Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Labour Party Selection Fraud in St Ann's
After it was discovered at the St Ann's Labour Party selection candidate selection meeting that there were people present and voting who should not have been, I came home from the pub (where I'd heard about it) and wrote this article. It has subsequently been edited by site admins to remove the names of people who were embarrassed or in the final case where a journalist said it was potentially libellous. Well here I will attempt to summarise what we have subsequently found out and hopefully take people's attention away from my original appalling rant.
Back in May (The Ward AGM):
- The St Ann's Ward AGM was convened on Thursday the 23rd of May instead of the usual first Wednesday of June by the then Ward Secretary, Barbara Blake.
- Protests were made by members about this but they were rebuffed by the Ward Chairman.
- At this meeting The current Ward Secretary resigned and there was bloc voting to decide the new Ward Secretary.
- A person in the bloc opposing John Blake turned up late and was prevented from voting despite there being nothing about this in the Labour Party rules.
- John Blake was elected Ward Secretary by one vote.
The Selection Meeting:
- The meeting was run by The Secretary of the St Ann's Labour Party , and Steve Hart from Hornsey & Wood Green.
- A candidate who arrived early noticed the five members arrive with Ali Gul Ozbek, sensed that something was up and mentioned it to Barbara Blake. When the other candidate seemed unhelpful they mentioned it to Steve Hart. Then the candidate went looking for the five people but was barred from entering the room (3o minutes before the selection) by the Ward Secretary.
- By the time one member I have spoken to arrived, the five members were seated at the back of the room. Four men and one woman (who works in Ali Ozbek's Pharmacy).
- A blonde woman turned up before anyone had started speaking but was barred from entering the room by the Ward Secretary, despite remonstrating with him.
- Barbara Blake won in the first round (to select a female candidate) against Zena Brabazon and Emine Ibrahim by two votes. It was 11/1/14. Everybody voted.
- It is alleged that one candidate knew the questions in advance and had prepared answers.
- At the appropriate point in the meeting the secretary asked if everyone was OK with the others in the room and everybody laughed.
- There were various factions voting together in the room; the five new members, Charles Adje's family, Zena and David's people and the Ward Secretary's people.
- In the final round Ali Ozbek and Peter Morton were selected, beating Zena by one vote.
- Ali is a local chemist and businessman on Green Lanes who seemed very passionate about what should be done with St Ann's and spoke eloquently about the need to reduce business rates. He is also a property developer.
- At the time Peter worked as head of press for the Labour Party.
- Barbara is a trade union official and ex Ward Secretary.
After the Selection Meeting
- A fellow councillor calls David to commiserate with him.
- David Browne and Zena Brabazon did some investigation using the St Ann's Labour Party membership list and the electoral roll.
- They discovered that nineteen new members signed up that year did not actually live in St Ann's and that they had either given Green Lanes business addresses when they signed up or claimed addresses in the ward.
- Not one of these new members, many of whom were recruited on the 8th of July gave an address in the ward at which they are eligible to vote, which is required by party rules.
- Five of these members were "eligible" to vote because they signed up before the cut off date of the 30th of April, however they should have been barred from voting because they do not actually live in the ward.
- Zena and David wrote to their local Labour Party officials who sent their evidence on to the London Labour Party.
- Nobody can tell me for sure where Ali Ozbek lives but he claims an address in Finsbury Park Avenue.
- Ali Ozbek has donated money to the Labour Party.
- According to a twitter exchange with a Labour councillor in another ward, the membership list should have been gone through before the meeting by the person running it to make sure this kind of thing did not happen, it was certainly done in their ward.
- When one of the five members who voted was called at his home his partner informed the caller that he had been in Turkey for a while and was not due back yet.
- In Harringay several new Labour Party members were registered using Green Lanes business addresses but not before the cut off date.
- Barbara Blake has told local traders that it is OK to register as a member in the Labour Party from a business address (it is definitely not) and the Tottenham Membership Secretary has expressed a similar view in a meeting, only to be corrected.
The "Corruption in Haringey Labour" article.
- After I wrote the original article, in which I also made some allegations against Claire Kober, the only phone call to site admins was to remove the Secretary of the St Ann's Labour party's name from the discussion.
- There was a lot of comment on the original thread and as of Saturday the 12th of October it appears to have been viewed more than 7000 times, although I dispute that as a useful metric (I think the actual figure is much lower).
- After some badgering it was picked up by an overworked Stephen Moore at the Tottenham Journal, here.
Trying to get a re-run
- I have pushed the councillor who commiserated David on his loss on Twitter to join calls asking for a re-run of the election but they have resolutely refused, to the point where it's all a bit weird and "la la la, I can't hear you".
- As it stands the London Labour Party have agreed that the five people were not eligible to vote but they say that this was not picked up before or during the meeting so the result stands. Their investigation consisted of speaking to the Ward Secretary and Steve Hart. Steve Hart lied because someone did speak to him before the meeting.
- The London Labour Party have the attendance list and will not release it, presumably because it shows that people were not identified correctly and that at least two of the five were imposters.
- Appeals to the NEC have all been rebuffed, even with the full acknowledgement of what went on.
The Labour doorstep in Harringay
- The St Ann's Labour Party have a great deal of trouble getting members to help them out with canvassing. A photograph has been tweeted showing more than 20 people out in Harringay Ward above the same session in St Ann's, with just two.
- When David Lammy, after a lot of badgering apparently, stepped out in St Ann's for the Labour doorstep he was met by a picket of local men calling on him not to support the St Ann's fraudsters. As I understand it he will not be going out with them again.
The Police are involved
- On Monday the 10th of February Haringey MPS made a visit to me on behalf of the secretary of the St Ann's Labour Party and his partner.
- It was alleged that I had called him filth on Twitter (which I have not, that was someone else) and that I said "I know I'm hassling you but...". I was served with a Notice of Harassment Letter which will now appear in extended CRB checks.
*An individual has asked that their name be replaced with their function in this post on the grounds that they are not seeking public office. This has been done.
Tags for Forum Posts: election2014, labour, st ann's labour, stanns
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Comment redacted - relates to a police investigation which resulted in no prosecution.
-
-
No Hugh, it relates to an incident that I and many others witnessed at the pub and was backed up by CCTV. The fact that the police got involved was so that the Labour Party could cover it up. It worked!
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Waterhouse on
-
They see menace in their own shadow. Do they know it to be a FACT that the posting transgressed legal requirements? Since joining late last year I have had a posting removed and my password has been reset for a third time ; if Hugh wants people to post here he needs to look at the law accurately and not take guesses and improve his service levels.
-
-
-
Keith, Hugh is a volunteer who basically puts his assets at risk every time we post. This is his hobby and he's done a great service for the community. Talking about his "service levels" makes it seem like he's employed by us and we pay for this, neither of which is true. The software can be buggy, you're always notified when something you have written is to be censored. I'm not happy about it in this case but, is anyone ever happy about it?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Keith, for the avoidance of doubt, we don't have the ability to reset your password, even if, for some reason we should want to. If you've had a posting removed then it is because you broke our house rules.
Since we don't have the time to rad all comments on the site, it is unmoderated and Liz and I only react to postings that we happen to spot or, more often, those we have pointed out to us.
The internet is pretty much a free place Keith, You and John are very welcome to post anything you want on your own spaces, but we don't allow anything that transgresses our house rules or may end up with my facing a legal challenge.
Keith, if you'd like to arrange the funding for legal services to deal with the legal challenge side of things, that would be very helpful.
Thanks for your comment John, but 'censored', really? The use of that word is as out of place Keith complaining about 'service levels'. Censorship implies some official role and some sort of official acceptability. As you have pointed out, that's not what our redactions are about, any more that those at Channel 4 are.
-
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Whether or not censored is the correct term i'd read Johns post before it got deleted, that the police investigation didn't result in a prosecution doesn't mean what happened wasn't interesting to hear about. Labour are really making it it difficult to vote for them over this and pressuring HoL to remove posts about it only contributes to that IMHO.
-
-
-
Ant, you're making a big assumption about 'pressurising' there and it may well be interesting to hear about, but 'interesting' doesn't cut it as a reason given the balancing factors I've already explained, I'm afraid.
-
-
-
I thought you'd said on one of the other posts about this that they were asking you to delete things, sorry if i was mistaken, have they not been doing that?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Then stick to the point in hand which is electoral fraud and don't seek to bolster your case with publicising people's personal affairs. It dilutes your argument and weakens not strengthens your case against the Labour Party which you are trying to prove is agreeing to cover up electoral fraud. Play the ball not the (wo)man, remember?
-
-
-
That seems a little unfair Liz, it was an altercation in a public place about this and by those people being discussed in this thread that resulted in the police being called, its not playing the man not the ball for John to tell us about it.
-
-
-
We were not pressurised, Ant. We looked at the posting and judged it to contravene our terms of service with regard to posting about a member's personal affairs. It is not censorship since as Hugh says we are not in any kind of official capacity and are not seeking to enforce 'official lines'. The rules are there and everyone agrees to abide by them when they sign up.
If there are things that people feel the need to say that fall outside our guidelines, then Twitter and Wordpress (other blogging services are available) are at your service, although as Sally Bercow's case illustrates you must be prepared to defend *yourself* in a law court, even if your comments are judged to be no more than 'irresponsible'.
(Sorry, not sure WHERE this comment will end up in the convo)
-
-
I'm sorry Liz but these two are, with the support of more senior people in the Labour Party I presume, seeking to swindle the good citizens of St Ann's & Harringay. They effectively hold a public office. Having councillors at least partially responsible to us is surely a good thing but the St Ann's candidates were not selected fairly and I doubt will feel any compunction to listen to residents at all over the next four years. Remember Brian Haley? In a safe Labour ward you just have to look after a dozen people for use in the selection meetings. This is WORTH fighting over and fighting HARD.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
