Waltham Forest Labour councillor Miranda Grell has been found guilty of falsely smearing her Liberal Democrat opponent in the 2006 elections as a paedophile. She has been fined £1,000, ordered to pay £3,000 in costs and banned from public office for three years.
Subscribe
-
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
UK’s International Development needs funds and a long-term vision to meet its stated objectives (Nicholas Chan)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat: Middle East Consequences (Tom Arms)
-
Our challenge is needed now on the cost of living crisis (Katharine Pindar)
-
We must rebuild Music Education (Mary Reid)
-
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
-
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
-
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
-
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
-
Belljar
-
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
-
Half Man Half Biscuit: Westward Ho! Massive Letdown
-
Dundee Chess Congress 2024 #dundeewestend
Recent Comments
David Warren
I am not surprised you had unfilled places given the cost of attending. This really needs looking at so those of us on low incomes are not excluded....
David Allen
"Crippling Iran’s nuclear capability must be Israel’s ultimate goal. ... But destroying Iran’s nuclear capability may be a task too far for Mossad and the...
Steve Trevethan
Thank you, Mr Waller, for raising a serious question....
John Waller
Ed, I believe the most important quality amongst friends is honesty, 100% honesty. The Washington Post wrote: The female soldiers who predicted Oct. 7 say...
Vince Thompson
Ken Westmoreland makes a good point. Insofar as St Helena is concerned the representational focus and effort is directed towards improving communication and li...
46 Comments
Presumably she this means she’s removed from ehr current office and there will be a by-election?
Source?
I hope that is correct but the news reports I have seen so far don’t mention her being barred from office
It’s on the BBC or at least the London site). Thank god for that. There are limits for what candidates can say in campaigns. Hopefully a court will be asked at some point to rule on a false claim about a political position rather that this – which is about the worst lie you can tell about something. I see she blamed her offence on ‘naivity’.
This may not be the conclusion of this case, as you can read here.
http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=15462&grp=66&cat=433
Alex, its an important distinction but she denied the offences. Her admission of naivity was to do with indiscretion in revealing Barry Smith was gay, which is a matter of fact. She denied saying to Kevin Sorkin that Mr Smith’s partner was 15 (illegal) but admitted saying he was 19 (legal).
Obviously the judge sided against her, and as I understand it she will appeal, so any ban from public office would be a very long way off (if she loses an appeal) or disappear altogether (if she wins the appeal).
`She denied saying to Kevin Sorkin that Mr Smith’s partner was 15 (illegal) but admitted saying he was 19 (legal).`
Why did she have to raise the issue at all? Did she not claim that Barry Smith claimed to be married as well? If she can get that wrong what’s the difference in a few years.
Imagine it: you hear that a 56 year old man is having an affair with a 19 year old woman. There’d be eyebrows raised even in this society. So imagine a 56 year old with a 19 year old man.
This was clearly a ruse to smear Barry Smith and undermine him in the last two weeks of the campaign.
The link given by Lester is an incredibly biased bit of reporting. Anybody would think that Barry Smith had lost a court case!
Whether she is intending to appeal or not she is, at this moment convicted.
There is a provision that disqualification doesn’t take effect whilst an appeal is being considered or pending. I think the maximum of that is three months but I’m not certain.
Though I feel obliged to draw people’s attention to the following exchange:
Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): May we have a debate on the standards expected of local councillors who have been convicted of electoral fraud? My constituents would welcome the opportunity that such a debate would provide to hear the views of all Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, especially those of the Liberal Democrats given that it is councillors from their party in my constituency, Mozaquir Ali and Manzoor Hussein, who have not yet resigned their seats, despite the basis on which they were elected having been proved in court to be fraudulent.
Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend’s concern. Because we share local newspapers, I am aware of the case. It is shameful for the Liberal Democrat party not to have required the resignation of those people.
Hansard, 14th Dec 2006
Personally I think the law is a bit of an ass in this area – at the very least a councillor convicted of a disqualifying offence should be suspended pending the appeal process. It is also a valid criticism of LDV in my opinion that this story is posted but nothing was said regarding the Burnley councillors
Well LDV can’t know or remember EVERYTHING!
“She denied saying to Kevin Sorkin that Mr Smith’s partner was 15 (illegal) but admitted saying he was 19 (legal).”
That wouldn’t necessarily matter – a false statement for these purposes needn’t be defamatory.
Well i hope Leyton Lib Dems will be making hay while the sun shines! Don’t get mad get even!
Hywel, the prosecution were in fact making a big deal of the “paedophilia” claims instead of just the statement of fact law (Mr Smiths partner being 38 not 19 as Ms Grell admitted)
Mr Lester:- if the victim has been a black Labour member instead of a white Liberal Democrat would you have reported the case in the same way?
I would be very interested to hear your explanation as to why Ms Grell went round telling people her opponent was gay in the first place, which she admitted to in court.
There is a nasty explanation for such behaviour, which is trying to tap into people’s homophobia. Can you provide a nice explanation?
District Judge Woollard is certainly a robust tribunal.
She’ll have 21 days to appeal to the Crown Court (at Snaresbrook)for a fresh hearing of the evidence (heard by a Crown Court judge and two lay magistrates).
If she loses at Snarebrook her sentence could be increased but that is unlikely, more a theoretical risk than a real one.
The most senior judge at Snaresbrook is David Radford. Me thinks he won’t hear this case though bearing in mind his past as a Liberal candidate…
Or she can appeal within 3 months by a judicial review to the High Court on a point of law. There doesn’t sound like there were any contentious points of law in the case though.
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but having read the reports I am
I see a claims both “that it was a mistake due to my (Grell’s) inexperience” and “that the allegations were a conspitacy against her by opponents”.
She can’t have both of those simultaneously.
On balance I think a 3-year ban from public office is rather too short.
I would welcome the “standards” debate proposed.
Sorry for the slightly dodgy grammar, but I think the meaning is clear.
My initial reaction was that a 3 year ban was too short but on reflection I’m not so sure.
Given that, wherever she stood, her opponents would make hay with her conviction, she’s screwed whatever happens.
Of course, it’s possible that Labour will parachute her into a safe constituency. It’s also possible that monkeys might fly out of my proverbial.
This verdict is very interesting indeed.
My opponent in Oldham East & Saddleworth in 2003 General Election did far more than this in respect of making grossly defamatory and untrue statements about me (as well some pretty seriousof pot-kettle stuff), incuding an article in the Daily Mirror on eve of poll which the night editor refused to ‘pull’ despite it being pointed out to him on the day before publication that there was not a shred of truth in the Minister’s statements to them. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken. But then how much action has ever been taken by Oldham police over Labour election law violations?
There may be an argument that she tapped into homophobia…but there could also be the argument that the you have delighted in labelling a black Caribbean person as homophobic
No 20 says: “There may be an argument that she tapped into homophobia…but there could also be the argument that the you have delighted in labelling a black Caribbean person as homophobic”
I think I follow you. Or do I? Grell is not actually homophobic, she just used homophobia to defeat a Lib Dem candidate (there being no morality in the class struggle, etc). And she also has a second, more powerful line of defence. Grell is black, and it is racist to say anything critical about a black person.
Labour will have a tough time getting out of this one, however hard their weasels try on the net. I guess their response will be to claim that Grell never really had anything to do with them in the first place. She just swanned along and got herself selected by accident – rather like Jeffrey Archer.
“Hywel, the prosecution were in fact making a big deal of the “paedophilia” claims instead of just the statement of fact law (Mr Smiths partner being 38 not 19 as Ms Grell admitted)”
For which they presented evidence which satisfied the judge beyond reasonable doubt. I’m not sure what point your trying to make. If such statements were made then they deserve making a big deal of.
I’m not such a bleeding heart liberal on crime that I don’t think the prosecution should use it’s most damaging allegations when supported by evidence!
In fairness to Labour the BBC reports she is now suspended pending an investigation. We were a bit slow to act after the Burnley convictions.
I have blogged this now. I don’t think she has actually been found guilty of claiming he was a paedophile. Will you please check that and update your coverage if appropriate?
I think she has been found guilty of the lesser matters of for example saying he was gay and getting his partner’s age wrong. Which she admitted.
Certainly if one reads the extended Times report I link to that seems to be the case. But they take the opportunity to run out all the allegations she WAS NOT found guilty of. So it’s hidden.
The judge has presumably decided this (gay plus age mistake) is a punishable smear within the meaning of this law and if I’m right about this I think that sets a fairly low test precedent. Obviously wrong to out him etc but quite different from the stronger allegations.
The reports e.g. at The Times rehearse all the more serious allegations but I don’t think those – hearsay and not admitted – are the basis of the verdict.
The Times are being especially shoddy and linking MG with Cherie Blair, again.
I am finding such coverage shocking. Despite Lib Dem interest in the case I cannot see any virtue in exaggerating what Ms Grell has been convicted of.
If the judge has found on the paedophilia HEARSAY then whatever the underlying truth that is unsafe. So I think he’s just taken a hard line on what a smear is. Saying someone is gay and getting an age wrong can lead to fines and bars from office.
Please check. I will update my post – probably in a.m. now – if I’m wrong.
PS Mark
Your story comprises the exact same words as a comment this evening at Iain Dale’s. Would he find your IP address to go with that?
Only asking.
Her website is still up complete with photo of MG with Cherie. How long before Labour realise and order that down. Or maybe Brown will want it left up!
19 – Tony, do you mean the 2001 or 2005 General Election? There wasn’t one in 2003!
21 – Angus, her race isn’t an issue in this – let’s not make it one!
23 – Crikey Chris, take off the red-tinted specs for a minute! I don’t think anyone in this thread thinks for one minute that you’d be defending her like that if she was a Lib Dem or a Tory. It’s OK to admit that not everyone in your party is a paragon of virtue, you know.
She’s been found guilty of telling fibs to gain an electoral advantage – given that you like to come on here and repeatedly insinuate that Lib Dems do the same thing, one would expect that you’d be asking for her to be drummed out of the party, wouldn’t you?
Chris @ 24 – not me guv. If it was, I’d have put in a link back here after all 🙂
You have to ask the judgement of such a person and the reasons for doing this.
`ooh, i put the wrong number before the 9 – sorry about that`. I take it she wasn’t on any committee dealing with figures or cultural sensitivity?
I’ll say it again – it’s my belief she used the 19 age so that people will gossip and the age then goes down through `chinese whispers`. I think she knew exactly what she was doing.
Unless I’m wrong and she chose to state she said 19 in the light of the evidence from residents/running mates to close the other ages down?
Chris – I’m not sure what the 2 charges she was found guilty actually were (AIUI two more were ruled out by the judge) but every news source I’ve seen is reporting the pedophile line.
Evidence was certainly tendered that she claimed Cllr Smith had relations with under 16s. I’m not sure of the exact chronology but if the Judge had thrown out the under 16s allegations that evidence should have been heard.
I’m then struggling to see how, having heard that evidence, that charge could be thrown out with no case to answer (though it is possible)
If she was convicted on her admissions there wouldn’t have needed to be a trial so I’m not sure about that point either.
Finally to say this is a conviction based on hearsay is just not true. The evidence given was by a witness of statements made to them by the accused. Whatever else you might say about that it isn’t hearsay.
Well, I suppose it really was too much to expect even the more mature Labour posters and Bloggers to put their hands up and say: “OK, she was a wrong-un. Every party has its share bad people. We’ll throw her out now and learn a lesson.” I guess that was just too much. Way too much. Business as usual, I guess.
Decency 0 – Politicians 1 (again)
Grell is homophobic scum.
Seems particularly compelling that one of Grell’s own Labour running-mates testified against her.
Labour blogger Chris Paul looks like he’s flogging a dead horse on this one.
Joe Taylor wrote:-
“21 – Angus, her race isn’t an issue in this – let’s not make it one!”
It was not I but the Labour troll posting at 20 who made Grell’s race an issue. He was attempting to smear the Liberal Democrats as racist for accusing a black person of homophobia.
Interesting the different slant on the story on Pink News compared to BLINK:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/view.php?id=5525
Duncan @ 8, we-ell, the Blink piece does at least begin by stating that Miranda Grell has been convicted. The later passages are where it gets murky, but I think it is local politics as a whole that the journalist is attacking, and this is where I can possibly bring the perspective of one who has recently arrived from their political armchair. What makes this kind of thing so damn sad is that no matter what the rights and wrongs, it turns people off their local parties altogether. I remember, during the run-up to local elections while I was at university (as a highly apathetic and non-politicised student), the Labour councillor dropping round to tell me the Lib Dem candidate was “an awful, awful man”. Yes, yes, I know, Labour again, but as a self-absorbed cynic (aka ordinary citizen) it makes you disinclined to listen to whoever knocks at the door after that, whatever rosette they’re wearing.
Yes, Labour should drop Ms Grell like a hot brick – but I do wonder if we (or rather WF Lib Dems) should systematically break down every article like the Blink piece and post a calm, structured rebuttal to every shadow of an accusation re conspiracy theories etc and get it into the public domain. In the long term, that’s the only way we’re going to stop pieces like the Blink article descending so quickly into cynicism. Hey ho, naive little me, only been in the party five minutes – what think you, frightfully clever activist type people? 😉
33 – Fair point Angus, wasn’t following the thread of the conversation there! My apologies.
My remark is hereby redirected at #20, then… 😉
Agree with others that her colour is totally irrelevant. She set out to win a council seat by smearing and destroying Barry Smith’s reputation and career using homophobia-full stop.
Don’t expect The Labour Party to ‘hold their hands up’ They’re probably annoyed she was found out! I wonder if Ms Grell will continue to work for Deputy Mayor, Nicky Gavron?
I’m inclined to agree with Alix @35, but then, I’m not exactly a seasoned activist either.
Negativist carping can win seats in a tight marginal, but overall it loses votes, and I’m not sure it’s good for politics or us. Having said that, you might want to point this out to your boss Alix, some of his recent blog posts have been a bit too negative for my taste.
I think demolishing negativism and debunking news stories like that might be a valid approach, not sure though. And not sure I want to talk myself into volunteering to start the site up either.
Alix – so you’ve found Lib Dem voice then?!
I suppose there is a school of thought that it’s better not to draw attention to ridiculous conspiracy theories. I don’t know if I agree with that (I’m genuinely unsure). An assessment would need to be made about whether they were affecting the local party, and if so, then a response prepared . . .
Link to a spook Labour blog, with a gallery of photos of the ‘rising star’ Miranda Grell:
http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/smeared-by-association.html
First I’ve heard of this matter -seems pretty grubby. My only comment is that for a party which claims to be a party of principle and ideals, Labour has a pretty dense track record of personalised attacks on opponents. Comes from their “divine right to rule” complex – if you don’t support us, you’re either mad or bad. They’re finding this awfully hard to handle in Scotland where most of their wee empires have collapsed since May.
Meral – That would be the same “spook” Labour blog with this piece about you, presumably:
http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/political-undead.html
In Burnley, we suspended the two Councillors immediately on conviction. We expelled one when the deadline for him to make an appeal passed, and the other when his appeal failed.
We believe this to be the right approach but are criticised in this thread as being ‘slow to act’. I would be interested to see what other peoples’ opinions are.
It seems that Miranda Grell’s Labour supporters have rallied round and have launched a campaign to raise funds to help her fight her appeal, and to ‘raise awareness of our fight for justice’.
http://www.mirandagrell.com/?p=306#comments
Interested to note that GLA Labour Member for North East London, Jennette Arnold was a character witness and supporter of MG at her trial.
Good to see Labour politians campaigning for just causes!
Darren, they were convicted on the Thursday, the following day the local paper carried this:
A meeting is being called by the Liberal Democrats in Burnley to discuss what should happen to the two councillors.
Party leader Gordon Birtwistle said: “The party will have an emergency meeting and they will decide what happens. We have the power to expel them, but that will be decided by a majority of the local party members.
“I am shocked by the result as these are two very good ward councillors, but they have committed a very serious offence and we will have to take that into account.
“If the two seats in Daneshouse and Stoneyholme do become vacant then we will fight the by-elections and be confident of winning.”
So a day later they weren’t suspended, that’s not an immediate suspension.
However, my slow to act comment is based on my view that someone charged with criminal offences should be suspended from the group pending the outcome of those trials (which is reflected in ALDC’s model standing orders)
In this case there was ample grounds to expel both from the party based on testimony at their trial. That applied regardless of whether any appeal was made.
The local and regional party should have been ready with an immediate statement when they were convicted.
I maintain my innocence and I continue to fight to clear my name. Kindest regards. Miranda Grell