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

9 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by pamish on February 11, 2014 at 11:56

....meanwhile, thousands of schoolkids across the land are wondering how they will survive the cyberbullying. ...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 11, 2014 at 11:58

They didn't show me any proof at all. The young man sat opposite me and repeated the word filth many times and I said nothing, thinking I'd been more careful than that but believing them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ant on February 11, 2014 at 12:03

From the WhatDoTheyKnow site, here, no idea how accurate it is but that guy says:

Harassment warnings issued by the police are effectively judgement without trial. Anyone can make up any malicious claim they want about any individual. The police do not investigate claims of harassment, especially claims made by females against males.

Furthermore, if any subsequent claims are made by the original complainant, the police will then be considering an arrest, still without ever validating the claims made. Should you also have been a victim of harassment from the other party - as many men often are from the actions of spiteful ex-partners who often play the 'fear' card to get their way - then your claims will be ignored and theirs favoured.

Should you ever be on the receiving end of an harassment claim you are innocent of, refuse to sign anything. Then, if the police issue the harassment warning against you, demand that they either investigate the allegations or that the harassment warning is to be expunged from any CRB checks that could be made by future employees.

If you have an harassment warning against you it will remain on police computers, it will also influence the decisions of other officers should anything further arise. Regardless of the truth behind the harassment warning, they regard it as proof of your criminality.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on February 11, 2014 at 12:08

One definition I saw, had filth as "disgusting dirt".

Were that applied to an individual, it would IMO be OTT-North Korean.

May be safer to use "filthy XYZ". (where XYZ applies to conduct).

The most famous filthy remark by a New Labour politician, in a different context, was of course that by Peter Mandelson. The attitude that lay behind that flippancy, IMO caused enormous damage.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james walsh on February 11, 2014 at 12:32

This reminds me of the criminalization of street photographers, What happened to that ?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 11, 2014 at 14:52

I'm wondering if it would be helpful to seek expert legal advice on this. Preferably pro bono. But if John McMullan and Phil K need some cash, we are ready to contribute to a fund for them to see a lawyer.

Because we think it would be very much in the wider public interest if there was far more clarity about what people can and can't say and do in a case where disagreements and campaigns are in progress about important political and civic issues.

The Crown Prosecution Service issued "Interim Guidance on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media. It's dated 19 December 2012. As well as giving practical guidance - including to the Police - it was a consultation document. A summary of the responses received is also published on the CPS website.

This is a relatively new area of law. The judges, and the police, are working out the consequences - intended and unintended - of trying to protect people from what's been called cyberbullying. As Pam Isherwood points out, the worry uppermost in people's minds have been cases where children and young people were victims.

But the CPS Guidance also stresses the importance of defending freedom of speech and free expression and the possible "chilling effect" if the test for what constitutes harassment is set too low.

I've heard that a senior member of the Labour Party's staff queried why residents need to know how the Party selects its candidates. I hope most people immediately see the absurdity of such a view. Especially questions about who stands and who selects candidates in wards with low membership which have been "safe" Labour seats for years. (Some of these wards make 19th Century pocket boroughs seem like models of democracy.)

As Ed Miliband said last night (You can watch the whole video) "unaccountable concentrations of power, wherever we find them, don't serve the public interest and need to be held to account." And while Ed was unlikely to have in mind the power exercised by small groups within local Labour Parties, I include these.

Ed Miliband also said that power and participation are key issues for Labour. He quoted Saul Alinsky the U.S. community organiser. Many of the tactics Alinsky used successfully were designed to embarrass and shame power holders by exposing their failings.

Just as John McMullan and Phil K - with others of course - have exposed the failings of the Haringey Labour Parties.

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 11, 2014 at 15:17

I have just gotten off the phone with PC Molloy (223246). She has refused to withdraw the allegation but did not apologise to me about the other officer who sat opposite me at my kitchen table and insinuated many times that I had called the Secretary of the St Ann's Branch of the Labour Party filth on Twitter, even though she said to me that she knew full well at the time that this was not me.

She told me that I was being childish, had too much time to waste, should have better things to do and that what I was doing was not important. She said she expected teenagers to behave "this way".

The allegation basically rests on the "frequency" of my tweets to the Secretary of the St Ann's branch of the Labour Party and the fact that I (along with Liz Ixer I might add) was "mentioned" in the tweet calling the Secretary of the St Ann's branch of the Labour Party filth.

Yes, I think having a lawyer about now would be good.