- Pickled Politics - http://www.pickledpolitics.com -

Southall by-election: pictures and video

Posted By Sunny On 16th July, 2007 @ 11:07 pm In Party politics, Race politics | Comments Disabled

Today evening the unions organised a ‘quiz-your-candidates’ event at Ealing Town Hall for the upcoming by-election that I have been covering relentlessly.

Of course, I turned up with my video camera. But before that, some pictures from the local area.

The thing to notice from Southall is that Tony Lit has blanket advertised everywhere. I can’t imagine the guy has brand recognition problems. Plus, he has leveraged all his contacts from Sunrise Radio to get posters plastered across shop fronts.

Labour in contrast had very little posters in Southall. Also noticeable was the fact that most posters did not have Virendra Sharma’s picture. What else are you supposed to do when you have a old fogey as your candidate who most people will assume is Piara Khabra pt 2. And frankly no one wants a re-run of Piara Khabra.

Here’s another candidate. I estimate he’ll get about 5 votes. Notice how his last pledge is to repeal all abortion laws and he calls that a ‘holocaust’.

The other candidate, Jasdev Rai, had some supporters handing out leaflets. I estimate he’ll get about 7 votes. All from his family. That’s as far as he will go hopefully.

I get to the union organised conference and here is the set-up. Unsurprisingly Tony Lit didn’t turn up - I doubt he cares much for unions. What was surprising and very disappointing was that no one from Labour came either. Shows how much he cares for the unions.

(From left to right: Salvinder Dhillon (Respect), KT (UKIP), host, Sarah Edwards (Green party), Nigel Bakhai (Libdems), who turned up later)

*********

The video above was the candidates’ response to why faith schools are allowed to teach homosexuality is a sin and what was their stance on equality legislation and homosexuality.

Each of them make hilarious statements. The Green party woman is boring, as is the Libdem guy. The UKIP party guy claims we live in a police state, while the Respect candidate makes statements I’d like to see his bretheren in East London agree with.

*********

Below is the intro by the UKIP party member.

*********

Overall, although his rhetoric was a bit out of whack, I think Salvinder Dhillon was one of the best candidates. He has been around in local trade union politics for decades and I think probably the best person to represent Southall (who won’t get in). But he’s Respect and I’m not a fan of them so that’s that.

I was also told this morning by a colleague that if Labour lose this election, Gordon Brown will personally cut off Keith Vaz’s balls for making the selection. More incentive to veer towards a Conservative victory.

Oh, I’ll be on BBC Asian Network tomorrow morning at around 8:10am talking about the election.


Comments Disabled To "Southall by-election: pictures and video"

#1 Comment By Sunny On 17th July, 2007 @ 12:57 am

Ok the videos have come out slightly wierd… taking the top right of my video rather than compressing them to the YouTube size. hmmmm.

#2 Comment By Agog On 17th July, 2007 @ 10:26 am

Where was Labour? Wasn’t that party created by the trade unions?

#3 Comment By Praguetory On 17th July, 2007 @ 10:37 am

Labour’s negative strategy is clear. Has Sharma been locked in a cupboard until after the election?

#4 Comment By sofia On 17th July, 2007 @ 11:50 am

no he’s been out and about canvassing for votes.

#5 Comment By R Singh On 17th July, 2007 @ 11:52 am

Sunny, your abit stupid really arent you. You cuss them all, AND you have a banner add for the conservatives!
So your getting money of the Cons and then putting them down, I dont know if thats clever or like the Cons you have your price…. obviously it isnt much lol! You jack ass.

#6 Comment By R Singh On 17th July, 2007 @ 11:53 am

sorry I meant like the present con, ie Litt, you have your price.

#7 Comment By Jagdeep On 17th July, 2007 @ 12:05 pm

Hey R Singh, have you got any tablets for your paranoia yet? This is journalism — look it up in the dictionary if you dont know what that means.

I thought Sunny’s lines about Jasdev Rai getting about 7 votes mostly from his family were hilarious.

Great pictres — that Christian candidate looks like a proper psycho, with quotes from the bible on his flyers and everything.

I was also told this morning by a colleague that if Labour lose this election, Gordon Brown will personally cut off Keith Vaz’s balls for making the selection.

That man Keith Vaz is…..I just had to censor myself. Dont have words to describe….

#8 Comment By Leon On 17th July, 2007 @ 12:14 pm

Sunny, your abit stupid really arent you. You cuss them all, AND you have a banner add for the conservatives!

Haha you show me one tv channel, newspaper, magazine that can work independent of their advertisers? I bet if Sunny took the Tory coin and said little about them you’d slag him off for selling out. Can’t win either way really…

#9 Comment By maz On 17th July, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

Yet More Embarrassment for Lit/Cameron

[1] http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/07/17/ealing-southall-yet-more-embarrassment-for-litcameron/

#10 Comment By sofia On 17th July, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

as for stupidity, what happened to R Singh’s spelling…

#11 Comment By P Johnson On 17th July, 2007 @ 2:11 pm

Check out Dr Rai’s website. [2] www.southallpride.com.

The Doc has done some really good work, much more than the defective, I mean defectors, can ever do. ;)

I reckon he’d do something decent with Southall-Ealing.

Apparently the Dr asked all the other candidates for an open debate on issue’s, ALL DECLINED!! I wonder why …

#12 Comment By Sunny On 17th July, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Apparently the Dr asked all the other candidates for an open debate on issue’s, ALL DECLINED!! I wonder why …

Because they didn’t want to waste their time with a mad Khalistani?

#13 Comment By P Johnson On 17th July, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

Oh so you’ve met him then have you?
Funny he doesnt mention Khalistan anywhere…

#14 Comment By P Johnson On 17th July, 2007 @ 3:25 pm

whats Khalistan got to do with Southall Ealing?

#15 Comment By Leon On 17th July, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

whats Khalistan got to do with Southall Ealing?

A question not asked for the first time I believe…

#16 Comment By Sunny On 17th July, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

Oh so you’ve met him then have you?
Funny he doesnt mention Khalistan anywhere…

YEs I have… during the time he was trying to sue Gurpreet Bhatti, the writer of the play Behzti, for racism against Sikhs!

As for his Khalistani roots, just ask him about the ISYF, which he has been trying to take off the terrorist list for years.

Funny he doesn’t mention the Sikh Human Rights Group on his leaflet.

#17 Comment By Kay On 17th July, 2007 @ 7:04 pm

On Doctor Rai - 7 votes from his family eh? Hmmm let’s see.

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 ;)

#18 Comment By Kay On 17th July, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

Oh and What has Sikh Independence got to do with Local Politics?

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.

#19 Comment By Asma Shariff On 17th July, 2007 @ 9:41 pm

Sunny

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

[3] http://playingagainstthespin.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/11/

#20 Comment By Rumbold On 17th July, 2007 @ 9:47 pm

“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.

#21 Comment By Jagdeep On 17th July, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

Don’t see much dissing there Asma, just a newly set up blog looking for some traffic. Made me laugh the comment about the hilariously inept and worthless Sikh Federation spamming message boards with their ‘demands’ though.

#22 Comment By Rumbold On 17th July, 2007 @ 9:51 pm

If you follow Asma Shariff’s link, you will find an old friend in the comments section:

“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?

#23 Comment By Jagdeep On 17th July, 2007 @ 10:02 pm

It’s a great comedy site Rumbold. Looks like it was set up yesterday.

#24 Comment By Rumbold On 17th July, 2007 @ 10:05 pm

It could provide us with hours of entertainment.

#25 Comment By AJ On 17th July, 2007 @ 11:49 pm

Rai was deeply involved in the original ISYF in 1984, he claimed to be its president but was in fact the youth leader. When the Federation fractured in 1986 (after Rai’s closest associate in the ISYF was jailed for aggravated sexual assault) and after the ISYF disintegrated under competing claims of infiltration, Rai established the Sikh Human Rights Group (ISYF) which allowed Rai to maintain some kind of community standing. The other faction ISYF (Rode) have a deep mistrust of Rai and when the ISYF was banned in 2001 Rai quietly dropped the ISYF tag and the Rode faction rebranded as the Sikh Federation.

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.

#26 Comment By AJ On 18th July, 2007 @ 12:32 am

Some further reading pointing to the mischevious roles played by Rai in the Kirpan cases of 02. he later frustrated panthic efforts in 04 during the French Turban case:

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

#27 Comment By D Singh On 18th July, 2007 @ 7:14 am

Who is AJ and why is what you are posting relevant to the elections tomorrow?

#28 Comment By sofia On 18th July, 2007 @ 10:00 am

has everyone else forgotten that this election is not just relevant to Southall

#29 Comment By Sunny On 18th July, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

Brilliant stuff.

#30 Comment By Deluded Sunny On 18th July, 2007 @ 2:11 pm

Dr mr nrtclt Snny shldn’t ths pst rd, Sthll by-lctn whr d stnd?

Hrdly sprsng whn cnsdrng y r th cptl T n tknsm. ts clr tht th lbrl lt t whch y spr nd wh hv llwd y wrt fw blnd rtcls, whch wr sprsngly pblshd.

n s fr s nlyss s cncrnd y lck sgnfcntly.

h wll s thy sy y cn tk th by t f sthll bt y cn’t tk th pd hmby t f th by.

Crtcsm f fth grps fr th sk f crtcsm nvr gts s fr..y f ll ppl shld knw tht.

frm n rdby t nthr

#31 Comment By Rumbold On 18th July, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

Deluded Sunny:

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.

#32 Comment By John On 18th July, 2007 @ 6:55 pm

RespectSouthall Youtube PPB

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

#33 Comment By Ram Mohammed Singh Azaad On 19th July, 2007 @ 1:25 pm

Southall Zindabaad !!

#34 Comment By sonia On 19th July, 2007 @ 1:32 pm

aren’t we at all interested in the sedgefield by-election?

#35 Comment By sonia On 19th July, 2007 @ 1:33 pm

Alan ‘Howling Laud’ Hope of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party sounds like a good choice to me

#36 Comment By Rumbold On 19th July, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

34. Sonia:

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.


Article printed from Pickled Politics: http://www.pickledpolitics.com

URL to article: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1252

URLs in this post:
[1] http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/07/17/ealing-southall-yet-more-embarrassment-for-litcameron/: http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2007/07/17/ealing-southall-yet-more-embarrassment-for-litcameron/
[2] www.southallpride.com.: http://www.southallpride.com.
[3] http://playingagainstthespin.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/11/: http://playingagainstthespin.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/11/
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZus7bVndoY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZus7bVndoY