A local wag in the London constituency of Ealing Southall has made an eloquent comment on his or her member of Parliament in the form of a tongue-in-cheek poster on the MP’s under-used constituency office.
Virendra Sharma suffered a heavy defeat in a no-confidence motion in March after members complained about his absenteeism – he had not appeared at any of their meetings for at least twenty-two months and had disappointed community groups with his lack of response or support. When the SKWAWKBOX tried to reach his office for comment at the time, nobody picked up the phone.
In 2017, local residents staged a demonstration calling on the Labour Party to replace him as the area’s candidate, but the snap general election kept him in place.
But this week, Sharma was also ‘triggered‘, as a majority of branches in the local party (CLP) voted for the opportunity to select a different candidate.
And today, it has emerged that someone – presumably a dissatisfied local – has left his or her mark on Sharma’s locked-up office, humorously pointing to Sharma’s lack of input in the local area in a poster reported by a local Facebook page:
The poster’s captions read:
Missing
#SharmaListenToYourConstituents
Last seen getting his picture taken at St Joseph’s Church.
If found, please return to Berkley group for more photo opportunities.
Local Labour members say it has caused much wry amusement.
When challenged previously on his attendance record, Sharma claimed he had so many committees and other responsibilities in Parliament – eleven miles away – that he was unable to spend time in the constituency.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Some places I’ve worked I’ve had to account for all my time by the hour and minute so that the right people could be billed.
I haven’t been unemployed for a long time but remember having to provide evidence of my jobseeking activities.
Is there really so little oversight of MP’s that they can slack off like at least one of Sharma’s constituents is convinced he does?
We might want to have a look at insisting they justify their positions with evidence of some basic level of activity.
Agreed.
A typical LAZY B*****D then..
The following is a further assessment of the Panorama program aired in July:
As I’m sure many people who subscribe to skwawkbox are aware, of the ten people who participated in the Panorama program and were presented as ordinary Jewish Labour Party members, seven of them were/are executive committee members of the Jewish Labour Movement, and one of the other three was their former Campaigns Officer. Just about all of them made claims that they had been subjected to anti-semitic abuse at ‘meetings’, and although they could only possibly be referring to meetings of their local CLP, they ALL avoided saying as much AND naming the CLP as such.
Ella Rose, for example – who appeared at the outset claiming that someone came up to her and screamed abuse in her face whilst she was handing out leaflets at a LP conference – finished by saying that she could never tell a friend to go to a LP meeting, and that she could never do that to someone she cares about. Unlike the other participants in the program – ie the former staff and the so-called experts – John Ware was conveniently absent from their segments – ie the ten ‘ordinary Jewish LP members’ – whereas had he been present, I’m sure most viewers would have expected him to ask her what her experiences have been at meetings, or thought it odd that he didn’t if he hadn’t. BUT, what WE were viewing was the finished product, and it is inconceivable that when Ella Rose and the other ‘ordinary Jewish Labour Party members’ were initially interviewed by John Ware/ the producers, they wouldn’t have been interviewed at length and asked for details. I mean can you imagine Ella Rose saying to Ware and Co that she could never tell a friend to go to a Labour Party meeting etc, and not one of them asking why that is AND what her experience has been OR which CLP she is referring to. In the REAL world THAT would be inconceivable!
And needless to say, any investigation (into A/S in the LP) worthy of the name AND any journalist worthy of the name, would have contacted each of the CLPs who had allegations made against them to ask them for a response to said allegations AND they would have been included in the program – ie the finished product. But Ware and Co DIDN’T, and THAT tells you all you need to know about the veracity of the claims AND the program itself!
My initial assessment is here:
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/07/30/quarter-of-complaints-to-bbc-over-full-2-week-period-were-about-panorama-hatchet-job/#comment-115140
NB The program is available to watch for another eight months on Iplayer (at the time of writing).
And please check out the following JVL investigation and share far and wide:
Exclusive: The Riverside scandal
Louise Ellman and the war on Riverside Labour Party
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/louise-ellman-and-the-war-on-riverside-labour-party-jvl-exclusive/
A very useful reference re. an alternative setting out of the facts.
Of course, it will never be quoited in the MSM.
Allan, I expect we’d all agree that as long as the MSM is in Tory hands the truth, however obvious and however telling, is pissing into a hurricane.
So how do we address that?
The Supreme Court’s recent decision against HMG has again proved the fair-mindedness of the judiciary and its insistence on its independence, despite it being the epitome of the establishment.
Among the establishment the courts alone constantly review, update and challenge their own prior opinions, and they do it in public.
The reason our accusers threaten but never actually get as far as court is obvious – any court examining their allegations of ‘institutional Labour antisemitism’ would find them false and vexatious, perhaps criminally so.
Sadly judges don’t investigate in our much-vaunted but hopelessly outdated adversarial system so they’re powerless until a case is put before them.
I don’t know whether the fact that ‘Labour insiders’ fed the MSM much of the ‘Labour antisemitism’ nonsense they’ve published is any kind of defence in law – I hope not.
Al Jazeera will almost certainly have lots of footage that never made it to the final cut of “The Lobby.”
Maybe we should ask that that evidence be reviewed from a legal rather than journalistic perspective?
Who knows, there may be gems.
‘Corroboration by accomplice’ seems to be less concerning to PanoDrama editors than to the courts but again I don’t know the legal implications in terms of defence against libel claims.
If footage of ‘rehearsals’ and ‘outtakes’ has been erased the programme makers would need to be certain that ALL their employees would swear under oath that it was normal practice since before the programme in question.
If you were a secret Corbyn supporter editing that piece of shit you’d save copies – and if you were suddenly told to erase all the outtakes from all other programmes you’d smell a rat.
Bosses can never know for certain that employees aren’t just keeping quiet about Labour sympathies, because we’re not stupid – we know perfectly well that bosses who tell us they aren’t Tories – never fucking shut up about it.
‘Allan, I expect we’d all agree that as long as the MSM is in Tory hands the truth, however obvious and however telling, is pissing into a hurricane.’
The point being of course that the Establishment/Tory propaganda machine who disseminate all the lies and falsehoods are hardly going to give space to anyone or anything that EXPOSES the lies and falsehoods, as the JVL investigation makes quite clear, apart from anything else. And it goes without saying that JVL were well aware when doing their investigation that the MSM would obviously completely ignore it, just as with the aljazeera under-cover investigation The Lobby. But then again, hopefully in each case – as with others trying to get the truth out there AND expose the lies and falsehoods – an ever-growing number of people are being enlightened, AND, those of us who have known for a long time that the whole thing is a smear campaign concocted and designed to demonise and, as such, undermine JC and the left, learn some specifics as a consequence of their efforts and their work. But for the jewish dissident’s efforts, for example, we may never have learnt that seven of the ten people who participated in the Panorama program posing as ordinary Jewish LP members were in fact executives of the JLM, and one of the other three their former Campaigns Officer, which needless to say, the MSM kept schtum about, and for obvious reasons.
And re the Panorama program, if YOU were involved in producing the program and, as you would have done, discussed with each of the ‘ordinary Jewish LP members’ what they had each experienced when initially meeting them, if one of them – as Izzy Lenga did – told you that she was subjected to anti-semitic abuse at meetings every day, you would of course have asked her how that could possibly be given that CLPs only tend to have meetings once a month AND would, as such, have immediately concluded it was complete fabrication, and yet we’re supposed to believe that John Ware and Co supposedly didn’t have any suspicions that it must be false AND included her saying it – claiming it – in the finished product.
And you WOULD of course have asked her why she continued to attend meetings if she kept being subjected to anti-semitic abuse and people engaging in Holocaust denial!
AND we’re supposed to believe that the MSM didn’t question any of these glaring ‘anomalies’ and, as such, believed the claims were legitimate.
Yeah, sure they did!
Some interesting insights and comments about the media.
Relevant, if at a tangent, is the role of satire.
How many of us have felt that real satire is dead over recent years? It tends to act within a nice cosy framework of ‘nudge-nudge, wink,wink’ that rarely – if ever – disturbs the taken-for-granted framework.
Think HIGNFY or ‘The News Quiz’. They rarely disturb the dust – particularly since the demise of Jeremy Hardy.
Then there’s ‘Private Eye’ – deeply mired in the public school/rag mag tradition. It’s done some good digging over financial scandals etc. – but it, like its po-faced partners in the MSM runs a mile rather than dig into something as risky as the antisemitism scam.
Interesting article in the Groan (yes – it does sometimes come up with the goods) on the subject. It’s worth a read :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/18/british-politics-uk-chronic-disease-satire-hignfy
A quote from Chris Morris :
“Satire placates the court.You do a nice dissection of the way things are in the orthodox elite and the orthodox elite slaps you on the back and says, ‘Jolly good. Can we have some more?’”
Why relevant? Well – when did you last hear the piss taken out of the Israel Lobby? (OK Alexei – I’ll let you off)
Another brilliant and incisive piece from Jonathan Cook:
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region’s finest public health services.
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-10-18/us-democrats-cultivated-the-barbarism-of-isis/
Please read and share:
Amendment to the Queen’s speech would protect the NHS from privatisation
The Queen’s Speech was full of misleading statements and empty promises on the NHS. But Jonathan Ashworth’s amendment is a bold move to counter it and is welcomed by Keep Our NHS Public.
https://keepournhspublic.com/amendment-to-queens-speech/
Allan, thanks for the links to the NHS amendment and the article by the consistently excellent Jonathon Cook.