second meeting
therefore why try and hide what was obvious to those
that heard and saw what he had written as he was angry
the meeting would no longer be closed. I still have a
copy of what Jasdev Singh wrote if any one of those
copied this e-mail require further proof.

Having read the above how can Jasdev Singh claim:
“BSCF was an idea that I gave at the Home office
during the kirpan meetings” in his attempt “to put the
record straight”?

I suspect what Jasdev Singh should be saying is:

“I held a few secret meetings with government
officials and a few others and tried to set up an
exclusive hand-picked Board that I could control.
However, Sikhs would not have it. First at the Home
Office and then at the first BSCF meeting. They saw
through my approach and insisted on an open Forum. I
accepted the Forum name but tried to keep it closed as
demonstrated by my actions leading to the second
meeting. They would still not have it and opened up
the forum.”

“At the third meeting (Soho Road) I went on the
offensive, but realised I was still not going to get
my way. I then stayed away from the next three BSCF
meetings (Coventry, Leicester and Gravesend) and then
tried to get the BSCF to turn the clock back and start
all over again at the seventh meeting in Smethwick on
1 February 2003.”

“However, they are a persistent bunch and the BSCF was
back on track with three more successful meetings
(East London, Walsall and Wolverhampton). I realised
that I could not stop the Forum initiative, so perhaps
a “working group” could be set up that might give me
some “control”. But things were getting out of
control – Sikhs seemed one step ahead of me with
important announcements at the National Sikh
Convention. So in short I was not prepared to leave
it in the hands of the BSCF participants at the
eleventh meeting in Derby and decided to go it alone
with a few others that I know I can probably “out
maneuver” and are not really interested in unity
despite often “preaching” this above all else.

I hope this provides sufficient details on the “Kirpan
meetings and the run up to the establishment of the
BSCF”. Having exposed Jasdev Singh, once again, due
to his own actions I feel a response forthcoming that
may be similar to that prior to the second BSCF
meeting that ended the “control” that Jasdev Singh was
hoping to have. In short Jasdev Singh is someone you
trust at your peril.

D Singh

One of the “stalwarts of transparency and truth” as
described by Jasdev Singh and we will “soldier on”
while Jasdev Singh “shoulders on” or was that a
Freudian slip.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

Rai has been a thorn in the side of the Sikh Federation ever since, he has mischievously established a parallel British Sikh Consultative Forum, thus undermining the Sikh Federation’s group of the same name, he has briefed Home Office officials against the Sikh Federation and he has quietly poisoned much of the discourse around the self determination debate in this country.

He claims to be the Jathedar of the Akal Takhts International envoy but the Jathedar has publically denounced this claim in the Tribune. Rai’s Sikh Human Rights group has been an abject failure. If it were effective the Indian Govt would have banned it’s entry into Punjab as they have with Amnesty International. However he trots seemingly unnoticed into Punjab on a regular basis. How can a man who runs a Human Rights group and was a leading member of the banned ISYF travel in the Punjab unhindered when men like Parmjit Singh Dhahdi get thrown in prison for no reason.

Recently Rai has set up an international version of the SGPC with himself at the centre and Bhai Mohinder Singh of the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sevak Jatha as it’s religious leader. Rai has never lived in Southall.

“Don’t make me laugh. The Muslim community in Southall is made up of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, and neither group is eligible to vote.”

“At first I wasn’t sure about Dr Rai, but I’ve heard positive things from Southall residents about him. (No doubt Pickled Politics or some other ‘Economist’ masquerading as a journalist will now find some obscure, mildly objectionable, comment from Rai when he was 13 and look to label him an ‘extremist’ r something).”

Any clue yet?

“He managed to do what no other Person (Politician or otherwise) had managed – get the community of West London Noticed in the House of Commons earlier this year.”

Please elaborate on this Kay. Unless ‘West London Noticed’ is a group, this makes no sense. I am not going to comment on Dr. Rai’s work, as I do not know him- however, getting resolutions passed at the UN is fairly easy; you just have to put something bad about Israel at the start of your proposal.

Did you know that some low-life is dissing you on his blog?

http://playingagainstthespin.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/11/

Do you know that EVERY PERSON INVOLVED IN A HUMAN RIGHTS ORG HAS TERRORIST AFFILIATIONS???

Wonder what Amnesty International would make of your thoughts re this.

Dr. Rai’s been doing positive work in the community for years. As far as I can see Sunny, you don’t spend enough time away from your website (clearly in search of self glorification) to make a positive impact on the communities around you let alone at a national level like Dr Rai has……………

Have you REALLY done your homework on Dr. Rai? No…didn’t think so.

See – had you done – you would know he has intense positive relations with the UN and has managed to get resolutions passed with 11 people behind him. Other groups turn up with 50 plus members to hundred plus – yet with 11 members only, Dr Rai got his work done.

He managed to do what no other Person (Politician or otherwise) had managed – get the community of West London Noticed in the House of Commons earlier this year.

I think what this tells you is that it doesn’t necessarily matter what amateur politic critics say (or other critics) – Dr Rai’s accomplishments speak for themselves.

Clearly you’re a person with no moral or ethical principles. If you disagree with me, answer this: why sell ad apace on your site for a few bob to the Conservatives?

Oh and as for not entering debate with Rai, I think you’ll find it’s because Tony Lit has no real idea of what the Communities of Ealing & Southall need or want, he’s too far removed. Lit, Sharma, Lib Dems and other Independents wouldn’t stand a chance of walking away from any debate with Dr. Rai unscathed.

I look forward to reading your response