Miranda Grell, the Labour candidate who was convicted of smearing a political opponent as a paedophile, is back in the news.
She’s appealing the guilty verdict, and Labour supporters are mostly (though with a few exceptions) using the pending appeal to argue that, “oh, nothing’s been proved yet, she’s really a lovely person, all will come right on appeal”.
(Do you notice the irony here by the way? Labour is also the party that is oh so keen for people who haven’t been convicted of any offence to be locked up, given detention orders or have their DNA records kept by the state. So it’s a matter of (1) if you’ve been convicted, you’re really innocent, but (2) if you’ve not been convicted, you’re really guilty).
But – back to Grell. Now, let’s have a look at what Miranda Grell herself admitted in court during the case – and so isn’t in dispute and isn’t a matter of any appeal:
The thing is, even what she admitted to doing – telling voters that her LibDem rival, Barry Smith, was gay and had a teenage Thai boyfriend when she knew Smith’s partner was actually 39 and Malaysian – is bad enough to warrant the party distancing herself from her.
And what’s the Labour Party’s official reaction been? It’s been to fund her appeal and to leave her membership of the party intact. Yes, she’s been suspended from her job at City Hall, but that – on its own – isn’t exactly a ringing denunciation given what she has herself already admitted doing. Especially when you consider the terrible effect on Barry Smith:
In the months after his defeat he was abused, threatened and spat at in the street and on one occasion two men followed him home from a shop and accused him of having sex with children.
Other takes on this story are on Paul Walter’s and Andy Mayer’s blogs, along with Millennium Elephant.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1269
Eclipse
Political choices in choosing growth
New Lib Dem spokesperson team announced
Brexit is 'stifling' exports and imports
Sinderins Community Hub at Logie sheltered lounge #dundeewestend
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Marco
Chris Moore
Christina Nowell
69 Comments
“when she knew Smith’s partner was actually 39”.
She admitted nothing of the sort as those who were in court know.
Regardless of whether the appeal is successful or not, she did admit in court that she told voters that Barry Smith had a 19 year old Malaysian lover.
That was a lie, and the only reason why she would bother to say such a thing would be to use homophobia to “discredit” her opponent.
That she should use such tactics should make her unacceptable to the Labour party or anyone else.
I am even more disappointed that Operation Black Vote (OBV) is also supporting her.
Her Labour colleague bravely testified against her. I wonder what Miranda’s supporters think of him?
It is reassuring that there are some decent people in Labour who have principles.
To Joanne @ 1. It is beside the point whether she knew how old he is. When she said he was 19 she clearly had no idea how old he is and just invented a figure to make her story look good.
If she didn’t know how old Smith’s partner was, why did she tell people Smith’s partner was a teenager?
According to the BBC, in court “She said she told the man Mr Smith claimed to be married despite having a 19-year-old Thai boyfriend.” Which, in itself, should be enough to end her political career.
Prepare for more astroturfing Labour types on this thread repeating the ‘it’s all a racist political conspiracy’ line.
Rubbish. I have read the transcript of the trial and Grell said during that trial that she thought Mr Smith’s partner was 19 because she had seen him with her own eyes and that is the age he looks. She said nothing about knowing or not not knowing about him being 39. Read the transcript before sounding off.
Gosh. Barry Smith clearly has the Fountain of Youth in his back garden. It’s lucky he wasn’t going out with a 29-year-old or Grell might have told people he was 15!!
Oh – yes, that’s the point, isn’t it – the jury seem to have believed she was telling people he was underage. That’s certainly what some of the voters made of whatever Labour was telling them.
Joanne, I think it stretches credulity to mistake a 39 year old for a 19 year old.
In any case, you appear to be supporting Miranda, and I am curious to know whether you think it is acceptable to go round telling people the details of someone’s private life when it has no relevance to whether that person can do the job or not?
Regardless of whether she broke the law, don’t you think that what she admitted to saying was dispicable? Her Labour collegue appeared to.
“the jury seem to have believed she was telling people he was underage”.
There was no jury. Again, another reason why uninformed people shouldn’t be sounding off without even knowing what actually went on in court.
Read the transcript.
“Grell said during that trial that she thought Mr Smith’s partner was 19 because she had seen him with her own eyes and that is the age he looks.”
I can’t believe someone is using that argument as a DEFENCE! Are you seriously saying it is okay to slander someone so long as you only concentrate on what they look like?!
“I saw him with my own eyes and he looked a bit shifty, so what’s wrong with calling him a convicted burglar, guv?”
Good grief!
How is it slander to say that someone who looks 19 could be 19?
Joanne @19
Assuming that the BBC report is accurate and that Ms Grell did tell the court that she told voters “Mr Smith claimed to be married despite having a 19-year-old Thai boyfriend” do you think that is an appropriate way to campaign?
I think I will wait to hear what comes out at the appeal, which is what I think everyone here should do too. Has it not occured to people that the reason Ms Grell’s appeal might be being backed is because some people think she’s innocent and September’s verdict was a mistake? Just a thought. I am not taking a veiw either way but I have read the transcript and the Black and White holier than thou comments on this website do not tally with the proceedings in the court. Until that time I will make no judgement on others perceptions of how she did or didn’t campaign. There will be plenty of time for that depending on the (final) outcome of the appeal
And to Bridget, I have just had a look again at my copy of the transcript.
Ms Grell did not say anything about “Mr Smith claims to be married despite….”.
Inaccuracy rules.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, read the transcript.
Joanne wrote: “Has it not occured to people that the reason Ms Grell’s appeal might be being backed is because some people think she’s innocent and September’s verdict was a mistake?”
The reason Labour is backing Grell’s appeal is because the Labour leadership approves of what Grell did and approves of the use of homophobia to gain votes while pretending to stand for gay rights.
“There is no morality in the class struggle” – V I Lenin.
The class struggle might be long gone, but the methods are still alive and kicking.
Anyway, why should Labour worry about one of their candidates smearing an opponent as a paedophile, when their leader told the lie of a century – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction?
Joanne – Where is the transcript available?
Joanne – since when has a court conviction not been a good enough way to make up one’s mind on these matters? Suppose the appeal goes against you – what will be your defence then?
Ms Grell’s actions were despicable. It doesn’t really matter if she thought the 39 year old man was 19 or not, she used homophobia in order to win an election. What else would her motivation of been for mentioning her opponent’s sexuality?
She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.
As for defending her actions – you too should be ashamed. You are allowing party politics to frame your morality. If a Lib Dem launched the same despicable I would be the first to condemn them. Take a good hard look at yourself and then tell me that what Ms Grell did was acceptable.
Geoffrey, I happen to know that Operation Black Vote have not come out in support of Grell. They have reported it, and will be waiting to see what comes out of the Appeal. If it turns out to be some awful misunderstanding, as Joanna will have us believe, we can look forward to new campaigning guidelines from the Labour Party, that its okay to be sure to mention our opponents sexuality and give details of their partners age and gender when out canvassing.
Labour’s ‘comrades’ have lost the plot!!
17. Sorry, that was me, left out my name.
Meral, I would like to see Operation Black Vote (OBV) to be a successful organisation, so it pains me to identify them in this way.
The way OBV reported the case was clearly sympathetic to Miranda. That does not mean to say that is the offical position of OBV as you rightly point out.
However as I pointed out earlier, regardless of whether Miranda is found guilty or not, she has by own admission been spreading homophobic rumours to discredit her opponent. On those grounds alone, Labour should expell her, and OBV – assuming they are opposed to homophobia, and if racism is wrong then logically they should be – should be more objective in their reporting.
15. Hywel, the transcript’s available from Waltham Forest Magistrate’s Court.
“How is it slander to say that someone who looks 19 could be 19?”
It’s slander to say that a man in his late 40s is in a relationship with a 19 year old who isn’t in a relationship with a 19 year old. But then I think you knew that.
21. Only if you believe that there’s something wrong with being in a relationship with a 19 year old.
Tell me Joanne, do you think the average person living on a housing estate is likely to think that there is something wrong with a man in his late 40s being in a relationship with a 19 year old?
And who exactly is an “average person living on an housing estate?” Are they all robots? Do they all hold the same views?
James Graham wrote: “It’s slander to say that a man in his late 40s is in a relationship with a 19 year old who isn’t in a relationship with a 19 year old.”
It probably isn’t. But it will be if one, some or all of the persons who received publication knew Barry’s partner’s true age and nationality (they might think he was having an extra-relationship affair with a 19 year-old Thai, not his 39 year-old Malaysian partner). Grell’s allegation would amount to a true innuendo (see Tolley v Fry).
An imputation of chastity against a woman is actionable per se, but not against a man. It is necessary to prove actual loss.
There are ways for Grell to wriggle out of a civil action for slander, but she loses all credibility whatever the outcome.
To put it bluntly – she is scum (the stuff that floats on ponds).
Joanne, even though I identify you specifically, you do not answer the point I am putting to you.
The only realistic motive that Miranda could possibly have in telling voters about the sexuality of her Lib Dem opponent would be to use homophobia to discredit him, and help her win the election.
She said in court that this is what she said.
That in itself is not breaking the law, but it is a dispicable way to behave.
Don’t you agree?
No, I don’t agree. I’ve actually read the transcript of the trial and so know what she said in court and how that conversation occured and it wasn’t what’s been written on this website here today. Until you’ve read the transcript there’s no point us “debating” this. The transcript is there for everyone to read for themselves what was and wasn’t said in court.
Up until now you have been saying that the transcripts do not support what some people have said here about the age of the councillors gay lover. Are you now saying that the transcripts do not say that she told voters that the councillor is in a gay relationship as well?
I am not referring to the transcripts because I am not in possession of them, and you won’t say where they can be found. But I have seen reports (ie Pink Paper) where she is quoted as saying that she told voters that her opponent is in a gay relationship with a 19 year old Malaysian.
Are you formally saying that those reports are wrong? If so, how did this storey get out?
The transcript can be obtained by phoning Waltham Forest Magistrate’s Court and requesting a copy. It really isn’t that difficult.
27. So everytime someone is found guilty and convicted after a trial, we have to go and read the transcript of the trial in order to determine whether that person is really guilty?
Mr Smith, by all accounts a decent hard working former public servant, has had to move away from his home for fear of homophobic attacks.
Seems to me she and her Labour cronies have no concept of justice or acceptable conduct. Her MP, Harry Cohen described her as an ‘exceptional young woman’, and Labour London Assembly Member, Jennette Arnold, told the court, that ‘without doubt she has an enthusiasm that is rare in public life’
Thank God it is rare!!!
“So everytime someone is found guilty and convicted after a trial, we have to go and read the transcript of the trial in order to determine whether that person is really guilty?”
Well if a person is appealing a decision it would be wise to obtain the full facts before sounding off, yes.
Joanne, you didn’t answer this point;
“Are you now saying that the transcripts do not say that she told voters that the councillor is in a gay relationship as well?”
Why don’t you read the transcript yourself?
Joanne – I see, so when your argument is defeated you give up and and start repeating yourself. Come on!! Your the one who has been defending a bigot what have you got to say for yourself?
Geoffrey and others: Miranda ‘Joanne’ Grell, clearly has no concept of the justice system. Presumably her message is that if we all go and read the transcripts, we’ll see for ourselves that she not guilty. Its pathetic.
If Grell’s arguments are as confused as her alter-ego Joanne’s are I think she will quite rightly lose the appeal as well.
Dear oh dear. The point I am trying to make is that people who can’t actually be bothered to inform themselves of the facts before sprouting off need to be challenged. Whatever my views of this case I, at least, have bothered to read through the transcript. That’s why I am planning to reserve judgement on Ms Grell until her appeal is over and the courts have decided once and for all. Others here would be wise to do the same.
And to nos 35 and 36: Miranda Grell seems to have a lot of support judging by her appeal campaign website. It is sad that you feel that anyone who steps in to give her the benefit of the doubt should be attacked.
Bigots deserve to be attacked at every oppertunity
We’ll see.
39: And yes, I agree.
39 & 41 And Miranda Grell quite clearly is one.
Like I say, we’ll see.
Are you Joanne McCartney AM?
No, are you?
Joanne
Are you telling me that Waltham Forest Magistrates Court can provide an official verbatim note of the evidence given in a trial held in that court?
Because, having sat as a magistrate in a variety of courts over the last 31 years, I can assure you it would be unique in my experience if it could.
Why, as others have asked, did she feel it necessary to mention her opponent’s sexuality at all?
Like Geoffrey Payne (2nd comment), I am usually sympathetic to OBV and other such organisations. I abhor racism. It is, though, distressing to see so many black organisations and publications, esp. The Voice and New Nation, supporting Grell (and others accused of homophobia) based on the colour of her skin. Peter Tatchell was vilified and threatened with death when he ran his campaign to stop murder music (again, he was ridiculed and verbally abused by the two newspapers). So, what’s my point? ‘liberals’ too often think it’s OK for one minority group to behave disgracefully towards others. Equality has to be for all and we need to clamp down on people who feel that they are “untouchable”.
46) Well done, you’ve caught “Joanne” in a lie. Looks like Ms Grell isn’t the only liar in the Labour Party.
Joanne, in anticipation of any reply you may make to @46 and @48, I know it’s cheeky of me to ask, but would it be a terrible bother if you were to type out the relevant section of The Transcript for us, if indeed it does exist? Or is it really just too long? Are we talking about more than one cross-examination? I confess I’m unfamiliar with magistrates’ courts proceedings. I wouldn’t ask if you weren’t clearly committed to Miranda Grell’s defence.
This ‘Joanne’ clearly exhibits all the morals of the modern Labour Party. ‘Nuff said.
Joanne, is it the same ‘moral compass’ as using BNP slogans?
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.
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.
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.
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!!
“# 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.
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?
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 🙂
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…
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!
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?)
That’s pathetic, Chris Paul.
Miranda Grell is a lying homophobic bigot. No more, no less.
“Miranda Grell is a lying homophobic bigot. No more, no less”.
We’ll see.
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]
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.
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.
So when do we hear the results of the appeal?
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.
Thank goodness justice was done in the end, eh Chris.