FIGHTING FOR

YOU AGAINST
ALL ODDS
THANK YOU
After a great deal of thought and discussion with his family,
friends and heart specialist Ahmed Khan has reluctantly
decided to pull out of this years council elections.
Commenting on his decision to pull out Ahmed said, To represent the people of
Beacon and Bents again would have been a privilege and its something
I hope to do again in the future. In the meantime
I want to thank everyone who encouraged me to stand
and who contacted me with their messages of support.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
When asked about a return to politics in the future
Ahmed said, I can promise local residents that as
soon as I am able I will continue the work I frst
started back in 2006 on their behalf, but this time I
wont pull any punches nor will I suffer fools gladly.
Those individuals who have for years shown their
contempt for the public, who care little about the
state of our borough, our town centre, the plight
of local residents and who think the public purse
is nothing more than their personal piggy bank
are sadly mistaken if they think that they will not
be challenged, the walls of the town hall will not
protect them from the real world outside forever.
Many of you will know that Ahmed has been tackling
the council head on since 2006 and has never shied away
from telling it how it is, nor exposing many of the things
the council would prefer to keep hidden from you, no
matter what the personal cost to him and his family.
The council has left no stone unturned in their efforts to
silence Ahmed. They have wasted endless staff resources,
used hundreds of thousands of s of public money and
waged a personal vendetta against him in a futile attempt to
eliminate his opposition. Yet despite everything thrown at him
and his family he has refused to be silenced and continues
to expose wrongdoing, complacency, mismanagement and the
culture of secrecy that does so much damage to South Tyneside.
In 2007 Ahmed stood for election and came within just 32 votes of ousting long standing Labour councillor Audrey McMillan.
Surprisingly there was an unusually high number of rejected postal votes (Beacon and Bents had the highest number by
far) which if found to have been wrongly rejected would have resulted in the election being declared void. Ahmed was
convinced that the election had not been transparent but at that stage didnt suspect outright election fraud and decided to
challenge the result. Despite numerous requests for information the council failed to provide details of their defence and it
was only when Ahmeds legal team threatened to apply to the High Court to have the councils evidence excluded that the
council responded and admitted that the voting papers Ahmed was asking the court to examine had disappeared from the
town hall. When the matter did go before a judge he described the councils explanation regarding the disappearance of
crucial election documents (that the law says must be kept in case of a legal challenge) as opaque. Of course it would
have been a little too blatant if only the Beacon and Bents papers had disappeared so in a move worthy of an African
dictator the corresponding documents for the other 17 wards disappeared too!
Spring 2014
A JUDGE DESCRIBED SOUTH TYNESIDES EXPLANATION AS TO
DISAPPEARING BALLOT BOXES AS OPAQUE!
A
H
M
ED
K
H
A
N
EXPOSING THE TRUTH ABOUT SOUTH TYNESIDE
COUNCIL SINCE 2006
Here are just a handful of examples that demonstrate the extraordinary lengths South Tyneside council has
gone to in a desperate attempt to silence Ahmed, and there
is more to come in future editions of The Beacon.
DISAPPEARING BALLOT BOXES
ATTEMPTS AT BANKRUPTCY & SENDING IN THE BALIFFS
Despite the council admitting they lost vital election documents they had the brass neck to pursue Ahmed for costs and
in their eagerness to nobble him they attempted to make him bankrupt twice.
After Ahmeds election in 2008 the council
took a different approach to silencing him.
They cynically manipulated their
Standards committee which had been
set up to hear complaints about councillors
conduct. A furry of complaints (around 27)
from Labour councillors and their stooges
followed, but despite spending tens of
thousands of pounds and hundreds of man
hours, only a single complaint went to a
formal tribunal, convened at the publics
expense! The tribunal met for 2 days at a
plush hotel during which 3 judges (brought
in especially from around the UK) decided
that the evidence presented by the council
was less than convincing and decided to
only censure Ahmed. They could have
suspended him from public offce or up to
5 years - which is something that the
leadership of the council were desperate
to see! The decision to waste huge sums of
public money and staff resources was for
nothing more than comparing the council
solicitors (the same council solicitor
who admitted losing 18 ballot boxes)
unwillingness to hold his Labour paymasters
to account to that of a maggot wriggling on
the end of a hook! Interestingly the 3
judges expressed serious concerns about
the fairness and transparency of the councils
Standards committee and recommended
that they carry out an urgent review of it
not what the council had expected!
As a foot note its now widely accepted
that Statutory Standards committees (set
up by Tony Blair and Nu Labour to silence
any criticism and blunt the effectiveness of
the opposition) were nothing more than
vehicles for vexatious and politically
motivated complaints and have now been
abolished.
Meanwhile solicitors representing Labours Audrey McMillan went a
step further and sent the bailiffs to Ahmeds home. They threatened to
remove family possessions unless Audrey McMillans costs were paid
within 5 days.
SHUT UP & DONT ASK QUESTIONS!
Throughout Ahmeds period of offce the council resorted to
changing its constitution to prevent him asking searching
questions at Full Council and other committees. Some mayors
and committee chairmen (all Labour) used their positions to
deliberately stop Ahmed from asking questions and to stife
debate. At best their interpretation of the rules were dubious
and when Ahmed asked senior council offcers for a ruling/
interpretation on the legality of their actions they either sat on
their hands or just waffed on in such a way that avoided them
having to make any decision that would have upset their Labour
paymasters. Often these actions were so blatant that many
decent hard working council offcers would unoffcially express
their disgust at these outrageous attempts to quash any form of
accountability or transparency.
OFFICERS COERCED INTO
HOLDING BACK INFORMATION
Ahmed was often surreptitiously excluded from meetings especially
relating to ward matters and some offcers were reluctantly coerced
into giving him the bare minimum in terms of information and
assistance. Offcers were also instructed to deliberately hold back
information that should have been shared with him at the same time
it was shared with Labour councillors. An example of this was the
seemingly endless Ocean Road / Anderson Street road improvement
project - including those useless traffc lights! No information
regarding the scheme was shared with Ahmed and the frst he knew
of it was when he read about it in the Gazette. A former offcer close to
the scheme has since confrmed that he was ordered not to share any
aspect of the scheme with Ahmed by a senior manager who in turn
had been told to exclude Ahmed from the consultation.
BLOCKING ACCESS
TO FUNDING
Ahmed proposed many projects designed to improve the ward for local people yet sadly these were pushed to the
bottom of the pile in favour of Labours pet projects. Remember the thousands spent by Audrey McMillan to remove 2
fower pots? It seemed as though anything Ahmed put forward was deliberately blocked just in case he got any credit for
doing the things that Labour had ignored for years. Despite Labours best efforts (ably assisted by a handful of politicised
and morally corrupt senior council offcers) Ahmed was still (with the help of decent fair-minded offcers who care
passionately about the borough) able to push through schemes under various guises, for example the River Drive and
Greens Place tree/shrub management projects, which after years of neglect fnally gave residents their river view back!
The council ran a concerted campaign in the press to besmirch Ahmeds reputation in the hope that it would prevent
him from being re-elected (this was mentioned in the SLAPP Action in California). The councils campaign was
relentless and went on for a number of years during which he was constantly vilifed. More often than not the council
press offce was the source of many of these stories much of which were malicious and designed to infict as much
reputational damage as possible. We now have proof that some councillors were also bullied (or offered incentives)
if they attacked Ahmed at every available opportunity and threw as much mud as they could at him.
We have obtained some revealing emails between the individuals involved and you can be sure that these will be
published in due course.
MUD STICKS OR SO THE COUNCIL THINKS!
PRESS BIAS
Positive stories about Ahmeds work
on behalf of local residents were
either edited beyond recognition or in
most cases simply ignored. Under the
previous editor of the Shields Gazette
(John Szymanski) there was a blanket
ban on positive stories about Ahmed
and his council work. Meanwhile
stories about council malpractice, cover
ups and inappropriate use of public
money were suppressed, yet anything
construed as damaging Ahmed were
given disproportionate coverage (usually
front page).
For example Ahmed would ask
questions in council which often the
Labour mayor would wrongly rule out
of order. Ahmed would insist on an
explanation as to why it was ruled out
of order and that his questions should
be answered in the public interest. This
blatant attempt to avoid answering
embarrassing and revealing questions
would often lead to heated exchanges.
The following day the Gazette coverage
would be about Ahmed refusing to sit
down when ordered to do so by the
mayor yet there would be no mention of
why or details of the questions he asked.
This bias also extended to the councils
press offce. When on the odd occasion
Ahmed asked them for assistance (other
than ward surgery announcements) he
was denied it, yet stories about Labour
councillors (especially at election time)
would appear like confetti!
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
REQUESTS DENIED
Ahmed used the Freedom of Information (FOI) act to ask searching
questions that the council were doing their best to avoid answering in
other forums. Bizarrely at one stage Ahmed was told that he had exceeded
his quota (no quota exists in law). Replies were constantly delayed
and Ahmed had to make repeated requests for answers. This is something
recently recognised by the Information Commissioner who condemned
South Tyneside Councils appalling record on answering FOI requests. When
Ahmed did get a reply often it was to say that his request had been denied
on some dubious ground or other. One such example was when he asked
how much the council had paid a celebrity to switch on the Christmas
lights, he was told the information was commercially sensitive! What they
should have said was that it would embarrass the fools who gave the go
ahead if the public learned the truth about how much those responsible
had needlessly wasted!
On two occasions Ahmed submitted a Subject Access Request to fnd
out what information the council held on him. Unbelievably the council
refused to hand over the information. After his frst request he was told
it would take too long to provide him with all the information they held.
After his second request he was asked to submit a list of exactly what he
wanted. When he replied everything, his request was denied. Yet on both
occasions the council failed to return the fees he had paid.
MR MONKEYS BLOG
The late Councillor Potts confrmed shortly before his death that
the council deliberately set out to link Ahmed to the infamous
Mr Monkeys Blog. He also admitted that he was manipulated
by the councils leadership into allowing his name to be used so
that it would defect any fak away from them. Without him they
risked being accused of launching a politically motivated lawsuit.
Apparently this was also the reason why a single council offcer
was named as one of the 4 joint plaintiffs. Yet the councils highly
paid American lawyers claimed in the Californian Courts (during a
separate SLAPP action) that they were not targeting Ahmed, even
though they had secretly tried to get hold of his email, phone,
fnancial and Twitter records. Meanwhile back in the UK they
continued to allow the press to imply that Ahmed was in some
way connected to the blog.
PAY UP OR GET OUT... UNLESS YOU ARE THE LABOUR PARTY!!
Ahmed used the town hall on a Saturday for one of his regular his ward surgeries. When they became popular he
was told that if he wanted to continue using the town hall he would have to pay around 50 per hour to cover costs!
Meanwhile the Labour party continues to pay nothing and uses the town hall whenever it wants to.
MR MONKEY HASNT
GONE AWAY
Despite hundreds of man hours, and illegally
spending a reputed half a million pounds plus of
public money and a monkey hunt spanning two
continents, the original Mr Monkeys blog is still
online more 5 years after they council frst decided
to take it down! What a waste of money and already
over stretched staff resources that could have been
better used elsewhere. Instead, all the council and its
leadership have achieved is worldwide notoriety for
their stupidity in advertising the existence of a blog to
the entire world that up until their involvement very
few people knew or cared anything about.
AND FINALLY..
Inevitably the councils long running and coordinated campaign to silence Ahmed has taken its toll on his
health and in the opinion of a leading heart specialist it was a major factor in Ahmeds heart attack 10
months ago. Recently Ahmed had his medical case reviewed by a heart specialist and was advised not to
risk damaging his heart further by putting it under the stress of an election campaign - until he is signed off
as being ft for battle again. Ahmed owes it to his family to follow his advice, albeit reluctantly.
THE SLAPP ACTION IS NOT
THE MR MONKEY ACTION !
SOUTH TYNESIDE COUNCIL GAINED WORLDWIDE NOTORIETY
FOR THEIR STUPIDITY IN TRYING TO SILENCE A MONKEY
THE SLAPP ACTION HAS NOW ENDED, BUT THE
COUNCILS PUBLICLY FUNDED MR. MONKEY
LAWSUIT HAS NOT - WHY?
The council has desperately tried to link a separate SLAPP action (fled in 2011) with its own
secretive Mr Monkey lawsuit launched in 2009. This is clearly a pathetic attempt at fooling the
public into thinking that the council had won its action against Mr Monkey. This is not the case -
THE SLAPP ACTION ENDED IN 2013 BUT THE COUNCILS PUBLICLY FUNDED MR MONKEY LAWSUIT DID NOT!
After more than 5 years of trying to silence a monkey the council appears to have resorted to innuendo and
spin in a last ditched attempt to damage the reputation of those who oppose them and who theyd like to
silence at all costs. Why else would they deliberately try to hide their own lawsuit behind the separate SLAPP
action?
Many people think that the council would do anything to silence Ahmed including trying to imply that he
was behind Mr Monkeys Blog. The facts are that despite the separate SLAPP action ending in 2013 and the
councils publicly funded Mr monkey lawsuit continuing
into 2014, the council have FAILED to fnd Mr Monkey.
After more than 5 years of trying and illegally spending
a reputed half a million pounds plus of public money,
South Tyneside council has failed to fnd Mr Monkey!
F
O
O
D

F
O
R

T
H
O
U
G
H
T
PLAINTIFFS TOLD TO USE
THEIR OWN MONEY
TO CHASE MR MONKEY
Ahmed has continually said that if the four
plaintiffs named on the councils original Mr
Monkey lawsuit started in 2009 want to take
legal action because their feathers have been
ruffed by a monkey then they should go ahead
and do so but not with the publics money.
Its time these individuals grew some balls,
put their money where their mouths are
and used their own money, not yours,
to fund their lawsuit.