Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Mayor Sheila Peacock guilty of abusing position ‘for personal advantage’
Mayor of Haringey and veteran Labour councillor Sheila Peacock has been found guilty of trying use her powers of office to exert undue influence for personal advantage, writes the Broadway Ham and High
Haringey Council’s Standards Committee this week took the rare step of censuring her for trying “to secure an improper advantage for herself” by sending two letters on Mayoral headed paper “about a personal matter”.
Although further details were not published, the letters are understood to relate to a family member and were sent last autumn by email from her council laptop.
In a decision that will be an embarassment to the Haringey Labour group, the committee ruled that Cllr Peacock had “attempted to secure an improper advantage for herself” and had “failed to use the resources of the council in accordance with its reasonable requirements”, and thereby “also brought her office as Mayor into disrepute”.
It found that while “the contents of the letter were essentially those a member of the public could have raised”, Cllr Peacock tried to “get attention given to her concerns by using her Mayoral title, letterhead and e-mail address”. The opposition Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Richard Wilson has called for her to resign as Mayor “for the sake of the borough”.
Story by Stephen Moore
Tags for Forum Posts: Sheila Peacock
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
The quotes around what she was found guilty of are apt. The full story is not told here but the Sun would have a field day with it because she is the "Baby P Mayor".
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Like me, Sheila Peacock told people that 2010-2014 was going to be her last four years as a councillor. Which was eminently sensible. Then somehow she seems to have been persuaded (flattered?) into going for another four years. A real shame since Sheila might have retired on a high note. Instead of being shamed for abuse of her public office.
Sheila ought now to withdraw her nomination as a council candidate. Although I don't suppose she will. If she is elected it will simply make things worse, as she hangs on in disgrace for another four years.
But the worst thing is nothing to do with headed Mayoral notepaper. Out of all Haringey's wards, Northumberland Park has the most pressing need for the very best councillors as champions, advocates and defenders.
Instead of swanning about in chains and silly hats playing Toytown mayors, all three Northumberland Park councillors should be battling privately and publicly for their ward and other parts of Tottenham.
They shouldn't be gagged as members of Kober's "cabinet" like John Bevan - a decent hard working councillor who has some strong principles and whose heart is in the right place. Nor tied up in Mayoral chains as part of Claire Kober's wider "payroll vote". Instead they should be exposing and opposing the Tory social cleansing policies of Kober and her Muswell Hill chums and their right-wing allies.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
From Mayoral notepaper to What Scrap ~
Sheila ought now to withdraw her nomination as a council candidate.
Alan, are your words not as true now, as they were in 2014?
-
-
Clive, you asked if my words of 2014 about Sheila Peacock stand the test of time.
The answer is plainly 'No'. The reason is that much grubby water has gushed under Haringey's bridges in those years. I was clearly naive to think that Sheila would have been better off to stand down at that time.
Obviously the vast majority of hardworking, public spirited local councillors in our borough could not overcome the deepening public cynicism about elected councillors. Cynicism evidenced by the low local election turnouts and fed by the behaviour of a tiny minority of councillors. As you have demonstrated. Clive, some were complicit in huge losses of public money on dodgy property deals. Plus the few skirted the rules e.g. about living in the borough.We weren't allowed to know why Sheila once sent a Mayor-to Mayor letter on headed notepaper. But it shouldn't have happened.
Every decent honest councillor who works tirelessly evening after evening on behalf of residents is let down by those who break the rules; often without even understanding why the rules exist.
In The Pickwick Papers (1836) Charles Dickens described the election at Eatonswill.
-
-
Alan, when 10 years ago you called for Cllr Peacock to withdraw her candidature, I had the impression that you were at least partly motivated by the public interest, rather than whether or not, Sheila would have been better off to stand down (after the infamous Best Riots remarks).
I agree that much grubby water has gushed under Haringey's bridges in those years, but cannot see what bearing that has on Cllr Peacock's fitness for office: then or now. Do you not imply that Cllr Peacock should not now withdraw her latest candidature?
Cllr Peacock's comments over the years are the kind that one might hear from a loud-mouthed lout in a local pub. Utterly stupid comments, but not career-ending for someone not in a particularly public role.
This is different. Cllr Peacock is an elected representative of residents and a repeated Mayor of the Borough. I'm surprised she even thinks some of her comments, let alone commits them to writing, private or not. Or—in the Best Riots case—was actually prepared to volunteer them in a serious manner for a videoed documentary that was hosted for some time on YouTube.
———
There is no suggestion that Cllr Peacock was involved in the huge losses of public money on dodgy property deals.
However, we cannot be certain that some councillors, possibly not current, were not complicit in these huge losses. Involvement by some is hinted at in the (external) Buss Report. And possibly a council employee and possibly too, a development group.
I refer to the version of the Buss report that was pre-redacted for public consumption and buried as deeply as possible—and not linked—on the council's web server. The contents were bad enough, but that was not the "full" version that was sent to the police.
On page six of the Buss report (public version), a certain "development group" was involved in four of the nine sites featured for investigation.
Buss refers to this Group only and coyly as Developer A.
———
Each of these incidents by themselves, would not appear to be of any great interest, however the fact that these occur on four development sites over a number of years, may indicate that there is either coincidence, local knowledge, or other factors at work.
5.4
However, it is also conceivable that information on the sites could have been passed by a Council representative to the third party. The only clear evidence of this uncovered is in relation to the one site where an officer is reported to have received a call from a representative of Developer A the day after a Cabinet meeting, the call was regarding matters that were on the confidential agenda and as such should not have been known to anyone not in attendance at the meeting. There is no way of knowing how the Developer received this information, but it does demonstrate links between either officers or members and Developer A. This of course could be a one-off occurrence.
———
The current council leader and the employed CEO have had ample opportunity to restore public trust in Haringey Council's property dealings.
However, the municipal culture of secrecy is embedded deeply. A catharsis is needed, but that would conflict with the stream of good news stories pumped out by the well-funded Press-team.
Residents cannot yet have full confidence that the "grubby water" flowing under Haringey's bridges has slowed to a trickle. The discharges of untreated water needs to end: and be seen to have ended.
Are Dickens' words about the Eatonswill election not as true now in certain respects, as they were 190 years ago?
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia R on
-
At last, it's out.
This is The-thing-that-shall-not-be-named we have all been sidling around for the past few weeks.
Lydia Rivlin: Conservative Party candidate, Harringay Ward.
-
-
What? You mean this person?
Alison Vydulinska
Principal Lawyer, Corporate
Haringey Council
7th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road,
Wood Green, London N22 7TR
-
-
I suspect you and Phil may be barking up the wrong tree.
From the little I've heard on my grapevine, the case involves confidential personal data about people living in another borough. So it's right that this should not be public.
What's more interesting is the timing of the release of information and date of the Standards Committee hearing. This is a committee which according to the Council's website is now entirely made up of councillors. (I've phoned but have not yet been able to check this.) It seems to have met after nominations closed for the local elections. Plainly its findings were not made public until after candidates were safely in place.
If I'm correct, then that in itself is a disgrace.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Phil, I looked again at Stephen Moore's news report in the Ham&High. It gives the date as today 2 May, and refers to "Haringey Council’s Standards Committee this week" as when it took the decision to censure Sheila Peacock. So I assume the Committee met sometime in the week beginning Monday 28 April.
I don't know, but I'd assume that something as important and serious as this may not have been dealt with at a single meeting. I hear that Sheila was represented by a barrister. And it's possible that witnesses may have been called. If one or more of my assumptions is accurate then reasonable arrangements would have had to be agreed so that these various people could all attend.
Which means that some delay may have been entirely reasonable in order to comply with the rules of Natural Justice. And to show that the Committee was being scrupulously fair.
On the other hand, there are the interests of the electors of Northumberland Park to consider. And that clearly meant setting dates and times for a hearing - and perhaps a further meeting to discuss and decide on the outcome - so if at all possible, the whole process could be concluded before the nomination papers went in.
Electors in Northumberland Park ward can, of course, decide not to vote for Sheila Peacock. What no Haringey elector can now do - were they so minded - is to read about the Standards Committee decision and decide to stand for election against her.
Nor could members of the Labour Party in Northumberland Park ward learning about the Standards Committee, suggest to Sheila that the time had come for her to stand down. As it now has.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Chris Hewett in The Haringey Independent has a news item about the Standards Committee Report. Chris's page (dated 11:00am Friday 2nd May 2014) refers to "The report, published late last night ... " (i.e. 1 May ).
The report is now online here. It says the Standards Committee thought Sheila Peacock's actions were "serious". Indeed so serious that the sanction given was for her to be "censured for her conduct". In other words it's Tut-Tut-Time or perhaps even Tut-Tut-Tut on the naughty chair.
In addition Sheila has to receive: "training on the Councillors’ Code of Conduct within three months of this hearing".
Though probably the most severe punishment was the third recommendation:
"to the Leader of the Labour Group that this decision be taken into consideration when making appointments to Committees, Sub-Committees of the Council and Outside Bodies."
This probably means no more tricorn hats, red-riding-hood coats and lacey sleeves for Sheila. Ah well, four more well-past-their-sell-by-date councillors can have a turn with the dressing-up box.
So Phil, was the timing - after election nominations were in - purely a coincidence? It could be. And not impossible for the reasons I gave before. Barristers especially have crowded diaries. But under the Kober Regime, do I really believe it's likely? Of course not.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
