KHOODEELAAR! constitutional law action : publication of evidence against the House of Peers Crossrail Bill Select Committee falsifying evidence.

KHOODEELAAR! constitutional law action : publication of evidence against the House of Peers Crossrail Bill Select Committee falsifying evidence.

What does this mean?

Answer: it means that the comments made by the chair of the Crossrail Bill Select committee in the UK house of Lords in march 2008 about in particular Khoodeelaar! formal objections to Crossrail, were false. untrue. misleading and Not justified.

How are we saying this?

Answer: because the co,moments were so beyond the pale that to leave them unchallenged would amount to our being clueless. Out of touch. uninformed about our own community.

The comments that were made by the Chair of the Crossrail Bill Select committee in the House of Lords will be continued to be examine here.…

We here publish exhibit 2008/6

The references to the ‘Crossrail Bill’ are to be treated as being made in relation to events before 28 july 2008 when that same Bill was rubber stamped into the ‘Crossrail Act’.



"

At the time that the formal objections
['petitions'] against the 'Crossrail Bill' were being
prepared to be submitted, it became necessary to
comply with the paper requirements of the committee.
Especially the one about 'certificate of
respectability' [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]'. In that
connection, you referred to a member of the
Spitalfields Society and said that this individual was
a  practising  'solicitor' and would give - or [as
you later said]  would be approached to give - a
certificate of respectability. In the event the person
refused to give a certificate of respectability. Did
the same person also claim to be opposed to the
Crossrail Bill? If so, in what regard did their
'opposition' relate to the KHOODEELAAR campaign's
opposition IN PRINCIPLE? Or was their opposition to
Crossrail LESS severe than their Opposition TO
Khoodeelaar! And if the person had been OPPOSED to the
same Crossrail Bill that the Khoodeelaar! campaign had
been opposed to then had the person been abroad for
the past 50 months?  And is that why they had not
'known' of the Khoodeelaar! campaign or had
heard of them? And is that why they had not known the
Khoodeelaar! campaign organiser? Or was there another
reason, in any way linked with the fact that they, the
individual concerned a and the Spitalfields Society,
did not wish to come across to the 'authorities' as
being in any way in agreement with let alone
supportive  of the Khoodeelaar! campaign?



"