Home from home

*** Currently blogging at http://www.betternation.org/ ***

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Guest Post - Osama Saeed

With all the news stories recently surrounding 'lunchgate' and the Scottish Islamic Foundation, I made it known to Glasgow Central SNP candidate Osama Saeed (at the centre of these stories and a man that I couldn't have a higher esteem for) that he was more than welcome to write a guest post on either topic to give his largely unpublished side of the story.

Happily, Osama took me up on the offer and his words are below:


I write this article in a personal capacity, as much of the criticism surrounding the Scottish-Islamic Foundation are to do with my political life, even though SIF has always maintained a strict non-party political line, and no one can demonstrate otherwise.

Reports recently about SIF have been headlined about me as an SNP candidate even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the SIF. Candidates in all parties hold down sensitive jobs in the public and charitable sectors and are not subjected to this unfair blurring of lines.

From day one SIF has been hounded by the Labour Party. The reasons for this are obvious. I am in with a great chance of being the next MP for Glasgow Central, and thereby sweeping the Sarwar family, great benefactors of Scottish Labour, out of office.

Mohammad Sarwar is not just a normal MP to Labour. He got the party £300,000 for the last Scottish election campaign. He continues to fund, directly and indirectly, a number of candidates and the national party itself. Labour will as a result make sure he is looked after.



In the initial phases, Sarwar’s ally Frank McAveety MSP was getting in about SIF. His register of interests shows he was given money for his last election campaign by Sarwar’s Muslim Friends of Labour organisation. Labour’s point man on this then seemed to suddenly switch. An unholy number of parliamentary questions have been tabled about SIF, in a scenario perhaps not quite ‘cash for questions’, but morally dubious nonetheless.



The pressure put on the Scottish government about SIF has been unparalleled for any similar small organisation. It’s come not just from Labour, but from rightwing elements, but often with the two feeding from each other. 55 others were funded in the same stream as SIF, including some working with Muslims, but I doubt readers can name another one or what they do for the money. Any organisation, when examined under a cynical microscope, can have fun poked at it. I’ve seen enough in the last few years in this sector to know that.



Audit Scotland investigated SIF’s funding and clearly and definitively concluded that correct processes and procedures were followed. £200,000 was awarded by the Scottish Government in 2008 to organise a festival of Muslim culture in order to bring communities together. The total budget needed was greater than this, but it proved difficult to raise it due to the economic crisis that had broken out. The plans were therefore streamlined and retimetabled. A lot of organisations have commented to me that they would have just blown the money on any old thing anyway. Instead, we were prudent, wanted to do the job properly, and asked for the £128,000 that wasn’t spent so far in developing the project to be reprofiled into this year.



Projects get delayed all the time - folk in the Scottish Parliament building of all places should know that. Just last week it was reported that government IT projects had lost in the region of a cool £26BILLION (where are the parliamentary questions? Where are the Freedom of Information requests?). SIF is nowhere near this territory though and didn’t ask for any new money. I think the green light to finish the festival would have been given had it not been for the hatred that would have poured forward if it had. SIF has instead had to be nimble and resourceful in reconfiguring the plans where others would have given up.



So if anyone is to blame for the delays to the bold things SIF wanted to do, Labour should look at themselves. It is nonsensical to create an environment where an organisation cannot get funding, and then criticise the consequences. How are SIF meant to deliver a Middle East trade expo and a cultural festival with no staff resource on it, and no way to pay for venues, publicity and the rest? No organisation in the country would be expected to do that.

Despite working under considerable strain, the young people involved in SIF have carried on as best they can, and are firmly an important part of the Scottish landscape. A cultural festival will go ahead. Since its launch a short 18 months ago, SIF has campaigned against forced marriage, distributed food amongst Glasgow’s needy, set up a PhD with Strathclyde University, exposed the man that threatened to blow up Glasgow Central Mosque, condemned vandalism by young Muslims against a synagogue in Edinburgh, and seen its young people even win awards for their contribution in the mainstream of society. The organisation brought together the country, including all political parties, with the Scotland United initiative when the far-right SDL was formed – 3,000 people from all walks joined it including trade unions, churches and the EHRC.



The latter, with Nazis astonishingly on Scottish streets against Muslims, underlined the need for bridge building activities and action against Islamophobia that SIF brought forward. It’s not ever reported, but Labour recognised this themselves when they agreed in principle to fund the Islamic festival before leaving office in 2007. It’s just a shame political opportunism later took over.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

The people of Glasgow Central will be well served when Osama is elected to Westminster.

Alec said...

>> From day one SIF has been hounded by the Labour Party.

I am not and never have been a member of the Labour Party. The reasons it has been the subject to media attention include being in receipt of large amounts of public cash when its director just-so-happens to be an SNP PPC - and also for Saeed's attested defenses of men such as Anwar al Awlaki *after* they had been seen to be preaching something other than peace.

It's a bit rich for Saeed to claim he's leading the vanguard against the Salwar family, when the Saeed family is embedded in the SIF.

Saeed is a former regional organizer for the Muslim Association of Britain, aligned to the the Muslim Brotherhood (pa' and bro' have also been involved). He and/or the SIF have brought named Hamas commanders to speak at their events and with Scottish Executive ministers, as well as the head of the Libyan Muslim Brother and men like Kemal Hebawy who's argued that the targeted killing of Israeli children as young as three is acceptable.

Saeed does not represent a unifying force, as the previous poster claims. Telling Muslims at Dundee University that any co-operation with Tayside Special Branch should go through self-appointed gatekeepers like him is not about social cohesion.

The Salafism and Arab-inclined outlook of the MAB is not representative of the predominately Barlevi and/or Sufism of Glasgow Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Aye, right. What pish.
The SIF is controversial because the SNP threw four hundred grand of public cash at their boy in Glasgow. He earns about forty thousand of that as its chief executive.
When it failed to organise what it was supposed to, he had to be chased for weeks to repay the money. He said the cheque was in the post.
I'm sure that as the civic minded gent he claims to be, Mr Saeed will name those organisations that have admitted they would just fritter away public money. Or is he just trying to deflect through insinuation?
Last week it was reported the SIF was still taking bookings at three hundred quid a pop for an event they had already cancelled.
The SNP responded by saying criticism of this was undermining community cohesion.
Still, at least none of that is morally dubious, eh?

Alec said...

Indeed, Anonymous II, quite a lot of special pleading going on:

>> Projects get delayed all the time - folk in the Scottish Parliament building of all places should know that.

There is such a thing as concurrent thoughts. The rights or wrongs of A have no bearing on those of B.

>> Just last week it was reported that government IT projects had lost in the region of a cool £26BILLION (where are the parliamentary questions? Where are the Freedom of Information requests?).

Yeah, so? This is a discussion about the SIF which was supposed to launch a Islam-themed festival which showed little sign of planning, whilst lots of Saeed aggrandizement went on.

>> which SIF is nowhere near this territory though

I know, I'm off to rob a few banks! Don't anyone dare stop me until something is done about all unsolved murders.

>> and didn’t ask for any new money.

That's because they were required to hand it back. Then launched a Facebook appeal for money.

Honestly, some people think the public can't put on their jallabiya straight.

Observer said...

It's extraordinary the amount of vitriol that Mr Saeed attracts. Whatever he says or does is never going to be right according to some people.

And there is also an assumption made that the officers in the civil service who administer the grant system are somehow corrupt too.

In amongst all the criticism and mud which has been thrown at Mr Saeed I have yet to encounter any substantive fact.

It is all dot to dot smear tactics seeking to associate him with a view that I have never heard or read him express.

Quite disturbing really.

Alec said...

>> In amongst all the criticism and mud which has been thrown at Mr Saeed I have yet to encounter any substantive fact.

Of course you have. It's just that you're either too dim to comprehend, or think everyone else is too dim to do background reading.

Anonymous said...

Observer, what views have you not heard Mr Saeed express?
Support for a new caliphate? It's on the record.
Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood? He was a spokesman for their UK front.
Telling people not to deal with the police? Also on the record (brilliantly, when he didn't like this being reporter he claimed he was victimised because he was a Muslim, even though he was speaking as an MAB spokesman at an event about police monitoring Muslim students. What chutzpah!)

Anonymous said...

"too dim to comprehend"

Whilst I don't wish to write your commenting moderation policy, this seems to be an unnecessary attack.

Further evidence of 'Alec's often abusive tone and more often than not extreme views can be viewed on the obscure far right myth busting nat website.

Observer said...

Thank you ''anonymous'' at 6.04, but I am quite used to being called nasty names by Alec. It seems to be one of his preferred methods of debate.

''anonymous'' at 6.00 I have read Mr Saeed's views at some length including the article in the Guardian that you are using to present a distorted picture of his views.

I make my judgement upon what Mr Saeed actually says, not what he is alleged to have said.

May I recommend that method to others.

Anonymous said...

Explain how - am distorting his views on the caliphate, the police or the SIF?
He also says on the blog that ANY group which receives public money can hjave questions raised about its books, or 'fun' poked' at them.
Is that insulting, slanderous or true, in your opinion?

Observer said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/01/religion.world

Here is the article in the Guardian that you referred to.

The reader can decide whether there is anything sinister about it.

Observer said...

Of course any organisation in receipt of public funds can be examined. What's your point caller? The SIF has been examined in clinical detail. I think that is Mr Saeeds's point.

And yet they are still subject to undefined criticism.

Allan said...

I'm not quite sure there are many friends of New Labour working for Private Eye, where accusations against the Scottish Islamic Foundation have also appeared...

Anonymous said...

Observer, I think Mr Saeed's point isn't that you can scrutine other groups, it's that NONE of their accounts would stand up if scrutinised in forensic detail. Nasty.

I'm pleased you found the guardian article he wrote- what about his views on the police etc etc

One last point: Mr Saeed bemoans the fact the SIF has been politicised. Does he not realise why that is? If that is really his position, he should resign as an SNP PPC. Or if politics is where his heart is he should stand down from the SIF. Simples.

Observer said...

In relation to the police matter Mr Saeed was not alone in his views on the Special Branch Community Contact Unit, you are neatly missing that bit out.

''Dundee University and College Union president Dr Carlo Morelli told the meeting there was no place for racism within education.

He said, “As a union, we are calling on all members not to participate in any kind of monitoring of ‘Asian-looking’ students. What you and I want to see is a wider campaign of opposition to this kind of racism, this kind of Islamophobia.”

I do not agree with any action which casts suspicion on the whole muslim community. In the case of what was happening at Dundee University - searching out ''extremism '' which the Police themselves admitted wasn't there, I agreed with Mr Saeed that such police methods were counterproductive, inappropriate, divisive, and just plain wrong.

Observer said...

Dundee East MSP Shona Robison said she supported police in their efforts to combat crime, but it was important that whole sections of society were not “alienated” in the process.

She said, “If the police have evidence a crime may be or has been committed then they do have my full support in investigating that crime or potential crime.

“That is a very different matter than putting whole communities under suspicion. Muslims, and particularly young Muslim men, have been interviewed (by police) simply because they are Muslim. That is wrong and must be stopped.

“The best way of tackling criminal intent is through good community intelligence. You are only going to get community intelligence coming forward where there is an atmosphere of mutual respect''

Observer said...

I think the idea that Mr Saeed should be forced out of his job, or should be forced to give up his political ambitions, due to a campaign of smears and innuendo against him is utterly unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Irrelevant really, and you're conveniently ignoring that he then tried to deny meaning what he said the next day.
And ignoring the rights and many wrongs of the SBCCU in dundee, is looking for extremism after its revealed itself kind of pointless?

Anonymous said...

Whoa observer.

When the role of chief executive was advertised-just when the controversy about its funding was at its peak-it came with a salary of 40k.
Mr Saeed said today its work should not be politicised. He is an SNP candidate. He was an SNP candidate when it received its funding. He is a personal friend of Alex Salmond, the First Minister.
They auctioned off lunch with The First Minister to raise fund's for Mr Saeed's election campaign.

I repeat, Mr Saeed says the SIF should not be politicised.
Does he mean that or does he just mean politicised by other people?

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Anyway, saints or colts tonight?

Alec said...

I have difficulty accepting reproach from someone doesn't even have the commitment to selecting a regular posting handle. This criticism doesn't apply to Observer but does, I am afraid, to Anonymous_With_Whom_I_Agree.

"Too dim" is an insult now? Awa' an' bile yer heid!

>> Thank you ''anonymous'' at 6.04, but I am quite used to being called nasty names by Alec.

Oh, dry your eyes. There is politeness, and there is sanctimoniousness. You are consistently passive aggressive, and then cry outrage when you don't receive the respect you think you deserve.

You are quite welcome to enter an argument (in the original sense) and refute the allegations against Saeed. Yet here, as so often with your approach, tangible allegations are met with dumb denial.

You are scared of Muslims, admit it. You believe the overt sectarianism of Saeed, and the views of the disgusting people men he has brought to Scotland are unremarkable for Muslims.

It's the bigotry of low-expectations.

Alec said...

PS Have you paid that bet?

JPJ2 said...

Don't Labour just hate that they cannot rely upon every Scots Asian to vote for them.

Alec said...

>> Don't Labour just hate that they cannot rely upon every Scots Asian to vote for them.

I don't think we need your bringing an inate racism into this thread.

JPJ2 said...

Alec,

That is a crackpot response to me-and we can well do without that, thank you very much!!!!!!

Alec said...

J2, do you think Saeed represents majority views of SE Asians and/or Muslims in Scotland?

JPJ2 said...

I assume he represents the views of a significant element.

Whether he does or not seems wholly irrelevant to me-it is clear that Labour fears that he does-or fears that he will come to do so.

Alec said...

>> I assume he represents the views of a significant element.

Your views of them are *that* low?

I refer you back to my first remark on this thread.

Anonymous said...

It must be awful having 'alec' arrive at your site and effectively defecate all over it.

What an obnoxious little man.

Observer said...

anonymous @ 7.19 - as I said to you earlier everything in relation to the SIF has been examined already in great detail. Complaints were made and there was found to be no case to answer.

You do realise that you are challenging the integrity of the paid officials involved in evaluating the recommending the grants made to the SIF don't you? Without any evidence that I can see.

Observer said...

Alec when you cite a specific example of what you think Mr Saeed has done wrong I will address that.

As it is you just appear to be havering.

Anonymous said...

"I have difficulty"

Yes we can see your problems on this thread Alec, no need to bring further attention to your 'difficulties', dear oh dear, from which right wing neo-con rock did this cold warrior appear?

Alec said...

Stop playing dumb, Observer. There's plenty in my initial remark to go on.

>> You do realise that you are challenging the integrity of the paid officials involved in evaluating the recommending the grants made to the SIF don't you?

Your name vil alzo go on ze lizt, vot izt it!

Don't tell him, Pike!

(Anonymous_With_Whom_I_Don't_Agree, not using an identifiable handle suggests you're not committed to open debate.)

Anonymous said...

"tangible allegations"

Says it all doesn't it, Alec is making it up.

Alec said...

Also, I would suggest looking up what "neo-conservatism" is before throwing the term about like projectiles at a Sixth Form food-fight.

Alec said...

It's like whack-a-mole here!

"Tangible allegations" mean just that... allegations you can identify or put your finger on. And then offer a refutation.

Anonymous said...

"It's like whack-a-mole here!"

A term which is used in the IT industry to describe the phenomenon of fending off recurring spammers, vandals or miscreants.

How apt.

Alec said...

You didn't really think that one through, did you AWWIDA?

Each of your remarks here have consisted of personal against others... the first two, at least, from me have included tangible and verifiable allegations relevant to the title piece.

Now, I'm going to desist from the flim-flammery and actually [return to] discuss the the subject.

I disagree that Saeed supports a reinstatement of the Caliphate, and am prepared to put this comment down to youthful exuberance. At the root of it, though, is his loathing of the Sykes-Picot Pact which brought a final end to the Ottoman Empire (which the artificial concept of the Caliphate seeks to recreate).

Blame for this is placed on the British Establishment, which Westminster represents and no doubt why he would align himself with a party which sought to dismember the UK.

Now, what do you know?

Observer said...

Anybody who is interested in what Mr Saeed believes, as opposed to what he is alleged to believe, might find this link useful.

http://scottishislamic.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/speech-on-islamism/

Alec when you come up with a tangible allegation I am sure you will receive a response.

Alec said...

Yeah, right, Observer. Go and read my first two posts. Then stop playing dumb.

Observer said...

I have read them Alec. I think that the link I provided addresses your points.

As I said earlier I think it is a good idea to form a judgement on what it is that Mr Saeed actually says. As opposed to what it is he is supposed to believe.

Alec said...

>> I have read them Alec. I think that the link I provided addresses your points.

Why on earth should you think I would take his word on face value?

I'm asking *you* for your response. If all you can do is to direct me to the very person I am criticizing, you have simply offered another denial.

I'm starting to think you have no idea of what's going on, and are simply following sectarian lines.

>> As I said earlier I think it is a good idea to form a judgement on what it is that Mr Saeed actually says.

He could be lying. Like when he said Anwar al Awlaki preaches nothing but peace.

Observer said...

Alec you are making no sense.

Mr Saeed has been accused of various things which he has addressed in his own words on numerous occasions.

So you conclude that he must be lying?

Unless you can provide evidence to support that assertion then you stand accused of talking rubbish, and of having your own agenda here.

Well, you've got one haven't you.

Now I'm off, I sympathise in advance with anyone else who tries to debate with you.

Alec said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alec said...

>> Alec you are making no sense.

That might be because you don't understand.

D'you even know what I'm referring to viz. al Awlaki. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't.

I've read that speech before. I have not mentioned "Islamism" in this thread, or spoke of his views on suicide-terrorism, which are the specific points he discusses. I have made several other tangible allegations, none of which are discussed in that speech.

So he opposes al-Muj. I did not say he supported it... I did say he supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

In this title piece on this blog, he says the SIF has been party to setting up a PhD programme. What he doesn't mention is that he has no academic qualifications to merit supervising one... so why was his name put forward?

Anonymous said...

"That might be because you don't understand."


Nope, it's definitely the case that your making no sense.

Your incoherence is breathtaking.

Tarantella said...

The article refers to Labour getting £300,000 raised by Mohammed Sarwar.

I am surprised at this figure, it seems astonishingly high. Can it be verified?

Alec said...

D'you actually have a point, 'Anonymous'? Are you Wardog, or maybe Soahib Saeed?

The latter established a Facebook group in support Qaradawi.

Anonymous said...

Alec

Your embittered and deluded hate campaign is very disturbing.

Peace out man.

Alec said...

So, should I take that as an admission that yes, Saeed did call Anwar al Awlaki a man of peace and yes he/SIF did invite known supporters of terrorist violence to meet with Scottish ministers?

Anonymous said...

Tin foil hats anyone????

Yours looks splendid Alec.

Alec said...

Are you denying that he did?

Anonymous said...

Alec, Tom. Tom, Alec.

Oh you've met.

Alec said...

'Anonymous', did Osama Saeed or Osama Saeed not call Anwar al Awlaki a man of peace *after* his links to violent jihad were known?

Did Osama Saeed and the SIF or Osama Saeed and the SIF not invite men such as Kemal el-Helbawy and Mohammed Sawalha to meet with Scottish ministers?

Did Osama Saeed or and the SIF or did Osama Saeed and the SIF not invite Alamin Belhaj - regional head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya - to SIF events?

Did Sohaib Saeed or did Sohaib Saeed not establish a Facebook group in support of Yusuf Qaradawi?

Do Osama Saeed and the SIF blog or do Osama Saeed and the SIF blog not realize the function of Google Cache?

If this blog post was made with the intention of allowing Osama Saeed's words to remain in perfect unchallengement, by all means say so.

Anonymous said...

Alec

To cut to the chase...

Osama Saeed is NOT an extremist.

Give the guy a break.

Alec said...

Why are you unable to give a straight answer?

All you need to respond to my last remark is a series of yes or nos.

Jeff said...

Quite a remarkable but perfectly enjoyable, interesting back-and-forth of comments here. Thanks to Alec and, em, anonymous.

Of course the blog post is allowed to be challenged and for me, personally speaking, I have no idea who or what Kemal el-Helbawy, Mohammed Sawalha, Sohaib Saeed or al Muj are so can't possibly comment on those mentions.

I know a bit of the Caliph/Caliphate article which has been mentioned and I thought it was an excellent case being made by Osama, if he wasn't necessarily arguing directly for its creation as some people are trying to suggest elsewhere.

Taking a broader view; the world is changing, faster and with more fury than perhaps the planet has experienced ever before as cultures come together, less in perfect fusion than in angry collision. A body like SIF can help to make it more like the former than the latter and that surely is a good thing, whatever other suspicions and reservations some may have.

Osama's point that there seems to be more scrutiny of the hundred or so thousands that he was responsible for than the tens of billions for NHS IT systems is surely a valid one, regardless of the personality issues and 'what quotes exist where' that you speak of and I, for one, have no knowledge of.

In the UK Government's budget, we're talking about petty cash, though I suspect that's not where the 'pettiness' ends, regrettably.

Alec said...

My eyes are weary, so I cannot find the references to the various tangible allegations I've made (but I can).

The gist is, Jeff, that I have no mean respect for Saeed's talents: for a start, he's probably traveled more than many of the SNP medium cheeses. Yet, those names I've mentioned are pretty significant factors, and if he's managed to conceal them, that's worrying.

This chap was in the SNP, but drifted away because of its encouragement of the likes of the Saeed Clan.

PS A denial is simply a No answer. Saeed has at least offered a rebuttal of the allegations. I've yet to see a refutation of the main ones ;)

Jeff said...

My eyes are weary too so thanks for the gist.

On the face of it and going by the (very) little I know, someone wanting Islam to tolerate homosexuality is going to have a hundred year struggle on his/her hands so will inevitably come up against resistance. Perhaps the SNP didn't want that particular policy, as admirable as it may be, to dominate its future?

The SNP has a very clear ambition of independence and its resolve to make it there one day soon is clear for all to see. Those that don't share in it (and I don't particularly for the record) will inevitably struggle to put down strong roots within the party so perhaps that's all it was?

Maybe the split was mostly down to Osama believing in Scottish independence more than this other guy rather than anything murky?

As I say, I don't know much about it at all and the eyes really are awfully weary so no offence if I'm not even nearly as ardent a debater as Anon!

Alec said...

Yet, some would say, Jeff, that jettisoning integral principles of equality - telling Alyn Smith where to get off in favour of Kenneth Gunn - is shameless and should be opposed.

Maybe many Scottish Muslims still are socially conservative - the Barlevi strain certainly is - but taking pride in latching onto gatekeepers who promise a bloc vote is worrying. Scotland has a deep history of political and religious sectarianism (Cllr. Terry Kelly is a *very* good face of it), and I don't think we have the political maturity to deal with it.

Saeed's seen this immaturity in Salmond. Of course the SIF was firstly about promoting his family.

Alec said...

PS The one about his speaking in a "personal capacity" clearly is a nod to the spanking Sohaib got when he started the Qaradawi Fan Club!

Alec said...

Gone quiet in here, innit?

Answering my tangible allegations at 2219 hrs in the negative easily could vindicate the defences of Saeed, so why have they not? Surely Observer hasn't [again] found such an interesting thing to do that she can't lower herself to speak with us lesser mortals?

Observer said...

You don't half go on Alec.

Now there are various areas where I don't agree with Mr Saeed, faith schools being one of them, and his (apparent) support for the idea that homosexuality is incompatible with Islam too.

But then again the Pope is a bit more vociferous on that issue than Saeed is, and I don't think that means Catholics shouldn't become MPs (although personally I draw the line at Opus Dei).

I don't really want to get into an obscure argument with you, so I refer you back to my original post. About the vitriol which is aimed at Saeed which I think is all dot to dot stuff.

You haven't really said anything different.

Alec said...

Answer the questions, Observer.

Yes or no.

joe90 kane said...

Excellent post by Osama Saeed, as usual.

Thanks for that SNP Tactical Voting!

Anonymous said...

Wow- on his own blog Saeed accuses the journalist Tom Gordon of having an anti-SNP agenda in pursuing lunchgate, rather than any contrition over the tawdry hawking of parliament and the FM's office to raise party funds.
He also attacks Sarwar jr for studying dentistry then giving it up to run for parliament, saying he should repay the money invested in his training.
Two things about this:
1-does he not believe being an MP is a form of public service? It's a remarkable thing to say.
2-he has received hundreds of thousands of pounds to run the SIF, including a fairly hefty personal salary. Is it not a tad hypocritical to attack Sarwar when he will also throw away the investment made in him and his "non-political" organisation if he gets to Westminster?
This comes after he posts here alleging other charitable organisations misuse public money.

Unfricking believable. Why is this man a serious candidate?