Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey: employment of an "Inclusivity Outreach" worker
Inclusivity Outreach workers: the contribution of two immigrants.
Article about the customs and values brought to this country by a fellow immigrant. Is Roma Concern another organisation conveying an impression of a charity? Do the rules surrounding charities need to be tightened – and those passing themselves off as charities?
Caution: link to The Daily Mail (those of a sensitive nature should not follow).
.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"Article about the customs and values brought to this country by a fellow immigrant"?
No it wasn't Clive. It's a report on a court case where six people are alleged to have committed offences; and have been remanded to appear in Court again on 6 May.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Well Alan you might allow that there are a number of aspects to the alleged offences, not least the aspect that the key alleged perpetrator was employed by the Council of which you are a Member. I'm sure that, quite properly, you won't want to comment on the case now. But can we expect comment once a decision is arrived at, either from you or – perhaps even less likely – in the pages of the Council's publication Haringey People magazine, which some people claim is informative?
-
Permalink Reply by Yvonne on
-
Clive I am not sure what point you are making. Who in this case works for Haringey Council?
-
-
Yvonne, I know no more than appears in the article in the Mail (customs and values was my commentary). The article says inter alia,
Olmazu, who was arrested last week, was working as an 'inclusivity outreach worker' to Roma gipsies for both Haringey and Waltham Forest councils in North London
This sounds like past tense and even LBH probably wouldn't put on gardening leave someone charged with offences like this. We don't know how recently or long this woman worked for LBH.
Alan is quite correct that the report is about alleged offences, but that may mean less in this case than in other cases: it sounds like all this detail (there's quite a bit in that article) came about only after a long police investigation. The group are remanded in custody rather than free on bail and that may reflect concern of risk of flight. There's a huge amount of money involved. Of course under British justice, she is innocent until proven guilty. Plus, fraud cases are often hard to prove.
If found guilty of these serious fraud and conspiracy charges, it would likely raise questions about the circumstances surrounding her employment.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
Right. But until anyone's found guilty, this doesn't tell us anything "about the customs and values brought to this country by a fellow immigrant" does it? You might recall the bust of the so-called Muslim terrorist ricin factory in Wood Green a few years ago. Lots of media hysteria around the arrests and their implication for this country. But that ended up telling us something about the reliability of police intelligence and forensic testing for ricin.
-
-
In 1935 Viscount Sankey set out what has come to be known as the “golden thread” judgement.
In the House of Lords case of R. v. Woolmington he said:"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception."
In the Presumption of Innocence by English Courts, no exception is made for cases where there may be: “a long police investigation”; “concern of risk of flight”; “a large amount of money involved”; or where people “are remanded in custody”. Nor even where the Daily Mail report contains “quite a bit of detail”.
Clive, I’m not avoiding comment on these particular cases because one of the people charged may – or may not (I simply don’t know) – have been employed by Haringey. I’m avoiding comment because they are currently being tried by the courts – in other words the cases are sub judice.
-
-
Yes, I do understand it is sub judice currently. But would you be any more likely to comment when free to do so? Or will you leave it up to the editor of Haringey People to cover? I'm impressed that there has been no suggestion (so far) of any attempt by Haringey to cover up this case, but stories of this nature are not always covered comprehensively in HP, even after cases are over.
-
-
Please Clive, this is silly. You know perfectly well that Haringey People isn't there to comment on court cases.
My law is woefully out-of-date, but for what it's worth, my understanding of sub judice is that comment - other than fair reporting of the Court hearing itself - might be construed as Contempt of Court, punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Also that in some cases costs could be awarded against the media organisation which carried the comment.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
