Comments on: Labour’s verdict: it’s ok for our candidates to lie during an election

By: passing tory

passing tory — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:21:59 +0000

Thank goodness justice was done in the end, eh Chris.

By: Meral Ece

Meral Ece — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:14:16 +0000

Just heard, Grell has lost her appeal. Her appeal hinged on the fact hunged on the fact that there was ‘a plot to discredit her’ (by the Lib Dems) It took the Judge and his colleagues 20 mins to dismiss this. She will have to pay all costs and there will be a by election. She is the fist person to be convicted under the 1983 Act.
I hope this send out a strong signal to her ‘friends’ and Labour apologists, that they cannot get away with homophobic campaigning.

By: Chris Keating

Chris Keating — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:43:30 +0000

So when do we hear the results of the appeal?

By: passing tory

passing tory — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:41:16 +0000

Where’s your sense of fun, Chris. A naked run down Oxford St maybe? Otherwise it gives the impression that you are all hot air and no substance

I think we all hope that justice will prevail although we anticipate that this will come from a different result.

By: Chris Paul

Chris Paul — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:12:45 +0000

Passing Tory: I am not planning to offer any forfeit, any more than the Lib Dems are if their case should be unsuccessful.

Betting on the result of a serious court case – in this case the first brought under the particular law – is not something that I would consider.

A goodly proportion of the reported evidence in the original case appears curious from this distance, however this is for the courts to decide in the end.

There is an appeal process and let us all hope that justice prevails.

By: passing tory

passing tory — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:21:39 +0000

OK, Chris, how much faith do you have in Ms Grell’s position? What forfeit are you willing to pay if her appeal fails?

[although, to be fair, I have been on the receiving end of a fair few Lib Dem dirty tricks over the years so I feel there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the Lib Dem complaints here]

By: James

James — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:19:58 +0000

“Miranda Grell is a lying homophobic bigot. No more, no less”.

We’ll see.

By: Sesenco

Sesenco — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:41:07 +0000

That’s pathetic, Chris Paul.

Miranda Grell is a lying homophobic bigot. No more, no less.

By: Chris Paul

Chris Paul — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:35:29 +0000

Just noticed your smear-with-smiley Hywel of 9 November. Very cute. Bit of a paradox given the subject matter of the strand and indeed the substance of the case – whichever way it goes.

I wll follow up Pandora’s revelation as I’m sure you will too.

(You are the same Hywel who sticks out a campaign handbook with clip art barmy bar charts for all eventualities?)

By: Ross Chmiel

Ross Chmiel — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:21:14 +0000

This is from today’s Independent:

Having taken flak for bankrolling the legal appeal of Miranda Grell, the “rising star” black Labour councillor convicted of making false paedophilia slurs against a gay rival, party chiefs have abruptly washed their hands at the 11th hour.

With the appeal by Grell, 29, due to be heard in court today, Labour told Pandora yesterday that the party was backing her case to the tune of £30,000 – only to perform an embarrassing volte-face 41 minutes later.

“Following legal advice in the last few days, the Labour Party today withdrew its support for Miranda Grell’s appeal,” said a flustered spokeswoman, admitting that Grell had benefited from party dosh “up until this point”.

Says Peter Tatchell: “Labour is tough on racism and weak on homophobia.”

Glad to see that even the Labour Party is fed up defending this odious bigot!

By: Tristan Mills

Tristan Mills — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:28:45 +0000

Meral 57:
On the ‘Justice for Leytonstone Ward’ site:
I notice that the Cooperative Bank link has been taken down, although I received no reply from either the bank or the website when I queried whether this meant formal support by the bank for the campaign.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they just put links up there to make it look like they had support…

By: Hywel Morgan

Hywel Morgan — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:58:06 +0000

My understanding based on
1) Experience (and supported by the more extensive experience Ian and Anthony)
2) The CJS website http://tinyurl.com/2v2859
3) A paper from Inner Temple Library http://tinyurl.com/2qpx4x

All which are pretty authoritative IMO and suggest no transcript is taken.

It’s possible some pilot scheme doing this is operating in Waltham Forest I suppose. Why don’t you scan the relevant pages in and post them somewhere. Or are we operating to the Chris Paul “It’s up to you to prove my allegations false” standard of proof here

By: Meral Ece

Meral Ece — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:54:46 +0000

38. ‘Joanne (McCartney?) claims that there seems ot be a lot of support for MG on her ‘Justice for Leyton’ website. Been told today by 2 of the names on the list, that their names were put on the website without their permission…How many more I wonder?

By: Paul Walter

Paul Walter — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:50:11 +0000

“# Joanne Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 9:07 pm

No, are you?”

Strange question given that my name on the comment links to my blog site.

Funny how you’ve gone quiet since then.

By: Ross

Ross — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:18:29 +0000

Geoff – you are so right!
I would to take this opportunity to praise Barry Smith for not allowing this bigot to get away with her disgusting actions. He has suffered greatly at the hands of this disgraceful person and the easy thing to do would have been hide away and try to forget about it. His courageous stand against Ms Grell’s actions is an example to every victim of bigotry and oppression. Well done Cllr. Smith!!

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:45:34 +0000

Meral 35, Joanne quotes the transcript when she thinks it suits her case. When she is asked a question about quotations from the media that do not suit her case, she ignores the question and just says “read the transcript”.
She is being deliberately evasive, and the obvious conclusion is that she cannot defend the behavior of Miranda.
There is another point as well.
To spread a rumour that someone is a paedophile is legally wrong. To spread a rumour that someone is gay may not be legally wrong, but is morally wrong.
Now I have no idea whether she broke the law. The appeal will decide that.
But Joanne has not denied, and the media have reported that Miranda admitted to spreading a rumour that her Lib Dem opponent is gay. That is morally wrong, whatever the appeal decides, but Joanne will not comment on that, not even in the abstract.
Which just goes to further show how vacuous her position is.

By: Andy Mayer

Andy Mayer — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:16:24 +0000

On the slander point she was charged with misrepresentation not slander. It is evidently misrepresentation to claim that your opponent has an interest in young men or boys when they do not.

Joanne, perhaps you could tell us what Grell considers her grounds for appeal actually are. “I didn’t do it” or generally doesn’t get you back into court when a judge has ruled that you did. You need to identify either a flaw with court procedure or the evidence presented.

And given you’ve apparently got the transcript, or though Antony above suspects this is not the case, perhaps you could relate to us what her running mate Nicholas Russell said about her.

By: Antony Hook

Antony Hook — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:37:36 +0000

Magistrates’ Courts are not tape recorded, transcripts are note made and those Courts that do make recordings (the Crown and Couny court for example) charge a considerable fee for transcripts.

By: Daniel Bowen

Daniel Bowen — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:07:45 +0000

Joanne, is it the same ‘moral compass’ as using BNP slogans?

By: Daniel Bowen

Daniel Bowen — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:05:34 +0000

This ‘Joanne’ clearly exhibits all the morals of the modern Labour Party. ‘Nuff said.