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
-
Very, very popular. There are a lot of Blakes around, none of them related.
-
-
I have given up on HoL for hassling these people for the moment. I know they read everything written here as if I get something wrong they are emailing to have it corrected right away. This morning I am hassling them on Twitter (@john_mcmullan). I decided why not seeing as I am followed by @DavidLammy, @HackneyAbbott, @DAlexanderMP and @tom_watson. I'm not followed by the leader of Haringey Council, or the secretary of St Ann's Ward Labour Party, or @SteveHartUnite.
I would appreciate some help on Twitter so I don't look like some lone crazy. You know, the odd retweet.. Ta.
-
-
I saw a tweet from @tom_watson who thought it was cute that a ten year old had asked his parent's MP (children are not allowed MPs) to "interfere" on their behalf. So I've asked @DavidLammy to "interfere" on my behalf and ask The Secretary of the St Ann's Ward Labour Party to give the records of the selection meeting (attendance, ballots etc) to The Secretary of the Tottenham Constituency Labour Party, who has asked for them but not recieved them. Let's see how we get on! Feel free to join in, I'm sure he'd like some love from Harringay on Twitter.
-
-
My tweet to David Lammy brought a furious defence of him from the Secretary of the Tottenham Labour Party. As another tweeter pointed out, their silence at other times is all the more telling.
The Secretary of the St Ann's Labour Party has still not given the attendance record (there was a member who was 52 but looked 32 according to a tweet I saw last night) and the ballots cast to the Secretary of the Tottenham Labour Party for scrutiny. This is just being sat on hoping that it will go away.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Back in the last century I was Tottenham Constituency Secretary for two years. It's a thankless task - meaning that nobody thanks you for your - voluntary - work but they are quick to blame you for everything that goes wrong or that they personally dislike.
The Party had gone through a painful left/right battle. I was seen as a right-winger. To do the job I tried to be scrupulously fair, open and even-handed; to mediate disputes; and find win-win solutions to disagreements. And that included in my contact with our then MP Bernie Grant and his office. I have a lot of respect for Bernie. My personal experience is that he was an excellent constituency MP. I have the same view about David Lammy.
Seema Chandwani the current Tottenham Constituency Party Secretary has a similar task. She has to be neutral. Though of course the centre of gravity within the Labour Group of councillors has shifted well to the right.
Your point about the ballot papers and attendance record from the St Ann's Selection meeting is entirely valid. As a former branch and constituency secretary I'm mystified why these were not immediately sealed and handed over as requested as soon as there was a challenge. It's an obvious "no-brainer" way to pour ice cold water on suspicion, before it burns as rumour and speculation. Which it will now do.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
Lammy does not inspire much enthusiasm amongst many constituents. His book was lack lustre and just repeated cliches about the place. So he reinforced negative stigmas.
He shows no inspiration in finding solutions that will really help the grassroots in Tottenham. I.e. those that need the most support.Okay his campaign against all those betting shops is great - but he was in government when they eased the law that made it easier for them to proliferate. He has consistently backed the cabal regime's decisions which are destructive to local independent entrepreneurship. He hasn' t come out against the desastrous THSpurs destruction of whole areas of the N Tottenham streetscape. Go and see what is happening around that area now. Off licence invasion!!
I remember his very disappointing peformance on the post-riot Adebayo radio show when instead of engaging the debate and justifying his position, he sought to close it down because it didn't fit his idea of how " his area" should be debated.
Exactly what does he stand for? He is PART of the problem in East Haringey.
I feel he is such a poor MP.(Comment edited by site admin in line with house rules)
-
-
I disagree with you and I just can't believe you wrote this. No, I'm shocked you wrote that. Seriously?
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on
-
Whatever you think of David Lammy's performance as an MP (and I know not everyone shares my opinion that he has been a good constituency MP), you can express that lack of confidence without resorting to language that plays on the colour of his skin. The comments about betting shops are unfair, as the legislation had already been sorted out before he was in ministerial office, so he had little opportunity to do anything about it then. Since then, with other MPS, in London and outside, he has been very outspoken about the damage betting shop clusters do to impoverished areas like ours. As for the Spurs matter, if you want to direct your anger anywhere, direct it against the management of the football club, who managed to play off different groups against each other, and threatened to withdraw completely from Tottenham, which would have been a big blow to employment and local small businesses. They are the Bad Guys here, not David Lammy. Perhaps Haringey Council could have played their hand better, but I think our MP did all he could.
(Comment responded to edited comment above and so edited by site admin)
-
-
As someone who shares Mr Lammy's racial heritage I am aware of politically correct language. Explain what is racist about my statement.
And I said I do give him credit for that very worthy anti betting shop proliferation campaign.
But you go on making excuses for him about the Spurs issue. The whole affair IS political and was well reported on a national scale. It is his constituency! We elect the politicians precisely to keep a check and balance on blatant commercial motivations of big business. Spurs are a national player. I don't think he did all he could have. And I don't get the impression from his book that he has thought much about it from that level.
In Tottenham there is a feeling that the place is being sold out TO big business AT THE EXPENSE of the local population, many of whom are black and ethnic minorities but also less well-heeled white people.
If local Labour (council and parliamentary) had more faith in, and a better vision for the area they would have called the bluff and freed up that very large patch of land in N Totttenham for redevelopment along the lines of Kings Cross i.e for a business park and housing not for a football stadium whose redevelopment is having very negative consequences on our community in an urban-physical and social way. Despite the 2009 economic crisis, the shortage of land for redevelopment in London means that with a well thought out plan, it would not have been difficult to secure investment for the site, which in the longer term could have been more beneficial to Tottenham's future. Indeed our lovely council is now claiming that they have secured £1 billion for Tottenham!
The larger football ground could have been allowed to go to Stratford which has been purposefully redeveloped to cater for the size of event or exported to the T Hale transport hub where the effects of the attending hoards would be less felt and allowing for a Wembley or Stratford type physical arrangement, separating the main flows of football fans from our residential streets.
More and more retail units around the Spurs site are becoming off licences that cater to football going customers. The soul of a once lively, although dishevelled, High Rd is being drained away and demolished. Ordinary users of the High street flee the place when there is a match and business takings go down apart from the fast food and drinking establishments. This is not regeneration. We could have had much more than a new hypermarket, a technical college and 200 flats. These do not compensate for the retail no-mans-land they are creating in the middle of the area!
If the intervention of the area's LABOUR MP to prevent this was adequate than woe betide us!
Planting a massive stadium of this type in the middle of what should be an attractive shopping high street and residential area was and still is not the best solution and those ultimately in charge of the policy decisions are responsible since they DO have the power, indeed they have the duty, to influence things and they often do so if it is important ENOUGH to them.
I stand by what I say on our MP's approach to things. You are free to disagree. We live in a democracy.
-
-
JJ by all means disagree with David Lammy. But why bring it into a thread about vote-rigging in St Ann's ward?
I realise it's not always possible to have a face-to-face conversation - or a heated open discussion if you prefer - directly with David Lammy himself. Everyone wants a slice of his time. Several thousand people do every year and it's a long, long queue. (And entirely unlike a summer's day a few years ago when a friend of ours strolled up to talk to the Scottish MP David Mundell, at a table in Peebles.)
But you could ask our David.
And there's a further point. I strongly disagree with you about David Lammy. I also disagree with some of your views about Tottenham. But on many issues I think we do agree. And even when we don't, when we've met face-to-face we listen to each other and think about the issues discussed.
But if everyone you or I disagreed with on some issue, is seen as part of the problem, how do we build any effective, even limited alliances to challenge the people who are currently calling the shots and doing such damage to the place where we live?
(Tottenham resident and Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
As you said, let's not continue this discussion in this thread if you want to continue it.
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
Hi John,
Whilst I appreciate your right to seek accountability and somewhat admire your tenacity, I would greatly appreciate a degree of accuracy with regards to your reporting of my actions.
To ensure all are abundantly clear:
- You Tweeted the MP and in that Tweet, you had copied [tagged] me in.
- Another user replied to you, in that reply they insinuated or queried that the forementioned MP may have been involved in actions against me. I was again copied [tagged] into that Tweet.
- I found the insinuation or query from the other user, suggesting the MP could have been party to any action against me, upsetting.
- Thus I replied to the other user.
- My reply was not 'furious', it was however a firm statement of confidence and trust in the MP and dismissed any suggestion he could be involved in actions against me.
- In my firm, but not furious response, I pledged my 100% faith, confidence and trust in the MP.
- Whilst I appreciate this was 'in defence' of him, I was not defending him from you or your Tweet. It would been a tad odd to defend him from you, considering you had not made any suggestions or insinuations.
- However, if you shared similar thoughts to the other user in this circumstance, then I hope you too have been corrected.
You have every right to ask your MP to assist you with any issues you may have.
People, [including pieces of cake and moving sound equipment], have the right to write whatever they please on social media. But by exercising that right, they have to accept that they can be challenged on their view points. I took the opportunity, in this circumstance to challenge a statement made about me.
In hindsight, I probably should not have responded. The limit of 140 characters on Twitter could lead to a misunderstanding of context.
However, the MP has been an amazing pillar of support to me on matters outside of the party and politics, and my reaction was emotionally led based on my respect, affection and graditude towards him. I could not bear the thought that he, someone who has been so supportive of me, could be subjected to a rumour involving me that I believe not to be true.
I do not know you, but from what I know of you, I don't believe you intended any malicious intent by what you posted in regards to this Tweet exchange and probably did believe it was in response to you. I hope, therefore this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had
I wish you every success in your attempts to become the next Inspector Morse, just don't forget Harringay when you are driving around Oxford in your vintage Jaguar.
S
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
