This blog has covered in some detail the sorry story of the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association and their theft of a community building and its conversion into a mosque. This has removed forever from the people of Hainault a building that could have been a wonderful community resource for all.
A few years ago the working man’s club that was previously operating from Jacques Hall closed down and local people campaigned for it to be turned into a genuine community resource, something that every group could use. The council in their seemingly never-ending efforts to pander to Muslims disagreed, and decided that a group headed up by one Dr Sohail Hamed should become custodians of the building. Dr Hameed is a dishonest associate and supporter of the extremist group behind the proposed Newham Megamosque, who has a habit of issuing various threats to people (once to me from an NHS computer terminal no less). The fact that the council handed over the building to this group of Muslims in the teeth of opposition by many locals was bad enough, but the behaviour of some councillors and the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association has made a bad situation far, far worse.
When the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association was gifted the building by the London Borough of Redbridge, there were lease conditions imposed on them that were supposed to to ensure the building was still available for general community use. There were restrictions on opening hours etc but the main one was that this place was not be turned into a place of worship.
As can be expected, the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association (HCMA) didn’t waste much time before they started to break their word, take the piss and start to turf out or put off, any non-Muslim organisation that did, or may have wanted to use the centre. The first thing they did, which rang alarm bells for local non-Muslims was have the centre’s alcohol licence removed, then they installed all the accoutrements of a mosque including the prayer arch, prayer mats and separate entrances for men and women. The HCMA promised that the building would be available for general community use but broke their word very quickly indeed. The Shariah conditions, including no pork products, that the HCMA imposed on the building conflicted with everything that local non-Muslims may have wished to do in the centre and with the centre. They banned alcohol from the centre and bullshitted like mad that this was only a ban on certain types of alcohol, they banned gambling which put paid to any chance of pensioners’ bingo happening there ever again and they made the place highly unwelcoming for anyone other than Muslims. The HCMA even removed the possibility that locals could have a Christmas Dinner there, as the festive season clashed with the birthday of Mohammed, the 7th century warlord whom Muslims claim is their ‘prophet’. In effect and now in reality, Dr Hameed and the HCMA have stolen a building from the local people, what is even worse than the piss-taking, the lies, and the deliberate exclusion of non-Muslims is the fact that with the help of local councillors a successful planning application was put in which now allows the HCMA to use the premises as a place of worship. The promise by the HCMA that they would be good neighbours and would run the centre for the benefit of all was nothing more than a lie.
Lies there were aplenty from Dr Hameed and the HCMA. Some of this blog’s many (sadly by necessity anonymous) local contacts in the area, provide ample proof that Hameed and the HCMA have outrageously lied to the local authority, to the press and to the people of Redbridge during both the initial period where HCMA were given stewardship of the building and over this most recent planning permission application.
Firstly there is the period when HCMA were stating publicly that they were going to run the centre as a benefit for the whole community. I don’t believe for one minute that HCMA or Dr Hameed ever intended for this to be the case and the long term plan was to seize the building, drive out the non-Muslims and turn the building into a mosque. This is the first and most important lie told by HCMA.
Now we come to other lies; this time direct lies said to have been told by Dr Sohail Hameed himself. In a planning document seen by a contact, but now mysteriously missing from the Redbridge council planning website, Dr Hamed told a basic untruth when he said that the building was being used by a Christian group and a franchise for a children’s activities organisation.
Hameed said that the Christian group was still meeting there at Jacques Hall, although in reality the Christians had not used the hall for ten months. To say that the Christian group were current hirers when they had not been there for nearly a year is, a lie, is it not?
Hameed is also alleged to have lied about the children’s activities group, Hartbeeps, using the centre. It appears that Hartbeeps had been using the centre but had given up using it as Hameed and his Muslim cronies had turned the place into somewhere that was not family or child friendly. Again Hameed appears to have lied by claiming that Hartbeeps were regular hirers, when it was the HCMA who had themselves chased Hartbeeps away by their behaviour and Shariah rules.
The new Muslim management of the centre went out of their way to drive Hartbeeps out of the centre by locking them out of the building even though they had hired it, and charging a hire fee that was beyond reasonable for such a group to pay. HCMA have quite obviously followed a policy of being open and reasonable on paper, but in reality being anything but open and reasonable. I contend that it is quite obvious that Hameed and the HCMA have deliberately driven out the non-Muslims so as to give themselves sole control of the building. The non-Muslims were really only there for show so that Hameed and the rest of the HCMA could gain the lease of the building and once in, use the non-Muslim groups to consolidate their hold on the building.
The way that the HCMA have treated Hartbeeps is appalling, to get a flavour of how appalling read this from another of my sources in the area who I will refer to henceforth as ‘AnonSource1’. They said they had spoken to the franchisee (whose name, for security reasons, I have redacted) for Hartbeeps and said:
“ NAME OF FRANCHISEE REDACTED explained that she had to move to “more family friendly premises” on her Facebook page, apparently the five week tenure, sometimes saw her locked out of the premises as the leaseholder failed to open the centre, the hourly rate of £50 an hour was very expensive for a start up franchisee, and it was clear after the planning application had been submitted, that the centre “rules” (Sharia) made it more and more difficult to operate, and Hartbeeps was no longer welcome, however, Hartbeeps using the hall for the very short period, ticked the relevant boxes for the planning application, and gave a nod to the council, that Jacques Hall is indeed “open to all”, as well as a nice photograph for the planning application….”
It’s plain to me, and probably to many others, that Hameed and co have used and exploited Hertbeeps in order to make the planning application look a lot less like the mosque that Jacques Hall has been turned into. Even online pictures of the building are now labelled ‘mosque’ or ‘Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association. The source above, AnonSource1, added:
“It is worth noting that Hartbeeps could not link pictures to Jacques Hall on Facebook, without the picture tag coming up as “Mosque”…not very family friendly indeed…
No surprise that after five weeks, (the time needed to secure the franchise) Hartbeeps left Jacques Hall and now operates out of (REDACTED new venue named) however, FRANCHISEE NAME has to pay and additional 10% of any income to the local Hartbeeps franchisee holder.
Dr Hameed and Co have misrepresented their organisation to the council, lied outrageously on their most recent planning application, with the council ignoring the 203 signature local resident petition sent to overview committee, and agreeing to increased hours over Ramadan…
When locals are treated like this, is it any wonder community frustrations “boil over”…
I agree, when local people are given no legal or political power or redress in situations like this, it is no wonder at all that frustrated and justifiably angry people start to take the law into their own hands. The people of Hainault and more specifically those in the immediate area of Jacques Hall have been faced with Muslims who will lie as easily as most of the rest of breathe, councillors who are indifferent or hostile to those discomforted by Islam and by some in the council who actively collude with Muslims to the detriment of the non-Muslims of the area. The local council has ignored people’s genuine concerns about the uses that Jacques Hall has been put and have steamrollered them, denied them justice and allowed HCMA to impose by stealth a very much unwanted mosque.
Where is the justice for the local people who have found themselves ignored, dismissed and extremely poorly treated by elected representatives, local government administrative staff and by HCMA? There appears to be a growing level of anger building up in the area aimed at both the lying Muslims who have stolen this centre and the politicians of all mainstream parties that have apparently assisted HCMA in their plans.
The whole saga of the Jacques Hall building is a classic example of how the planning system, local political parties and individual politicians has worked together to crap on the local non-Muslim residents of the area from a very great hight indeed. It would be helpful at this point to examine part of this story in some detail, as it tells a lot of what has been and might be going on.
This LINK (also reproduced below along with other relevant links) is a copy of the planning application for the HCMA to have extended opening hours for Ramadan. What is noticeable is that the HCMA is applying for extended opening hours for Ramadan. Now why would they do that? For what? For prayers? Despite there being a condition that the building is a community centre and not to be used as a place of worship, who are HCMA kidding, because it’s obvious that the building is indeed being used as a place of worship contrary to the lease conditions? In effect the HCMA have been granted a variation on the lease that said ‘not to be used as a place of worship’ because it doesn’t stretch the imagination to think that once granted permission to use the place for prayers at Ramadan, then as sure as eggs is eggs, an application to turn the building into a full mosque will most surely be put in, and granted.
Another thing that should be noted is the ‘whipped mosque vote’ at play here. Despite the objectors having well argued reasons such as traffic problems etc, the HCMA marshalled a ‘shadow army’ of Khan’s, Ali’s, Ahmed’s and of course ‘Mohammeds’ whom they claimed lived locally. Many of those named as putting in responses, presumably the favourable and positive responses to the plan for Ramadan, declared themselves to be Muslim. Suspiciously many of these positive responses or responses that are neither for nor against, were lodged with the council in bunches on the same date. It’s plain to see that not only have the HCMA ‘astroturfed’ this issue by pressing Muslims to put in positive responses, the council and individual councillors, have gone out of their way to favour the mosque no matter what the effect on non-Muslim locals. I can’t help think that there are political considerations here as Labour in the form of Wes Streeting, gained the Ilford North Parliamentary seat, with the help of the whipped mosque vote, dodgy postal votes and an expectation that Streeting, would appease Islam on demand. The Tories and Lib Dems may be starting to think that appeasing Islam is the way to go and this is looking very much like the case.
There are several councillors whose behaviour in this whole affair is questionable to say the least, and who may have acted in the way they are alleged to have done, because they felt they had to have to catch the Muslim vote, even if it means throwing the locals, who are fighting this mosque imposition very hard, under the bus.
A second source, known for the purposes of this piece as AnonSource2 has alleged that Councillors Prince (Tory), Bond (Lib Dem) and Patel (also a Lib Dem) had a hand in advising on how the lease of the building should be drawn up. What is worrying about this is the claim that Conservative councillors for the ward in which Jacques Hall resides, were not allowed to see the lease prior to it being granted to the HCMA. Something really smells bad about all this, it really does.
AnonSource2 elaborated on the situation and blamed Councillors Bond, Prince and Patel for the appalling situation that has resulted in the HCMA seizing the building, and getting away with it.
AnonSource2 said: (F211 Editor additions in brackets)
“(Cllr Patel).. no doubt advised both (Bond and Prince), on the times and dates (of Ramadan) to include in the lease drawn up by the council….which I understand all three local conservative Hainault councillors were not allowed to see.
Prince, Bond, & Patel…responsible for the current situation at Jacques Hall
Given the clauses for worship in the lease, despite assurances that Jacques Hall would remain as a community centre for all, The whole of the Hainault community appear to have been outrageously lied to, by the previous Leader of Redbridge Council Cllr Prince, (Current Conservative Candidate for the GLA Assembly) and the previous deputy coalition Leader Cllr Bond.
All three appear to have agreed to the lease for Jacques Hall being drawn up.
It would appear, practising Muslim Cllr Shoab Patel, advising Cllr Prince & Bond, to include the words “subject to planning permission being granted” stated on the lease, the exact times Islamic prayer would be required, and the extended hours needed for religious worship during Ramadan to be permitted by the lease, despite Jacques Hall having a “no worship” clause in the previous planning permission granted
It is apparent, these are the three politicians who will have to answer for their actions on Jacques Hall.
It would appear Taqiyya is not confined to the Muslim Community….
The councillors, planning staff and the HCMA have it seemed worked together to impose a mosque on Hainault and impose it where it is not wanted, and very much objected to. The council have completely disregarded the views of the existing non-Muslim residents, including a petition to them against the imposition of this mosque, signed by over two hundred people, which is a considerable number for a local petition.
The whole political class in Redbridge seems to have issued a collective ‘F^^k you’ to the non-Muslims of Hainault and they have done it in a most arrogant way. The way the HCMA have behaved is utterly disgusting. Actions such as the dishonesty, both by HCMA and Dr Sohail Hameed personally, the imposition of Shariah rules that put non-Muslims off using the building, the outrageous overcharging for hire along with locking hirers out of the building in order to make the non-Muslim groups go away, should have resulted in HCMA losing their lease and the lease returning to the council. Unfortunately that is not what has happened. The HCMA have been rewarded for their lies, for their mistreatment of hirers and for their exclusionary attitudes to non-Muslims. Can you imagine the fuss that would be made by politicians, and various diversity panjandrums not to mention the Press if a non-Muslim had behaved even a fraction of how badly HCMA have behaved? The non-Muslim would be hounded from pillar to post, would be called names and may even suffer other disabilities, such as losing their job. They, the badly behaved non-Muslim, would certainly not have been rewarded for being the sort of lying, discriminatory, mountebanks such as HCMA plainly are.
To conclude this piece. This is a most appalling example of an Islamic group blatantly lying to get their own way, in this case the Jacques Hall building; councillors who appear to have behaved in a very questionable manner towards the Islamic group, and a local non-Muslim community who has tried to fight this building theft and mosque imposition using every legal and political means at their disposal. The locals have documented the transformation of the community building into a mosque and the traffic problems that this mosque has caused, have lobbied councillors and collected hundreds of signatures to a petition to remove the HCMA and put the building back to proper use for the whole community. Despite doing all that, and having right on their side on the issue of the HCMA’s dishonesty and the disruption that the mosque has caused, the council has sided with the Muslims and not the non-Muslims.
This sort of behaviour by a council is dangerous, very dangerous indeed because as I’ve said before, it’s only just and proper that people have the right to use the democratic and planning systems to meaningfully object to those developments, such as this mosque, that are detrimental to their area. When you take away people’s right to object to mosques being imposed on their area, when evidence of local traffic disruption and of dishonesty by mosque planners is tossed aside by the council and where those who are supposed to represent us, choose instead to represent Islam, then you have a recipe for disaster. A people frustrated by a political, legal and administrative system that is bent in favour of one particular group, is liable to throw up not peacemakers but hotheads. Ignoring the views of those who object to Islam being imposed on their area does increase the risk of social disruption. Without a peaceful effective safety valve for people to say ‘no Islam here’ then we could end up with the sort of situation that we see in Germany where an arrogant government is dumping hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men of military age (never a good thing) on small towns and villages across Germany, and by doing so are encouraging German hotheads to firebomb any building they find that is being used as migrant accommodation or suspected of being converted into migrant accommodation. That is not a situation that I want to see happen in the UK but I worry that it is a situation that will come about if we get many more examples, as we have here, of a council blatantly favouring Islam over and above everything and indeed everyone, else.
For the sake of peace and for the sake of justice, Redbridge council should immediately remove control of Jacques Hall from the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association and put this building to genuine community use, rather than for the sole use, as it is now, for a bunch of dishonest Muslims with highly dubious connections, at least in the case of Dr Hameed.
Links
Planning document submitted to Redbridge Council
Click to access 5.%202998.15.pdf
Other stories about the Jacques Hall fiasco.
Ilford Recorder article showing mosque management, if the allegations are correct,clearly lying about the nature of the centre or their behaviour towards non-Muslim hirers of Jacques Hall.
Redbridge Council hand Jacques Hall over to Islamic group despite objections from locals and an alternative plan put forward by locals for the building to be used for general community use.
Other stories concerning Jacques Hall and the London Borough of Redbridge from this, the Fahrenheit211 website
On Dr Hameed himself
https://www.fahrenheit211.net/2013/12/06/the-two-faces-of-dr-hameed/
On Redbridge council’s blatant appeasement of Islam
Tons of outright dishonesty and whining from the Hainault and Chigwell Muslim Association
Community in Hainault start to fight back against the unwanted mosque
Large amount of disruption caused by the Islamic usurpers of Jacques Hall
More lies and threats from the Mosque-e-teers of Hainault.
The ongoing problems of Islamification in Redbridge – Part One
The ongoing problems of Islamification in Redbridge – Part Two
N.B. There are other articles that concern Islam problems in Redbridge and the surrounding areas. To find them please enter the word ‘Redbridge’ into the Fahrenheit211 search box.
