Legal funding to fight Prevention of Harassment Letter over St Ann's Labour Fraud

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lydia R on May 17, 2014 at 18:33

"A younger woman with a Cockney accent isn't taken seriously when she writes something authoritative"

As I said before Alan, southern accents don't hit me with the same apparent force that they hit you. 

I am basing my assessment on Ms. Ibrahim's performance at the hustings.  Although she was obviously being genuine in her answers to most questions, she managed to tell us only about her family history. 

It was a charming picture but not all that "authoritative".

Lydia Rivlin: Conservative candidate for Harringay Ward.

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on May 16, 2014 at 14:58

Bit like the missing words round in Have I Got News For You.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GillianM on May 17, 2014 at 12:39

John - in case you missed it, the UKIP twitter row was covered on last night's The Now Show.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on May 19, 2014 at 22:39

I've spoken to my lawyer today who assures me that Supt Presland is monitoring my HoL and Twitter activity with the speed at which he calls her when he thinks I might be saying something I'm not allowed to. So originally it was that I am not allowed to talk about two people and now they are spreading the remit to the wider issue of St Ann's which I think is beyond what they're legally allowed to do.

From what I have seen from the evidence I think the witnesses have misremembered some things and got events mixed up and sometimes Phil and I mixed up but frankly the evidence also contradicts itself so I think the Police "investigation" was cursory at best. Now we have the old builder's refrain "there's never time to do it right but there's always time to do it over".

However the "NPT DS Review" on the 28th of January seemed eminently sensible:

I have reviewed this matter and I believe there is a difficulty in that there is a distinct lack of specifically abusive or threatening messages from the two suspects. The tweets appear to concern the victim's relationship with his wife and have been posted on both private/public forums.

There is a question whether or not this ventures into the realm of free speech on some aspects as the suspects would be a(sic) liberty to tweet views about the victim on a public forum such as Haringeyonline(sic) so long as they are not abusive/threatening in nature.

I note that the victim has now blocked the 2 accounts by contacting Twitter directly but it would be difficult for the police to have an impact on what people can post on a public Twitter account as long as specific offences are not committed.

I advise the OIC to contact the victim in order to discuss the above and provide realistic expectations about what the police can do about this matter.

Ascertain if he knows any person by the names of the 2 Twitter accounts.

Once above is completed, this can be reassessed.

The things that worry me from the Police's point of view are:

• They can find no record of the victim in the police computer system with regard to the alleged assault at the Salisbury Pub in the 18th of December. There is a crime reference number for this. Indeed the PC investigating says "I have conducted IIP checks on the victim/suspect/witness names but there is no trace of any allegations of assault regarding this incident against Mr XXX", unfortunately not properly redacted but basically the person they have been referring to as the victim.
• There is an assumption made that Phil K and I are unknown to the victim and therefore more sinister yet this is also contradicted in other evidence, specifically about the night in the Salisbury on the 18th.
• The PC who issued me with the notice on the 10th of February had this to say: "I informed Mr McMullen(sic) that the victim felt distressed by the tweets (at least ten have been sent between the period mentioned) and have asked that he no longer includes their usernames when using twitter. I am also aware that Mr McMullen(sic) uses Haringey(sic) Online to voice his opinions relating to the victim and I have asked that any future posts he makes, are not of an abusive or insulting nature. I then issued a protection for Harassment letter (9993) to Mr McMullen(sic) who refused to sign it." which completely contradicts the advice she was given on the 28th of January above, nothing was abusive and I certainly was not insulting.

The evidence given about the picketing that Ant, Phil, Eddie and I conducted on the 19th of January in the gardens is quite inaccurate and I think the best man to remember what really happened will probably be David Lammy himself.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lydia R on May 19, 2014 at 23:00

I believe that these sort of tactics, in the context of silencing a rival or a critic, are called "lawfare".

Lydia Rivlin: Conservative candidate - Harringay ward.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page