Ian Oakely, the Conservative candidate for Watford and Hillingdon councillor*, today appeared in court and pleaded guilty to five charges of criminal damage and two of harrasment. He also asked for 68 other offences to be taken into account, making a total of 75 offences.
A fuller piece will follow later today, but in the meantime I’m sure that many people will both be shocked at the number of offences but also relieved that after all the years, someone has finally been brought to justice.
* After he was arrested, he quit as Conservative candidate and left the Conservative group on Hillingdon Council.
UPDATE: Two blogging Watford Liberal Democrat members, Iain Sharpe and Sara Bedford, have written their own postings on the news.
UPDATE 2: Sal Brinton, our PPC and 2005 candidate, has written a piece for Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
83 Comments
75 offences… why did the police take so long to sort this out?
Even to those of us who knew some of what was going on it reads like a bad novel. Smashed headlights, slashed tyres, letter being circulated accusing people of being perverts. And that is from the BBC website.
It is amazing that someone like that can look like a normal person to the electorate. Personally I would like to see the list of charges and the other 68 offences he wants taken into account. I don’t think even Jeffrey Archer would have made it up!
You come across freaks in party politics all the time, but it is very rare for one as extreme as this to get all the way to target seat candidate.
Is ConHome still insisting it is all a Lib Dem smear campaign by the way?
Given that Oakely resigned following the initial breaking of this story, shouldn’t your headline have read ‘Former Conservative Watford candidate’?
I have posted more information, including some comments from court, on my blog at http://sarabedford.com/blog.
The police will be releasing the details of the 68 TICs later – although that is fewer than half the number of incidents that we have logged.
There are going to be psychiatric reports before sentencing in six weeks time.
Notice that Iain Dale hasn’t yet got this on his website…
@JMM: Nope, he was the Conservative candidate at the time he committed the offences.
I’m ignorant of court procedudure.
I wonder though if in the court the question of did he act by himself or had acomplaces will be asked.
Mind you the guilty plea might prevent the prosicution asking such questions as the judge might go straight to sentancing.
JMM: he quit after he was arrested. The story has been going for much longer, such as last year’s Times piece about the police offering a reward for information.
Why is it none of this surprises me?
The man obviously has psychiatric problems and needs help. As soon as I saw his guilty plea on the BBC, I knew that you’d be running a story to gloat. The courts will now deal with him and this isn’t the Conservative Party’s problem now (he is no-longer a member and the idea, as you suggest, that we would have selected him if we had known he had ‘issues’ is beyond belief!)
Can’t you see how you’re destroying Lib Dem Voice with all these ‘he did that, she did this’ stories?
It would be far better to have a real discussion on why you’re only on 16/17% in the polls, despite Labour’s daily and mounting problems. And I mean that sincerely.
Odd that the “take responsibility for your actions” rhetoric vanishes when it’s a Conservative PPC who’s guilty, isn’t it?
“He obviously has psychatric problems” is convenient, but it remains to be seen if it’s true.
Yes, he should take responsibility of his own actions and I’m sure the courts will deal with him appropriately (and request a psychiatric assessment in the process)
Justin Hinchcliffe said :-
“this isn’t the Conservative Party’s problem now”
Come on !!! Your party had this guy as a councillor and as PPC in a seat you presumably consider to be significant. It would seem that he had what we might call an “interesting” idea of the bounds of reasonable inter-party campaigning!
I think that raises reasonable questions about the way you assess potential candidates for approval. Perhaps his flaws were such that they could not reasonably have been identified, but that’s a long way from saying that – since he is no longer a member – it’s not an issue your party needs to address!
No-one in the Conservative Party knew this was going on. Ho, ho.
Once Mr Oakley is in his prison cell sitting on his slop bucket he will have plenty of time to reflect on his party’s policy on criminal jusitce. No doubt he will be demanding the longest possible sentence (plus bread and water rations).
Yes, the party of law and order has a few criminals of its own. Reginald Maudling, Bob Boothby, Lord Archer, anyone? How about the Conservative councillor (and chain-smoker) who was convicted for her part in a £10 million VAT fraud (no, I won’t stoop to naming her)? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Leading in the opinion polls excuses such things.
Poor Mr Oakley. Had he been on the LEFT he could have justified his actions by pleading Lenin’s maxim that there is no morality in the class struggle.
I hope the guy he called a paedophile sues him and bankrupts him. Out of jail and on to the street.
Yes, I know. There are rotten apples in all political parties. But I can’t help but feeling there is more to this sordid little affair than meets the eye.
Justin, if Ian Oakley is nothing to do with the Conservative party, why were COnservative councillors and activists, and the Chairman of the constituency party there to support him today, hugging and kissing him in the court house?
This is a total of over 150 incidents, over a period of three years, since Oakley was the campaign manager at the 2005 GE. During that time, the local LibDems have remained silent and dignified and just continued campaigning. The local Conservative party failed to take it seriously and threatened to sue, should anyone suggest that the perpetrator was a Conservative.
As for the thought that Oakley’obviously has psychiatric problems’ if that were so obvious, why were COnservatives, including senior PPCs, queuing up to support him when he was arrested?
How could the parliamentary candidate have been committing an average of one crime a week over a period of years and no-one noticed anything? If nothing else, the local Conservatives are guilty of breathtaking naivety and need to hold a inquiry.
“if Ian Oakley is nothing to do with the Conservative party, why were COnservative councillors and activists, and the Chairman of the constituency party there to support him today, hugging and kissing him in the court house?” – must be in a personal capacity
What a totally limp response from Justin Hinchcliffe. This would be the same Conservative Party that defended the PPC and said it was a “smear campaign”, it was their problem then…but now he has admitted it suddenly it becomes not the Conservative Party’s problem now!? Honestly, “so weak” to paraphrase another idiot.
It is a bit reminiscent of the who Miranda Grell farce. Then it was Labour defending their own in spite of all the evidence…
There does seem to be a bit of a pattern though – of concerted, aggressive and sometimes illegal campaigns waged against Lib Dem politicians in some localities, where the offending party just will simply not accept that there has been anything wrong until the judge says “Guilty”.
The Conservative activists active on the net are very funny. One week we are told that he is a brilliant guy, the next that he is very unlikely to guilty of anything, the next minute he is nothing to do with them.
This is the second time he’s been a PPC, he is a sitting councillor elected as a Conservative, a former campaigns organiser and a founder of a local Conservative youth branch. He has been selected as an official tory candidate at least three times. He stood a small chance of being elected as an MP. This man has committed at least 75 counts of repugnant harrassment. He has a previous reputation as being a bit of a loose cannon. How did he get way with it for so long? Did no-one in the Tories have any suspicions?
Looking at issues more broadly (as requested) I would like to know why Tories seem to generally have such a visceral dislike for the Lib Dems if we are such an irrelevance?
I knew you were going to try to draw parallels with the Miranda Grell case.
She maintained she was innocent. Oakley has *already* pleaded guilty to 75 offences. His did wrong. His political career is over. He is no-longer in the Conservative Party. It’s now up to the courts to take appropriate action, perhaps, including a psychiatric assessment.
If member of the Watford Conservative Association knew about or indeed encouraged appalling behaviour, I suspect they will have their membership withdrawn and be subjected to a police investigation.
The police report said that Oakley had admitted that he intentionally harassed LibDem activists ‘with the intention of leading to his own victory in the General Election’. Oakley also admitted that he was ‘driven to change the political landscape of Watford to the benefit of the Conservative Party’.
The chairman of the magistrates stated that in sentencing he ‘could not ignore that [Oakley’s] stated aim was to interfere with the democratic process’.
A lone idiot, or a driven political hack who would stop at nothing to defeat democracy as well as his rivals?
As soon as I saw his guilty plea on the BBC, I knew that you’d be running a story to gloat.
I knew you were going to try to draw parallels with the Miranda Grell case.
This Hinchcliffe fella is clearly psychic. How does he do it? Clearly the Conservatives is stuffed with paranormals as well as abnormals.
On a serious note, there is one other case to raise here: the infamous Tower Hamlets by-election. The difference there was the Lib Dems had a thorough internal investigation.
Whenever issues such as this crop up, Tory and Labour activists are very quick to shout “you’re just as bad”. I always ask for evidence. And even when we have foul ups like this, we get our own house in order. When have Labour or the Tories ever done the same?
They also like to claim, as Hinchcliffe does here, that they are the actions of a handful of isolated individuals. Yet on what does he base this on (aside from his psychic powers of course)? Again: is Cameron going to insist on an internal investigation to establish exactly who knew what in Watford and CCHQ. If a public official acted in the same way, we would expect nothing less.
Until they do have such an investigation, don’t let any of the f*ckers claim it isn’t their problem.
How can we investigate him if he isn’t a member? I agree that an investigation should take place on who, if anyone, knew about his actions and why they didn’t take appropriate action.
Justin, on the basis of your last post perhaps there is some agreement here.
All we would ask is a proper investigation by the Conservative Party into their activities in Watford over the past three years.
It needs to look at how he was able to do this for so long without arousing suspicions, whether there was any degree of complicity by anyone else, whether the Conservatives co-operated fully with the police to help identify the perpetrator and whether any changes to procedures need to be made to stop reoccurrence.
Of course you can’t investigate Ian Oakley as such if he is not a member. But I am sure someone in the Conservative party will be able to find him and invite him to co-operate.
Iain, a sensible post. Thank you.
I’m trying to refrain from commenting on this subject until we hear what official statement David Cameron makes in response to this besmirching of the Conservative brand, coming as it does after all his efforts to cleanse their reputation as the nasty party.
I would also be interested to know what Mr Cameron has to say about the example public figures set with regards to his ‘broken society’ narrative and whether he thinks attempts to undermine the democratic process contribute to lowering the standards of daily life and public discourse.
Until we publicly hear what lead he is prepared to take within his party it would be unfair to make judgements about how their party is constituted and organised.
Speaking of Miranda Grell, her appallingly named “Justice for Leyton” website has been updated.
A couple of choice quotes:
“The judge incorrectly ruled that she had only won her Leyton ward council seat by running a widespread “smear campaign”, during which she was said to have deliberately told prospective voters on the door step that a fellow candidate from another political party was a ‘paedophile’.”
“There was no documentary evidence to support the accusations against Miranda and the only so called “eye witness” testimony came from local people – both Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters – with known and close links to the Liberal Democrat who had brought the complaint against Miranda.”
and, finally…
“Despite the great pressure that has been put on Miranda politically to declare herself “guilty” and “apologise” for a something she did not do, she continues maintains her innocence.”
Methinks the people of Leyton (and Barry Smith) got justice following the Lib Dem by-election victory in February this year, but Miranda obviously thinks differently…
Thank you for continuing to support the rights of ordinary people to decide who – through the ballot box, not unelected judges in the courts – they wish to represent them in their own town hall.
Last thing I saw, ordinary people DID decide who should represent them in the town hall. They voted for Winnifred Fredreca (Lib Dem) with a majority of 665.
It seems to me that the only person who wants that result overturned by a judge is Miranda Grell.
I stood for a Lib Dem Councillor in a Lib Dem borough in the North of England in the 1990s.
Trust me, the sheer nastiness of the Lib Dems made me really glad to get out. Lying rumours about other parties were laughed off, as was determination to put up taxes year on year without any discussion or even thought, an atmosphere where any form of discussion or even input from candidates was frowned upon and a Political Boss who dictated policy without any form of discussion at all.
I am so glad that the Lib Dems have now changed out of all recognition into the whiter than white party we can all appreciate on this thread.
Thaks, prziloczek, it’s a relief to hear that. I always believe what anonymous commenters say on websites. I trust what you are saying absolutely and in no way are you an activist from another party trying to smear the Lib Dems.
A sad , sad story.
The comments from Tories here just goes to show to Tories are Tories – they just cant help themselves.
God help us if they ever get back in.
Greenfield – your comment makes no sense, I’m afraid.
Justin, I think he means that despite Mr Cameron’s attempts to paint the Tories as a “nice” party, they remain, and will always be, a thoroughly nasty bunch of poltroons.
Spot on Sesenco!
How easy it is to predict the future – we all must have known that whinging Tories would be insisting he was a “former” Conservative candidate – rather than offering an sympathy, condemnation or an apology.
The time and effort put into this appauling campaign must surely have made someone suspicious. When this was all going on, who did the Tories think was responsible? And what a bright candidate, denying it all until shown the fingerprint evidence.
Sadly, yes the Conseravtives are doing very well in the polls, but standing for something? no way. In four years time the Tories will be a disillusioned with Cameron as Labour was with Blair and is with Brown. All he cares about is being in power as an end in itself – nothing else matters
*Who did the Conservatives think was responsible for the campaign of harrassment?*
Well putting myself in the local Watford Partys shoes. I would strongly suspect fringe elements of the local Labour Party, who had even more to lose from a LibDem victory than the Tories. I might even suspect LibDem agent provocateurs. The one person I would not consider is my own highly popular, hard-hitting, primary selected, local-hero ppc!
Reading the litany of harrassment and vandalism admitted to by Ian Oakley; it is now easy to conclude that as a ppc he was “a few leaflets short of a full delivery”. He has now done the right thing by admitting to all 75 incidents and not sparking a long court-case and further embarrassing his Party. Can the LibDems really say that they suspected Oakley of “direct” involvement before he appeared on CCTV?
And the reasons behind the affair? Before coming to any real conclusions it would be interesting to know:
– Oakley’s background and motivations.
– The political atmosphere in and out of the council chamber in Watford, which I suspect was fairly fetid.
– The pressures put on Oakley by Conservative Central Office to deliver as ppc in an obviously vital seat.
– The capacity of his local constituency Party to campaign and support him.
– A full analysis of the local LibDem’s campaign and methodology, in particular their own capacity for fighting dirty and “black-ops”.
I don’t think any Party can afford to be triuphalist or holier than thou. I have heard stories about most Parties that would curl peoples hair. This affair is a tragedy, horrible for Oakleys victims and the utter end of his political career. A real setback for the Watford Conservatives and an affront to democracy.
It seems to me the Tory line is two fold:
Firstly, that it is no longer anything to do with them and secondly, Oakley is clearly psychologically flawed.
Neither are good enough – firstly he was their candidate and organiser when these offences took place. Secondly he was clearly motivated (and admitted to in court) by political advantage – so it is perfectly possible he thought this was rational and winning at all costs was necessary.
There is of course the other issue of the remaining 75 offences Oakley has not admitted to. Who in Watford Tories committed these if not Oakley? And what did the rest of the association know about his activities (some of which are on CCTV)?
@ Paul WE Ingham – “- A full analysis of the local LibDem’s campaign and methodology, in particular their own capacity for fighting dirty and “black-ops”.”
How dare you suggest that the depths Oakley sunk to were anything but his individual responsibility, much less that of the people he was doing it to.
Would you say that domestic abuse was the fault of the abused partner? Such ‘justifications’ should be challenged for the nonsense they are.
Oakley is clearly a nasty piece of work (and probably deranged)but it’s difficult to believe that such widespread abuse (some of it apparently involving leaflets) could have taken place without some members of the Tory organisation being aware of it and condoning it. A thorough investigation is
clearly required.
Funny to watch the black arts even being practised on this very whiter than white thread! Bye, unbelievers!
Amusingly, the Watford Conservative website still has a large banner that features ‘Ian Oakley – a strong voice for Watford’.
Who committed the other 74 offences, for which no responsibility has, as yet, been claimed?
If Ian Oakley didn’t (and he has nothing further to lose but not admitting the whole truth) then investigations into all parties need to continue.
Only when this matter is fully cleared up will we have a clear picture of where the finger of blame should be pointed.
>I might even suspect LibDem agent provocateurs. The one person I would not consider is my own highly popular, hard-hitting, primary selected, local-hero ppc!
Given the intensity of the harressment one would think something odd was noticed.
Are there quotes from Ian Oakley or other watford conservatives condemning the harressment while it was going on? Did the Conservatives consider that any of their over-enthusiastic members could be responsible?
The excuses so far remind me of the BNP where every convicted member is an ex-member and probably a security servive plant.
Someone could have been firebombed, seriously assualted or killed had the smears from Ian Oakley provoked someone else to take the law into their own hands,
yet it seems none of the Conseravtives want to take it seriously
@ a disgusted individual- “How dare you suggest that the depths Oakley sunk to were anything but his individual responsibility, much less that of the people he was doing it to.”
Excuse the cynicism of my previous post, I was a resident of Tower Hamlets in the 1980’s & 90’s, so my view of Liberal Democrats is slightly coloured. The point of my original post was that something must of set Oakley off on his bizarre, unprecidented, unjustifiable campaign of mayhem.
It appears that events can be traced back to to the 2005 GE when he was campaign manager for the previous ppc. I note, that individual was from an ethnic minority. Once again excuse my cynicism, but I remember Cheltenham and what some Liberals are capable of doing to opposition black candidates (particularly Tory ones).
I endorse calls for a proper enquiry by Conservative Central Office- something clearly went wrong with the Watford campaign and it is vital to find out what. But I would also urge local LibDems to examine why such a climate of “fear and loathing” developed between two democratic Parties?
@Paul Ingham: Perhaps a climate of “fear and loathing” developed because one party’s candidate was harrassing the other party’s?
There is a lot of offensive bullshit in this thread saying “oh well the Lib Dems must have done something to deserve it”.
Methinks John Taylor (now Lord Taylor), the tory candidate in Cheltenham in ’92, got more grief off his own side, than from anybody else…
With regard to the 2005 result in Watford, the Lib Dem surge came on the back of their Mayoral win a few years earlier I would imagine.
I’d be sympathetic, Paul, to what you’re asking, with a view to banishing negative campaigning, however mild, from all local politics. A co-ordinated three-way review in all parties at once by an independent body would be most interesting.
But only if I thought *everyone* would abide by the rules of any outcome. And if this whole affair shows anything it’s that there are certain individuals in every party that no-one can control. Prziloczek on this thread presumably being a case in point.
However, I sincerely doubt, from some small personal knowledge of analagous – but thankfully not criminal – situations, that anything “set Oakely off”. Or rather, yes, I suspect it did, and it will have been something totally innocuous, that you or I would absorb as a matter of course. Something like this comment, say. Psychological problems really are just that. It’s no good our trying to apply reason to the actions of people who are in some way ill. The leaps of “logic” they can make, utterly unimpeachable to them, really are mind-blowing.
I’m getting repetitive strain from listening Bermondsey, Tower Hamlets and Michael Brown as the only sticks to beat us with – is that it?
In the meantime I find it hard to keep up with the extent of legally verified sleaze which could be pinned to either Labour or Conservatives.
Would anyone care to speculate about who is responsible for the remaining 74 items of unsolved crimes in this concerted hate campaign?
I get a little sick of comments along the lines of “this sort of thing (whichever party is at it) brings us all into disrepute.” Frankly that sort of comment itself seems to imply that elements of all parties are perpertrating this sort of campaign of intimidation – I don’t believe they are.
This business in Watford and the Miranda Grell case should teach one lesson to activists of all parties – if your opponents are flouting the rules/law, make a formal complaint and have it dealt with. Don’t just bandy rumour and innuendo.
I see so many comments on sites (particularly from Tories) calling the Lib Dems “the nasty party” and suggesting ill-defined dorty tricks campaigns. In my (admittedly very limited) experience of campaigning with the Lib Dems i’ve personally seen nothing of this, nor have I seen our accusers provide proper evidence to their assertions. If you can’t back your complaints up, don’t make them. if you simply can’t help yourself, don’t then insult our intelligence by complaining about other people tarring us with the same brush.
I agree with Painfully Liberal about this smear tactic of alleging ‘dirty tricks’, which Paul Ingham engaging in above.
In this case it is a rather dishonourable exercise in blaming the victims.
My impression is that what ‘set Mr Oakley off’ was the very existence of Watford Lib Dems and our electoral successes.
During the last general election campaign Mr Oakley was campaign manager for Ali Miraj, who almost incessantly criticised Watford Lib Dems for unspecified ‘dirty tricks’ and ‘filthy tactics’.
He repeated such comments on his now defunct blog and when I posted a rebuttal, he contacted me. In the course of the conversation I offered to sit down with him and a neutral third party to discuss the veracity and ethics of each party’s leaflets in Watford. He refused saying ‘I don’t debate with scum’.
As regards Mr Oakley, on the day of his arrest he had a letter in the Watford Observer accusing Hillingdon Liberal Democrats of (again undefined) ‘dirty tricks’ while also complaining that criticism from us of Hillingdon Council’s record on planning issues amounted to ‘personal attacks’ on him.
For the record, I would defend the integrity of Watford Liberal Democrats’ campaigning over the years against all comers.
Well clearly Iain its the fault of that nasty lot of Lib Dems in Hillingdon :))
I always thought they had a hand in turning Cllr Oakley to the dark side. We present such a phalanx of an opposition to them it must really irritate.
Jill and I feel suitable humble and contrite 🙂
Two points for the various Tory apologists on this thread :-
1. You leap to the view that Oakley must have been mentally ill to carry out such actions. Are you going to leap to the defence of every juvenile hoodie who slashes tyres, sprays graffiti, or puts offensive material through doors on the same grounds? I thought you lot were supposed to believe in personal responsibility?
2. Again we have heard the inferences that the Lib Dems engage in “underhand tactics” – but oddly the specifics are a bit thin. The evidence of Crewe & Nantwich – a byelection I saw at VERY close quarters – was of an energetically contested fight, where each of the main parties indulged in tactics that were open to question, but none were uniquely underhand.
So, if you want to accuse the LDs of being uniquely underhand please supply your evidence!
Thanks go to local LibDem insider Iain Sharpe for confirming there was “history” in this case and that the former Conservative ppc Ali Miraj and no doubt his trusty lieutenant Ian Oakley had a sense of grievance against the “filthy tactics” of the 2005 Liberal Democrat GE campaign.
As for attempting a smear, please note I am on record as saying that all this was “horrible” for Oakley’s victims and that his actions were bizarre unprecidented and unjustifiable. I also suggested that other factors including lack of support from central and local Conservative organisations might have been factors in pushing Oakley over the edge to become Watford’s very own John Rambo.
So what were the “unspecified dirty tricks” that Oakley and Miraj took such exception to? Please let me speculate. Speaking from my own experience of ethnic minority politics in Tower Hamlets it can be a grubby business. The whispering campaign is perhaps the most pernicious. “Candidate A has a white girlfriend”, because he was seen driving a female fellow activist home. “Candidate B drinks alcohol” because he was seen coming out of the local Conservative Club. Such rumours spread like wildfire in the Moslem or Asian community. Meanwhile mainsteam politicians (even well connected ones like Mr Sharpe) remain oblivious, unless it is their candidate at the sharp end (and sometimes not even then).
“1. You leap to the view that Oakley must have been mentally ill to carry out such actions”
Woah woah there. I ain’t leaping to any view, and I’m certainly no Tory apologist. I’m simply drawing a reasonable inference from the hearing, at which it was ruled that Oakely should be subject to a psychiatric assessment. That is not normal in minor criminal damage hearings so far as I know. It is therefore perfectly logical to conclude that the professionals closely involved with this case think there is a strong possibility that Oakely is mentally ill.
And anyway, why does it make any difference whether Oakely did what he did because he was mentally ill or because he was Evil Incarnate? Illness wouldn’t be a mitigation in any political sense anyway. What he did was illegal and people suffered horribly as a result. His actual motives, insofar as we are interested in them, should be a matter of fact and the sentence should reflect that, not a matter of emotional conviction.
The thing we should be getting indignant about is the fact that his party colleagues made no attempt to stop him, even though it is quite impossible that they should (a) have not smelt a rat at some point and (b) all be mentally ill.
Paul, it’s noticeable that you haven’t responded to the one person on the thread who was actually willing to engage with one of your points (to wit, moi). This inclines me to the belief that you are a troublemaker. Anyone who genuinely wanted a cross-party debate on the basis of the events in Watford would have taken up my suggestion, rather than further seeking to underpin Oakely’s actions with rational causality.
So there’s your chance at being a credible troll shot to pieces. Pity, because credible trolls are interesting. Eh well.
Has anyone noticed that Paul W E Ingham is an anagram of Ian Oakley (allegedly)?
The ‘unspecified dirty tricks and filthy tactics’ remain unspecified and unreported. Why? Because they didn’t exist?
On the day of Oakley’s arrest, he had a letter published in the Watford Observer. In it, he accused fellow Hillingdon councillor Mike Cox (see above) of resorting to ‘dirty tricks’. What were these abominable tactics? Mike had written a letter pointing out that Oakley had supported a development in Hillingdon, whilst castigating LibDem run Watford Council for not opposing similar development.
Previous ‘LibDem dirty tricks’ have included pointing out which way Conservative councillors voted, allowing supporters to write letters to the paper and asking a LibDem councillor in the next door ward to take up issues, when the Conservative councillor had refused to do so. Oh, and we also took a few ‘safe seats’ off them!
Heinous crimes indeed.
@Alix “Paul, it’s noticeable that you haven’t responded to the one person on the thread who was actually willing to engage with one of your points (to wit, moi). This inclines me to the belief that you are a troublemaker.”
My apologies for not following up your interesting suggestion of some sort of co-ordinated tri-Party enquiry. It would need an independent Chairman and would need to report long before the likely calling of any election (to avoid any temptation by the participants to gain political advantage). Wether you could get the three local Parties into the same room at the moment is another matter.
As for me being a Troll? Hmm- Well I have the build, but I’m actually a humble seeker after truth. I was genuinely distracted by Iain Sharpe’s contribution. Clearly I’m not a LibDem but I am also appalled by the events in Watford, not just because people were actually terrorised but because it undermines democracy and puts the Conservative Party in the wrong (if only by default). My attempts at the Socratic Method have so far generated a possible way to normalise the political situation in Watford and confirmed my suspicions that the Oakley affair was part of a wider local political malaise. Hopefully I have also given people some food for thought.
As for being the figment of an (allegedly) deranged imagination, I am as real as anyone else on this string. Google my name (with or without initials) and “Tower Hamlets” to discover my true (slightly boring) identity.
I’ve just spotted someone called “A Source Formally Close to the PM” commenting on Watford Labour activist Kerron Cross blog at the time of Ian Oakley’s selection in November 2006:
“I was at uni with Ian and know him very well. To be fair he is on the extreme sensible wing of the Tory Party (I keep telling him he’s in the wrong Party, but he’s so far resisted my urgings to defect), hates the LibDems and will make an excellent MP. Just a shame he’s a Tory and is trying to take out an excellent Labour MP instead of a LibDem. Hopefully he’ll come a good second (to the fabulous Clare Ward of course) in Watford and then get an ultra safe Tory seat. The reality is that there will always be Tory MPs so we may as well have sensible ones like Ian who genuinely have no time for the sexist, racist, xenophobic elements of their Party. Oh and he tells me the quote was deliberate – “you can’t take Watford without putting in more than 100%”
http://kerroncross.blogspot.com/2006/11/tories-count-on-winning-watford.html
But I’m still at a loss to understand what turned this powder-blue Tory into “the Incredible Sulk”
Incidentally the posting is followed by one from Ian Oakley himself! I suggest you put down newspaper before reading it however. I promise you will need it :]
I’ve just spotted someone called “A Source Formally Close to the PM” commenting on Watford Labour activist Kerron Cross blog at the time of Ian Oakley’s selection in November 2006:
“I was at uni with Ian and know him very well. To be fair he is on the extreme sensible wing of the Tory Party (I keep telling him he’s in the wrong Party, but he’s so far resisted my urgings to defect), hates the LibDems and will make an excellent MP. Just a shame he’s a Tory and is trying to take out an excellent Labour MP instead of a LibDem. Hopefully he’ll come a good second (to the fabulous Clare Ward of course) in Watford and then get an ultra safe Tory seat. The reality is that there will always be Tory MPs so we may as well have sensible ones like Ian who genuinely have no time for the sexist, racist, xenophobic elements of their Party. Oh and he tells me the quote was deliberate – “you can’t take Watford without putting in more than 100%”
But I’m still at a loss to understand what turned this powder-blue Tory into “the Incredible Sulk”
Incidentally the posting is followed by one from Ian Oakley himself! I suggest you put down newspaper before reading it however. I promise you will need it.
@ Paul Ingham; you’re still trying to excuse or normalise Oakley’s actions by blaming it on things that the Watford LDs apparently did. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think there can be any justification for a hate campaign (regardless of the truth or otherwise of the ‘history’). And I find your attempts to excuse Oakley’s actions in this way quite disgusting.
The abuser often blames the abused, and we need to stand up to this rubbish.
I think the word harrassment gets used so often these days that it’s at times like these that you remember what true harrassment means. It doesn’t mean two people falling out with each other and having an argument, what it should mean is something altogether more serious, and if it was used in its proper sense perhaps everyone, the police included, would treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
@ a disgusted individual; **@ Paul Ingham; you’re still trying to excuse or normalise Oakley’s actions by blaming it on things that the Watford LDs apparently did.**
Perhaps I am guilty of trying to rationalise the irrational. Certainly the sort of activities that “Sara” described, which Oakley was complaining about in the days before his Trial are hardly out of the “Black-Ops Manual”. In fact they are techniques Conservatives in Tower Hamlets regularly employ. Ian Oakley seems to have been remarkably thin skinned, which suggests the theory of mental health problems or something even more hard-wired like mild Asbergers Syndrome (lack of empathy, inflexible attitudes, obsessive behavior) might hold water.
Frankly I would think his victims would benefit by knowing WHY! even more than the rest of us. What I do agree is that this was genuine harrassment, and sustained harrassment at that from someone who wasn’t caught a day to soon.
It will interesting to see what the Thunderdragon says when he comes back from his two weeks holiday. I’m not going to second guess him, though.
My attitude is exactly the same as the Grell case: it’s good to root out the bad apples, and let the punishment be appropriately serious. I don’t know the innards of how the Tory party works (obviously), but it sounds like there needs to be damned thorough enquiry and look at the checks and balances.
The sole thing in his favour is that he has pleaded (pled?) guilty rather than denying it after conviction (unless Grell was innocent…).
The resolution of the additional 74 cases of harrassment will do a lot to indicate whether there is sytemic corruption it the local politics of Watford Conservatives.
Did Ian Oakley have a ‘partner in crime’? Or were there two different anti-democratic campaigns of hate against the LibDems?
Oranjepan says: “The resolution of the additional 74 cases of harrassment will do a lot to indicate whether there is sytemic corruption….”
I understand that the list of exactly which offences Oakley has fessed up to is yet to be released. Or at least is not yet in the hands of local LibDem officials. He obviously admitted to the 75 on the advice of his legal team. Are these the 75 that the Police with time, diligence and more DNA & fingerprint tests could reasonably attribute to him? Or the ones he actually remembers doing (I suspect there might have been a lot of alcohol involved).
In the extreme circumstances like those in Watford over the last few years, there is also the problem of “over reporting”. Last month one of my political colleagues here in East London had his car keyed, coincidentally one of our local supporters had her back fence pushed (or possibly blown) down. Part of a Hate campaign? Well hardly. But if my local Party bosses were telling me to step up my personal security or I had seen my victimised associates tearful and depressed I might want those incidents logged and added to a list!
So did Ian Oakley have associates in his crimes? Well possibly, and if anyone has suspicions or evidence the best thing is to contact the Police. What I would be amazed to find is that senior local Tories would sanction, let alone participate in such a campaign. Oakley was said at the time of his selection by Open Primary to have wide support both in and outside of the Party’s ranks. Could there have been a parallel organisation loyal only to him?
Paul, on the reporting issue, it cuts both ways. It is possible that people who were Oakley victims might have reported incidents as ‘political’ that were actually not his doing.
But, by contrast, in other cases people didn’t cotton on that they were being targetted as Lib Dems until they realised it was happening to other Lib Dems. So some incidents may have gone unreported or been reported as ordinary cases rather than political ones. I could give further details, but it would be a bit boring and convoluted.
As regards associates, I really don’t believe for a second that ‘senior local Tories’ as a body would sanction anything like this. But who knows whether he had help – to keep lookout, drive the car away etc.
There is a massive gap between suspicion and evidence. It would be fair to say that we suspected Oakley almost from the start, but finding any evidence was rather harder, and police were understandably reluctant to arrest an active politician on the basis of a hunch. It took over three years to find evidence.
If there were any accomplices there is no direct evidence against them, to the best of my knowledge. But my feeling is that it would have needed great powers of self-discipline never even to hint to a trusted associate what he was doing, and very good luck to go constantly undetected and always get away quickly for so long with no help at all.
So my personal feeling is that your last sentence may be on the right lines, but that is hunch and no more.
Perhaps I might respond to Paul Ingham’s comments on Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats, as I was a member of our Regional Executive at the time.
Indeed, there were some ‘unfortunate’ incidents at that time. However, the response of the Regional Party was to suspend the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats en masse and take decisive action against those found to be guilty of inappropriate actions, a point that Paul would be fully aware of but chooses to overlook for the purposes of this defensive action.
So, Paul, you would support me in seeking a suspension of the Watford Conservative Association pending an enquiry by the Regional Party?
I remember those days only too well Mr Valladares. I watched the riot outside Jack Dash House between the BNP and the Anti-Nazi League following the election of Derek Beackon in Millwall. It is also true that the LibDem organisation in LBTH has never full recovered from the “insult” to its integrity. With at one time two seperate Liberal Focus/Focus Liberals Parties standing against each other and in one case four properly nominated LibDem candidates standing in a three person seat. Meanwhile the main culprits- the Labour Party, who released canvassing results allegedly showing the BNP in second place (thereby boosting their vote)a week before the byelection went relatively unscaithed.
I am not going to pre-empt the Area Conservative Party or our central organisation (let alone any ongoing Police enquiry) by calling for any specific action against the Watford Conservatives. However one of the major Hague reforms of the late ’90’s was to strengthen the Party’s powers to sack miscrent members. You will note that Oakley was expelled as the PPC, from the Conservative Group on Hillingdon and from Party membership within days, not of his conviction but his initial arrest. I anticipate that the same vigorous, inquisitorial and far-reaching methods will be used against any local officials who through complicity or neglect have brought the Conservative Party into disrepute.
According to the BBC, he resigned from all these positions – he was not expelled.
When you’ve got a couple of beefy CCO heavies explaining your options to you there really isn’t much difference. It really is glass of brandy and revolver time.
Paul
He was NOT expelled – he resigned and the Leader of the Conservative group in Hillingdon called his action “Honourable”. He is currently being an extra paid £20,000 as a Cllr for the Special allowances. The Hillingdon Conservatives have done NOTHING to deal with Cllr Oakley other than belatedly call for his resignation.
A number of Hillingdon Conservatives regularly went to “Help” Cllr Oakley in Watford. God only knows in what capacity
Mike
Interesting, as didn’t he resign the party and his positions before admitting his guilt – are you saying the party forced him out *before* he’d admitted things?
Paul, the problem is the deafening silence from both the Watford Conservative Association and the national party.
To be fair, the Conservative group leader on Watford Borough Council rang me to express shock after Oakley’s arrest, there has been absolute silence from the official party.
The chairman of Watford Conservatives described the episode as a ‘little hiccup’ in the local press and then sat beside Oakley before the court hearing, but has not contacted Watford Lib Dems to express regret at all.
Likewise we have this shrug of the shoulders from the national party, with the comment that Oakley is no longer a party member.
Although this may be both unprecedented and isolated, it is a serious issue – a sustained attempt to change the political landscape in a marginal constituency.
It is sad that the Conservatives appear to be trying so hard to avoid doing the decent thing.
We really are getting into the realms of speculation here. Mr Cox should be careful how he expresses his concerns, I really don’t want to be party to a libel action. The reality is that helping a friend or political colleague in a nearby marginal seat is not a dishonorable matter. In fact all Parties encourage and indeed to different degrees enforce such assistance. I would go further and say that those who in personal capacities went to support Oakley at his trial should get 8/10 for personal loyalty, if only 3/10 for political nouse.
My understanding is that immediately after Ian Oakley’s arrest Conservative Central Office were not informed of events until contacted by the press. By the time officials did get in touch, Oakley would have known the details of the case against him and most likely whether he was going to plead guilty. His “resignations” took place more or less immediately after that. What he confided to officials is obviously a matter for them.
I’m surprised that Mr Cox is not aware that Group Leaders have no power to compel delinquent councillors to stand down (particularly when they have already left the Group). For the moment Cllr. Oakley is entitled to his allowances. If he gets a custodial sentence I hope he will have the decency to do what is best for his ward constituents.
The point I was making was that the Hillingdon reaction has been very muted
Why did they not immediately take action when he decided to resign from the Tory party? The “special allowances” he is currently drawing could have been stopped immediately if they felt obliged. It hasn’t been
I suspect the delay in acting was because, over the last few years, he had successfully weaved such a web of “disinformation” that he had deceived his supporters & colleagues into thinking he was the victim, not the perpetrator, of such events.
That shows real evil because you are messing with peoples minds to both achieve and justify a false position.
As someone who has been active in Watford for 27 years and been, in some way, responsible for election conduct for the Lib Dems (& predecessors)for well over 20 years, relations between the parties were, up to 2005, good at election time. There has been a history (going back before my time) of tough literature campaigning but nothing illegal. None of us local agents tolerate that kind of behaviour – we all have to live in the town!
2005 was a watershed and the emphasis from the blue team tended towards the “tricksy” stuff which we hadn’t seen before. Most were really juvenile but we did get some damage and before long it escalated into what we know today. There was also a marked lack of tolerance of the right of other parties or individuals to hold or express a view, something that rather marked peoples cards when events began to turn nasty.
I have been the police liaison for the local party during the last three years and educating the police into “how and why” has been an interesting experience as they are more used to strict hierarchical structures and not the more organic nature of political campaigning “teams”. But once they had “got” what the game was they swiftly set up their operation.
In any campaigning team there must be a balance of doers and those capable of reflecting on events. The apparent disconnect between the Watford Conservative Association and Ian Oakley’s campaigning is stunning but unfortunately reflective of an aged body only too willing to let, uncontrolled, a group of young active members hit the streets for them.
I think there is a lesson here for all of us in politics, especially those of us who aren’t getting any younger!
@Iain Sharpe; “Paul, the problem is the deafening silence from both the Watford Conservative Association and the national party.”
Saying sorry is sometimes the hardest thing to do in politics. Please remember that Watford LibDems have had a sense of closure in seeing Oakley’s guilty plea and conviction. The nightmare really is over. Not so for your Conservative opponents. All the legitimate work and campaigning since November 2006 has been lost and there will be a period of greiving. One of the earliest stages of grief after shock is denial and it cannot be avoided.
Also it is August and the key people authorised to speak for the Party may not be in place. Indeed my surfing of the blogosphere revealed at least one key player and local blogging commentator is currently out of the country.
Finally without a thorough investigation and debriefing to determine the facts of the matter it will be impossible to determine exactly what Watford Conservatives should be apologising for, and who should be making that apology.
I am sure that you will receive an apology in due course, I urge you to show patience.
I finally felt calm enough to comment on this on my blog yesterday.
I’m afraid I feel our Conservative friends are in denial. This sort of behaviour is not as untypical as they would have themselves believe. If they truly want to be the natural party of government again, they must get their house in order quickly. The responsibility for this lies with their professional Agents and Organisers who have become far too willing to win at any cost. Including that of Democracy.
Paul Ingham,
you say that the Watford LibDems have a sense of closure from the guilty plea and his conviction, but I disagree that this will be felt if at all, until the matter of all the complaints are cleared up.
Ian Oakley admitted only half of the incidents. The other half remain unaccounted for.
As per my previous comment:
>It will interesting to see what the Thunderdragon says when he comes back from his two weeks holiday. I’m not going to second guess him, though.
He has now said something, here:
http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/2008/08/ian-oakley-guilty.html
Extract (OK, nearly all of it):
What he has done is completely unacceptable. And he deserves what he gets for it. Unlike Asp, a contributor to this blog, who wrote a post on this subject whilst I was on holiday, I am certainly not “left with the classic comment “So what?”.” What he has done is so very very wrong. It would be wrong is he wasn’t a politician and these actions had been done for any other reason, and is abhorrent because it was done for political reasons. He has effectively attempted to subvert democracy.
He has already lost any chance of a political career, and faces a jail term. And also appears to be facing questions over his psychological state.
I fully support the idea of a full inquiry into this. Nothing less can be done. But the very idea that by-elections should be held for three local councillor positions won by Watford Conservatives since 2006 is ridiculous. It is not worth the cost of the by-elections, considering the massive Lib Dem majority on the council it certainly is not affecting their ability to make decisions. Really, the hate campaign failed since the Lib Dems certainly weren’t adversley affected by it.
Ian is not someone I thought would – or could – have done these disgusting things. Unfortunately we are all wrong sometimes, and I was this time. Ian will get his just desserts.