Skip to main content

Labour "Suspends" Birmingham Labour Councillors found guilty of Vote Fraud

You can find the same element to this story in various locations including:

"The Labour party last night suspended the six councillors and sent officials to monitor elections in Birmingham."

Now ... what we have is Six Councillors found to have been involved in electoral fraud to the criminal burden of proof.

The criminal burden of proof is "Beyond reasonable doubt".

The Labour Party's immediate response is to "Suspend them".

Now I would accept that if merely allegations were raised that may be appropriate. However, we have had a High Court sitting for over a month going through the cases.

The question is "Where is the doubt?" On what basis do Labour expect to reinstate the councillors (now ex-councillors).

What is holding the Labour Party back from expelling the councillors?

Clearly they know which other Labour Councillors got elected through election fraud. As do I presume other members of the Labour Party.

It does seem that Labour are "standing by" their disgraced councillors.

Why?


Labour Deputy Leader "standing by" disgraced ex-councillors as they are interviewed on the steps of the BMI.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
You should know your employment law better in your position, particularly through your friend Raghib. A councillors position is now, because of the allowance system, counted as employment, and the Party, as the selecting body, is the employer. Therefore it would be deemed unfair dismissal to dismiss these people summararily without recourse to a proper hearing, where a third party court action could be used in evidence.... but would not substitute for a hearing by the employer where employees can advance arguments of mitigation.
PoliticalHack said…
Spot on Bob. This isn't about defending these fools, but it takes a peculiar reading of that statement to view it as Labour standing by the councillors. Nor can you justify your statement abour other councillors being elected through election fraud.

Unusually, I agree with Sion Simon on Newsnight last night, when he took issue with the statement that the election fraud was city-wide. I believe that the judge erred on this point.
john said…
Nice try:

They have been sacked by the judge.
PoliticalHack said…
I'm not certain that you are correct, in view of the case that has been through the legal system. In any case, I'm sure you would expect any employer to follow a due process before deciding to sack someone. Summary dismissal is rarely used in industry in order to protect the organisation concerned from ending up in front of a tribunal.

Labour hasn't stood by them so far - remember that the lawyers were withdrawn early on? That's not a sign of a party ready to harbour fraudsters.
john said…
The Lawyers were withdrawn at the last minute. Remember the costs in this case are substantial and the people who maintain the case have to pay the costs. If Labour had not withdrawn in 2005 (which was the last minute) the Labour Party would have been responsible for the costs.

I do employ scores of people personally. I know employment law. The Councillors have already been sacked. Being expelled by the Labour Party would only mean that they would not be campaigning for Labour in the General Election.
frvfvsdvdsv said…
My understanding is that they have only been barred from standing again next time - my contention is that they are not fit for public office - ever. If they were to stand again, I'm sure that the other parties would point out their past record. For this reason, I should think Labour view them as a liability now. Then again, Blair is a liability - but they seem to be sticking with him!
john said…
I think it is actually 5 years that they are banned from standing, voting or being agents.

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. …

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).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

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.

LORD HEWART CJ:
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…

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…