» Union leader Derek Simpson endorses @EdMilibandMP in this week's @NewStatesman. I'd like to see a proper debate first. 1 week ago

» RT @monkeyhotel: Met 3 people who vote tory today - they all listen to Phil Collins in a totally non-ironic way. Draw your own conclusions 1 week ago

» Hilarious! RT @Jessica_Asato: This must be the most awesome GOTV I have seen yet. http://bit.ly/bpJgc3 1 week ago

» Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Burma here I come! all by train and buses! Glorious. 1 week ago

» Time to get ready to catch my flight. All - I'm out until the end of March in S.E. Asia. Away from the madness! Don't miss me too much. 1 week ago

More updates...

  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • Highlighting HBV
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Route 79
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown

  • Technorati: graph / links

    Southall by-election: pictures and video

    by Sunny on 16th July, 2007 at 11:07 PM    

    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.

            Post to del.icio.us

    Filed in: Party politics, Race politics

    36 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs

    1. Sunny — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Agog — on 17th July, 2007 at 10:26 AM  

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

    3. Praguetory — on 17th July, 2007 at 10:37 AM  

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

    4. sofia — on 17th July, 2007 at 11:50 AM  

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

    5. R Singh — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. R Singh — on 17th July, 2007 at 11:53 AM  

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

    7. Jagdeep — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Leon — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. maz — on 17th July, 2007 at 1:04 PM  

      Yet More Embarrassment for Lit/Cameron


    10. sofia — on 17th July, 2007 at 1:55 PM  

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

    11. P Johnson — on 17th July, 2007 at 2:11 PM  

      Check out Dr Rai’s website. http://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. Sunny — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. P Johnson — on 17th July, 2007 at 3:24 PM  

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

    14. P Johnson — on 17th July, 2007 at 3:25 PM  

      whats Khalistan got to do with Southall Ealing?

    15. Leon — on 17th July, 2007 at 3:33 PM  

      whats Khalistan got to do with Southall Ealing?

      A question not asked for the first time I believe…

    16. Sunny — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Kay — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Kay — on 17th July, 2007 at 7:06 PM  

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


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

    19. Asma Shariff — on 17th July, 2007 at 9:41 PM  


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


    20. Rumbold — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Jagdeep — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Rumbold — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. Jagdeep — on 17th July, 2007 at 10:02 PM  

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

    24. Rumbold — on 17th July, 2007 at 10:05 PM  

      It could provide us with hours of entertainment.

    25. AJ — on 17th July, 2007 at 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. AJ — on 18th July, 2007 at 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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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. D Singh — on 18th July, 2007 at 7:14 AM  

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

    28. sofia — on 18th July, 2007 at 10:00 AM  

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

    29. Sunny — on 18th July, 2007 at 12:22 PM  

      Brilliant stuff.

    30. Deluded Sunny — on 18th July, 2007 at 2:11 PM  

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

      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

    31. Rumbold — on 18th July, 2007 at 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. John — on 18th July, 2007 at 6:55 PM  

      RespectSouthall Youtube PPB


    33. Ram Mohammed Singh Azaad — on 19th July, 2007 at 1:25 PM  

      Southall Zindabaad !!

    34. sonia — on 19th July, 2007 at 1:32 PM  

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

    35. sonia — on 19th July, 2007 at 1:33 PM  

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

    36. Rumbold — on 19th July, 2007 at 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.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.