This is going to be a long, detailed and possibly convoluted post so it has been split into two parts.

In November 2013 this blog published a story about a mosque being imposed on the people of Redbridge in East London. The story, linked here, looked at how this mosque was imposed on the unwilling residents of Newbury Park and speculated that there was possible collusion with the mosque promoters by councillors and council officers.

This particular case involved a former Salvation Army hut being transformed into a mosque. There appeared to be some level of concealment by the council of the details of those behind the mosque plans. The person named on the planning documents was only referred to as ‘Mr B’ and as I stated in a comment to the above-mentioned article, there is something highly suspicious about a council allowing pseudonyms on planning applications. It’s the sort of practice that brings to mind such thoughts as ‘what have either the council or Newbury Park Islamic Cultural Centre got to hide?

Because of this piece, I received on 12^th December 2013 a rather sarcastic communication from someone calling themselves ‘Bella’. This particular communication, as well as attacking me, also lauded the work of the mosque promoters and even went so far as to say they were bringing culture into Newbury Park which she referred to as ‘a cultural backwater’. I must admit that I got the distinct impression that here was a person who had, for reasons unknown to me at the time, crawled so far up the backside of the ‘mosque-e-teers’ that she was probably hitting the Imam’s tonsils.

I replied to this ‘Bella’ and my reply is available via the above link and is in the ‘addenda’ section at the bottom of this piece. I did tell her that I would decline her invitation to visit the Newbury Park mosque as I have had enough experience of Taqiyya (lying for Islam) and didn’t need any more. I also said that the ‘community clear up’ that the mosque-e-teers had done was probably for PR reasons.

I thought no more of this story, nor the comment from ‘Bella’, until June 14^th 2014 when I received a follow-up comment from an anonymous source.

This source alleged that the person calling herself ‘Bella’ was in fact Vanessa Cole, an ex-councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge, whose husband Robert Cole still sits as a Redbridge councillor for the Conservatives.

This is what ‘Anon’ had to say about ‘Bella’:

“The above comment from “Bella” looks like the expousing from an ex local Redbridge councillor who goes by the name of Vanessa Cole, she has served on Redbridge Council for very many years, as her husband Robert still does.

Vanessa bless her, tried to garner the whipped mosque vote at every opportunity, however, what she failed to realise, was that she was simply being used..

The Newbury Park site was granted planning permission, before the Jacques Hall “problem”, and when planning permission was granted in Newbury Park, Cllrs in Newbury Park knowing what a mosque on their doorstep would do to their chances of being re-elected, quickly, looked elswhere, for a property for an Islamic Group to occupy, they suggested, and secured Jacques Hall.

Both Robert Cole, and Vanessa Cole are good friends of Dr Hameed, who you will recall, lied to residents, Councillors and officers to secure the lease on Jacques Hall, and has breached, and continues to breach the current planning permission granted.

Dr Hameed and Co, then turned against the Conservative Party, and invited into Jacques Hall his new Labour Party Friends during the recent 2014 local elections.

The electorate duly delivered, by voting Labour in both Aldborough Ward (where the Newbury Park Mosque is located) and Hainault, (where Jacques Hall is located).

The moral of the story, no matter how you try to appease Islamists, they will switch sides in an instant to further their cause, as Vanessa Cole found out….”

To recap, it seems that Vanessa Cole had been attempting to suck up to the Islamic community in Newbury Park, both in the hope that she or her party could garner Islamic votes and probably because she is a foolish multiculturalist who cannot see the problems with the ideology of Islam. I must admit that having dealt with Dr Hameed and encountered people whom Dr Hameed has tried to threaten with legal action, I would be extremely suspicious of those who chose to hang round with him. Sometimes it really is a case of ‘by their friends you shall know them’.

I would like to add at this point that if my source is incorrect and ‘Bella’ is not Ms Cole, then I will be more than willing to publish Ms Cole’s denial that she is ‘Bella’, or other evidence to the contrary.

The ‘anon’ commentator seems to imply that councillors were quite happy to go along with the plans for a Newbury Park mosque. It seems they may have got cold feet when they realised that not everyone in the area was happy with having a ‘jihad and treason advocacy centre’ ie a mosque, on their doorstep. Realising that not even the whipped mosque vote would overcome the number of objections, they then collaborated with the obnoxious and sometimes threatening Dr Sohail Hameed, and dumped the Islamic group on Jacques Hall in another ward. Dr Hameed and his crew of mosque-e-teers were given the use of Jacques Hall on the understanding that it was not to be used as a full time place of worship and that the hall was to be managed for the benefit of all the residents around Jacques Hall. Sadly Hameed’s group lied outrageously about the hall being available to other groups and imposed ‘shariah conditions’ such as alcohol and bingo bans and have imposed gender segregation on the building’s entrances.

The Labour party in Redbridge have so obviously decided that they can be bigger Islam-fellators than the Conservatives and appealed in a Labour-only hustings meeting to the Muslims who have effectively stolen Jacques Hall from the local community. This meeting in Jacques Hall had the required effect and the whipped mosque vote returned Labour councillors for the ward that encompasses Jacques Hall. That there has been collusion between Labour and the obnoxious Dr Hameed (who uses NHS computer property to promote Islam and attack political opponents) is obvious from this comment that Hameed sent to this blog, it read:

“I HAVE DEFEATED DAVID POOLE AND HIS PARTY. I HAVE BEEN CAMPAIGNING AGAINST HIM FOR LAST FEW MONTHS.
DEMOCRACY IS THE BEST REVENGE. “

Here for the sake of completeness is my reply via this blog to Dr Hameed’s gloating comment about Labour ousting the Conservatives in the ward that contains the disputed Jacques Hall.

“Is this a case of you Dr Hameed referring to the fact that Labour have taken control Redbridge, it certainly looks like that. Thank you Dr Hameed for letting us all know that you think that Labour is ‘Islam friendly’and will be more so now that they control Redbridge, however I think many of us had worked that out already. We know the Labour party no longer represents the main body of the British working classes. I was interested to see you use the word ‘democracy’. Do you mean democracy in the classic one man one vote post 19th century Reform Act democracy, or do you mean democracy in a Tower Hamlets style?

Dr Hameed, I would advise you that in future if you wish to rant at me then please turn off the Caps Lock. It is harder to read and makes you look a bit petulant and not the sort of doctor I would wish to consult, whether for medical or theological reasons.

I do not for one minute believe that the change of administration in Redbridge will deter those who are criticising the activities at the community centre that was never intended to be a place of worship. “

I must admit, the thought that we the taxpayer are supporting an NHS Doctor who can’t get his head around the idea of upper and lower case letters fills me both with fear and a hope that this person is never doing any doctoring to me and mine. It’s like taking your car to a car mechanic and finding out that they only tool they use is a 14lb lump hammer.

It seems that not only are the new custodians of Jacques Hall, the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association, playing fast and loose with the stated conditions of their residence at the hall and attempting to exclude from the premises local Non-Muslims, but they may also be breaking charity law. Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association is a registered charity and it is a firm condition of charitable status that charities never involve themselves in party political activities. It is quite plain to see that organising a Labour only hustings in the stolen Jacques Hall and having people associated with Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association encourage Muslims to ‘vote Labour as they are the only non-racist party’, is a party political act.

Sadly, because of the quite troubling political and especially Islamic shenanigans going on in Redbridge, many of my correspondents will only speak anonymously out of fear that they may be targeted in some way. One of these ‘anons’ correspondents, I’ll call them ‘Anon2’ has also noticed the blatant disregard of the Charities Act by the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association and said:

“It was a hustings JUST for Labour, how free, impartial and very fair…

The Hainault & Chigwell Muslim Association are registered as a charity. Registered Charity Number 1135397, as such, they are registered and governed by the Charity Commission.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/

The Charity Commission states……”Charities are often the most appropriate organisations to speak out and campaign on behalf of their users. From lobbying politicians to running online petitions, you can engage in a range of activities to support your charity’s aims. But charities must never be politically biased or support a politician.”

I think the key word in the above paragraph is NEVER…

A charity that is biased, and supported a politician would have broken charity law.

It would only take a complaint…..

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/how-to-complain/”

I agree with this comment, if we do not complain, and complain effectively, when Islamists do not play by the rules, then no action will be taken against them, and then next time the Islamists take the piss, it will be on something mores serious, than breaching charity law.

Redbridge appears to be the subject of an concerted attempt at Islamification, allegedly aided and abetted by elected Councillors and maybe some staff in the planning department. Another anon correspondent ‘Anon3’ has said told me that there is a considerable amount of overt Islamification going on in Redbridge and locals are worried that by 2024 Hainault which is currently 86% British non-Muslim will resemble Karachi. My view is it could be far worse than that, it could end up looking like Tower Hamlets and have similar politics.

Anon 3 said:

“What may be of interest is in 2003 when Vanessa Cole was a cabinet member, she visited the Gardens of Peace in Elmbridge Rd, and proclaimed how great it was, with the owners claiming it would solve the muslim burial problem in the borough, in 2006 Hainault elected it’s first and only BNP Councillor, due to the council ignoring local resident opposition to the horse pasture, being turned into a burial ground, as the residue from the bodies would enter the water table, and eventually run into the stream that passes through the middle of the site, continue into Fairlop Waters lakes and contaminate the water supply, such concerns were ignored.

Ten years later, the owners of the Gardens of Peace, after importing bodies from all over the UK, purely on a commercial basis,  much to the detriment of local Redbridge Muslim residents, the cemetary is now over 75% full.

No matter, the operators of the Elmbridge Road Gardens of Peace, asked the council to provide some space..the council refused, but said they would assist in finding alternative provision, a story appeared in the local press, it was available online, but mysteriously dissapeared within weeks )”

Here is a scan of the press cutting about the Muslim cemetery ‘filling up’

My ‘Anon3’ source added that there seems to be a whole lot of rather strange planning applications circulating round, including one for a Taxi Office that always seems to be closed, which makes me wonder whether this not in fact a taxi office at all, but a stealth or unauthorised mosque.

Anon3 said:

“Then we have the planning applications for a “Taxi Office” (which is always closed) at Hainault Golf Course right next to the newly approved Muslim Cemetary at 1 Five Oaks Lane, (picture of current lettings office attached), planning application 3207/13,

http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/Planning

There is also a very large building, (Planning Application 2870/10) with two glass roof pointed towers currently being errected in Forest Road, just arount the corner from the Gardens of Peace in Elmbridge Rd, and the newly approved cemetary at 1 Five Oaks Lane, will it be a Mosque? (Residents are suspecting it will be one) it is advertised as a “banquetting suite” at the moment, opening in July 2014…

Locals are concerned, that there is a program to change the current makeup of Hainault, some 86% white british, to make it more “ethinically diverse”, and at the current rate of Cemataries, “Community Centres”, “Banquetting Suites”,and the proposed “Taxi Office”, (Mulberry Way anyone?)  and the three newly elected Hainault Ward Labour Counciilors, locals fear this process will be put in place sooner rather than later…. “

Here is a picture of the lettings office for which planning permission is being sought for a change of use into a ‘taxi office’.

For those who are coming into this story part way through, the reference to ‘Mulberry Way’ relates to plans by a group called the Qurani Murkuz Trust to build a mosque in Mullberry Way, South Woodford in the borough of Redbridge. See this story and this story for more details.

The Qurani Murkuz Trust are not giving up on their attempts to impose a mosque on Mullberry Way and have submitted another application with the building only slightly different from the previous design.

See this local newspaper report on the subject.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11132562.Controversial_mosque_plan_re_submitted/

Worthy of note is this comment on the different plans that have been submitted for the same site.

“A correspondent to the local Guardian newspaper called Villagecranberry said:

“I note there is no minaret shown in the drawing, no doubt omitted to ensure this did not panic the locals. Should this building be approved, the application to add this will ensue. Slowly, slowly catch the monkey is the general approach.

This building has had a very interestng history of applications, there was an application for a minicab office and thena chicken shop and now a new mosque.

Parking will obviously be horrendous and it is terrible round this location already. They will cite that most users will attend on foot or public transport which of course will be far from the truth.”

It should be noted that it also appears that the local Guardian has decided to hit the ‘appeasement’ button and has closed all public comments on the subject of the very much unwanted mosque in Mullberry Way.

These are not the only Islam-related planning problems that are cropping up in Redbridge and a complex network of ‘Trusts’, Mosque committees, Islamic schools and ‘charities’ appear to be making a real and worrying effort to impose Islam on areas of Redbridge that really do not want it or need it. What is worse is the ordinary non-Muslim resident of Redbridge is not only having to contend with several bunches of slippery taqiyya artists with what look like ‘front applications’ to hide the intended use of buildings, but also a local Labour party who have sold their collective souls to Islamic interests.

This is the end of part one. There will be more detail on these and other problems, especially planning-related problems in part two, which should appear here on or about Tuesday 24^th June.

Links

Another mosque imposed on the people of Redbridge could there be council collusion involved?

https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/11/27/another-mosque-imposed-on-the-people-of-redbridge-could-there-be-council-collusion-involved/#comment-152532

Whipped Mosque vote returns Islam friendly Labour councillors.

https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2014/06/10/redbridge-labour-gain-from-the-whipped-mosque-vote-and-islamist-doctor-boasts/

Mosque-e-teers attempt to place monstrous Islamic carbuncle in South Woodford

https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/11/17/from-elsewhere-another-group-of-mosque-a-teers-taking-the-mickey-out-of-both-planners-and-peoples-goodwill/

Planning Committee narrowly turn down plans for mosque in Mullberry Way.

https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/12/15/news-from-south-woodford-mosque-busted-for-the-moment/

Controversial mosque plans resubmmitted.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11132562.Controversial_mosque_plan_re_submitted/

Addenda:

This is the comment from ‘Bella’ or Vanessa Cole as she is alleged to be.

“Bella on December 12, 2013 at 7:27 pm said: Edit

Dear Fahrenheit 211,

Firstly, thank you for writing what has been an intriguing read. Somewhat wordy and convoluted, your article still raises some interesting questions.

We, as the British public need honest and dependable journalism to report the facts and details so that we are not misguided and misinformed by the less reputable morals of the authority. There is no doubt that corruption drips down to the very seat Mr. Cameron occupies and perhaps, as you state, it derives from a grassroots level; our own councils.

What intrigues me is that your allegations are rather serious and one hopes that you are not the ‘tell mama’ type and simply write articles on your blog to assuage you own annoyance. Who you are directing your angst towards is very unclear; you spend half the article pointing the finger at Redbridge Council, whilst the other half seems to border on islamaphobic-esqe slurs that are wholly unjustified and almost slanderous in tone. Being a local resident, I have not experienced any such negativities that you claim my neighbours face. Putting speech marks around a sentence, Mr Fahrenheit 211, does not make it fact. I smell shoddy journalism.

See, the problem with reading between the lines is that it is one man’s interpretation of what he wants to see. And often, what one wants to see can itself become corrupted by preconceived notions. I myself have on a few occasions visited the mosque and have not seen anything untoward or worrying. I feel I can say that perhaps you should visit the temporary building and speak to a few members that attend; this may allay some of your fears and prejudices. In fact, I extend an invitation to you. Perhaps there is something to be learnt.

You managed the first part of the article well, holding in your prejudice and disdain, providing almost a balanced argument that I could have been swayed by, but I’m afraid your intolerance got the better of you and I lost a little respect when you starting talking about ‘taking a big crap’. The sheer crass tone, the almost expletive, drives this article to a murky area where it just sounds like a balding middle aged man having a rant.

You’ve endeavored well a few things here; an attempt has been made to smear Redbridge council, a sympathy vote has gone out to the local residents, but more subtly you’ve tried to instill fear in locals by questioning the morality, genuinity and intentions of a bunch of people that are attempting to actually bring a little community to this backwater, forgotten part of London. I in my time have witnessed two neighborhood cleanups spearheaded by the mosque committee and in my years in Newbury Park, have not witnessed one by anyone else so far. The council was present during the most recent cleanup but then, this was probably when you think the brown paper envelope exchange happened. The world is as dark and corrupted a place as you make it Mr Fahrenheit 211, those that wish to, see collusion and corruption because in their hearts they thrive off the drama of it, so much so that it corrupts them and blinds them as to what is really happening.

Perhaps you think this response too forward and maybe you will think it deserves no place on your blog, and after all we live, do we not, in a democracy with freedom of both voice and action, but I do hope you read it at least. For clarity if nothing else.

I missed you Pakistani immigrants reference. I was not sure what that had to do with anything, but I’m sure, like all the others, they boil your piss too. Well done. Carry on.”

Here is my reply to ‘Bella’/Vanessa Cole.

“Dear Bella,

I have answered your comment below. My response is in italics.

Dear Fahrenheit 211,
Firstly, thank you for writing what has been an intriguing read. Somewhat wordy and convoluted, your article still raises some interesting questions.

Thank you, criticisms of style or content are far preferable to the sort of threats to life, limb and freedom that me and those like me normally get from members and supporters of the ‘Religion of Peace’.

We, as the British public need honest and dependable journalism to report the facts and details so that we are not misguided and misinformed by the less reputable morals of the authority. There is no doubt that corruption drips down to the very seat Mr. Cameron occupies and perhaps, as you state, it derives from a grassroots level; our own councils.

There is corruption at all levels of administration. Some of that corruption is financial as detailed in places like Prvate Eye’s Rotten Boroughs page and some corruption is more subtle and political.

What intrigues me is that your allegations are rather serious and one hopes that you are not the ‘tell mama’ type and simply write articles on your blog to assuage you own annoyance.

Unlike Tell Mama, unless I have to keep a source confidential I always link to sources or declare sources. There is enough ‘bad stuff’ out there about Islamic ideology, often from the writings of Islam itself, to not need to lie about how bad it is. I will readily admit however, that I deplore the unwarranted influence that the ideology of Islam has in various fields. Islam is oppressive, violent and, if judged by the sort of societies that it creates, is as much of an ideology of concern as are Communism and Fascism.

Who you are directing your angst towards is very unclear; you spend half the article pointing the finger at Redbridge Council, whilst the other half seems to border on islamaphobic-esqe slurs that are wholly unjustified and almost slanderous in tone. Being a local resident, I have not experienced any such negativities that you claim my neighbours face. Putting speech marks around a sentence, Mr Fahrenheit 211, does not make it fact. I smell shoddy journalism.

I’m directing my anger at both Redbridge Council because they have seemingly allowed the application for this project to progress without disclosing the full name of those involved in the project, nor notified sufficiently local residents about the project. The Islamic ideology seems to be an object lesson on how to lose friends and alienate people, and not just in Redbridge.

As for your comment about being ‘islamophobic-esque’, let me say that if there is such a thing as ‘Islamophobia’ (which I doubt) then it derives not from the sort of racist rubbish trotted out by the BNP/NF et al, but from a genuine concern that this ideology is a threat to us as a nation. Personally I prefer the term ‘Islamo-nausea, as many people are sick to the back teeth of the ideology of Islam and the problems it brings (see any Northern town or city for details). You may claim to be a local resident of the area where this new mosque is being imposed, but there are other, more sceptical views of it than yours.

I’m sure you will understand that ethics prevent me disclosing the details of those who’ve supplied negative quotes about this mosque. I have a moral duty to protect my sources, and it is one of these sources that supplied the quote.

See, the problem with reading between the lines is that it is one man’s interpretation of what he wants to see. And often, what one wants to see can itself become corrupted by preconceived notions. I myself have on a few occasions visited the mosque and have not seen anything untoward or worrying. I feel I can say that perhaps you should visit the temporary building and speak to a few members that attend; this may allay some of your fears and prejudices. In fact, I extend an invitation to you. Perhaps there is something to be learnt.

I completely understand about the problem of bias, and I myself am biased, but biased towards the idea of a society where aggressive religion plays no part, a society where people can believe what they want as long as they don’t frighten the horses. Unfortunately, even a very brief perusal of news outlets worldwide will show almost anybody that ideology of Islam is a problem. Good for you for not seeing ‘anything untoward’ about this mosque site, it is your right to do so and your right to hold that opinion, but that doesn’t give you the right to disregard those who do have concerns. I would be quite willing to visit this mosque and talk to people, if I thought a) it would do any good ,and b) if I was going to be told the complete truth by those who are promoting this Mosque in Newbury Park. I have experienced directly the Islamic practice of ‘lying to promote Islam’ from a variety of Islamic organisations, on one occasion when one particular high profile organisation lied through their teeth and in the face of evidence to the contrary. They were trying to quieten down justifiable anger over their promotion of Islamic scholars who were recorded preaching sedition against the UK and murderous hatred against members of other religions. Excuse me for being wary of Islamic groups, but my experience of them has not been good.

You managed the first part of the article well, holding in your prejudice and disdain, providing almost a balanced argument that I could have been swayed by, but I’m afraid your intolerance got the better of you and I lost a little respect when you starting talking about ‘taking a big crap’. The sheer crass tone, the almost expletive, drives this article to a murky area where it just sounds like a balding middle aged man having a rant.

Firstly, I’ve plenty of hair, and sometimes a good rant is good for the soul. Yes it could be said that the word ‘crap’ was a strong one, but in this case deserved. It seems that the local authority and the Islamic group has indeed crapped quite heavily on the people of this area. Firstly by not giving adequate notification of this project to those directly affected by it and secondly by hiding the identity of some of those who were involved in preparing the planning application. These two things added together stink of possible political collusion between the local authority and Islamic groups, and really look like an attempt to keep the locals in the dark and reduce the possibility of organised protest against the project. If you look to the situation in neighbouring boroughs such as Newham and Waltham Forest you will get the general idea of what goes on regarding closeness between Islamic organisations and the political and administrative parts of local government.

You’ve endeavored well a few things here; an attempt has been made to smear Redbridge council, a sympathy vote has gone out to the local residents, but more subtly you’ve tried to instill fear in locals by questioning the morality, genuinity and intentions of a bunch of people that are attempting to actually bring a little community to this backwater, forgotten part of London. I in my time have witnessed two neighborhood cleanups spearheaded by the mosque committee and in my years in Newbury Park, have not witnessed one by anyone else so far. The council was present during the most recent cleanup but then, this was probably when you think the brown paper envelope exchange happened. The world is as dark and corrupted a place as you make it Mr Fahrenheit 211, those that wish to, see collusion and corruption because in their hearts they thrive off the drama of it, so much so that it corrupts them and blinds them as to what is really happening.

I will try to deal with your comments in the paragraph above as separate items.

On your allegation that I attempted to smear Redbridge council, let me say that it is their own actions that are giving rise to suspicion about what is going on.
You said that I have tried to instil fear of the organisation behind this mosque. I deny this as people were frightened by Islam before I wrote this. In fact people have been frightened of the murderous and oppressive ideology of Islam for 1,400 years or so.
I have a perfect right to question the morals, ideology and motives of the mosque promoters. You say that they are trying to bring “ little community to this backwater, forgotten part of London.” How arrogant a comment is that? Maybe the local people are quite happy with the community as it exists, and do not want someone to come along and say that their community is rubbish and here’s a new one.
I dismiss the claim about the ‘neighbourhood clean-ups’ on the grounds that this is purely a PR exercise carried out by the mosque organisation. I know that this sounds cynical but I’ve worked for third sector organisations and done very similar things myself to raise the profile of the organisation, to give the appearance of community involvement and therefore tick the right box on a council form, or to enhance the prospects of an organisation at funding grant renewal time.
Corruption does not always have to be of a brown envelope variety. It can be councillors wishing to favour groups who may assist them in retaining power or familial, religious and tribal corruption acting on council officers and members. If there isn’t collusion here between Islamic interests and those who should be more independently minded, then there certainly appears to be incompetence.

Perhaps you think this response too forward and maybe you will think it deserves no place on your blog, and after all we live, do we not, in a democracy with freedom of both voice and action, but I do hope you read it at least. For clarity if nothing else.
I missed you Pakistani immigrants reference. I was not sure what that had to do with anything, but I’m sure, like all the others, they boil your piss too. Well done. Carry on.

Your response is not too forward and I’ll certainly publish it. On one thing I agree with you, that is we currently live in a democracy with freedom of voice and non-violent action. It is because I respect and honour democracy and freedom that I speak up against Islam, for it can be see that wherever the ideologues of Islam control or influence policy, or community then freedom of speech dies and democracy is corrupted. The Pakistani immigrants reference is self-explanatory and situations where ‘whipped mosque votes’ or mass fraudulent postal votes are sadly a reality. “