Skip to main content

Yardley Net Campaign Hots Up

One of the issues in Yardley for the General Election is that the Labour Candidate is not really interested in Yardley, but wanted to be the Labour Candidate for Wakefield Central.

As part of her campaign to be selected in Wakefield (June 2004) Karen Marshall from Yorkshire said "there are four candidates left on the shortlist and I feel that Jayne Innes is the best one for the job. She has local roots in the constituency [Wakefield Central]..." "I think it's important to have someone who has a head start and who knows the local area [Wakefield] already." Ms Innes Campaigning in Wakefield

When we put a reference to the original Labour noticed it and changed it from the "lass with the local [Wakefield] roots to": This link

They may change this again so I will extract the text:
"Birmingham Lib Dem leader John Hemming's commitment to being the MP for Birmingham Yardley is so half hearted that even if elected he plans to treat it as a part time job and continue as a councillor! "

This is all linked to the fact that I am not going to resign as a councillor if I am elected as MP for Birmingham (Yardley). Lynne Jones MP and Steve McCabe MP both were elected as Labour MPs for Birmingham whilst local councillors. Neither resigned as councillors.

My criticism of Labour MPs in Birmingham is that generally they don't represent Birmingham in Westminster, but moreso represent Labour in Birmingham. My view is that we need to have MPs that fight for us rather than people that wander off to promote their own careers.

It is important to keep links between the City and the MPs so I personally believe it would be wrong to resign as a councillor. However, at least we have a clear issue of difference between our campaign and that of the Labour Party.

We take the view that we need to argue the case for Birmingham nationally. Labour feel that local links should be cut.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…