The choice of helpers in a council by-election isn’t normally of wider interest, but Labour in Redbridge, London are showing very poor judgement in their choice of helpers today. For out campaigning for Labour today is Miranda Grell, the Labour councillor who was booted off the council after she was convicted of smearing her Liberal Democrat opponent.
As the Labour Campaign for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights put it:
We are furious that a Labour candidate, Miranda Grell, was willing to use homophobia to get elected.
Discussing the sexuality of her opponent and spreading innuendo about his relationship was a disgrace and made her unfit for office.
To also tell lies that he was a paedophile is completely unforgivable and not only affected her opponent’s political career but his personal life too.
Quite. As I wrote after her appeal failed:
It’s worth remembering the awful personal tragedy behind this case – the terrible effect on Barry Smith, the Liberal Democrat councillor who was defeated by Miranda Grell: “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.”
Since her conviction, Miranda Grell has commented several times on the events and in the comments I’ve read I have never seen her express any regret, remorse or acknowledgment that she did something wrong.
Given that she was convicted of smearing her opponent in comments she made when out talking to the public campaigning for Labour, to welcome her back to go out talking to the public campaigning for Labour shows shockingly bad judgement.
13 Comments
The Labour Party will NEVER accept that Miranda Grell was guilty of a grotesque hompphobic smear campaign, because despite the fact that she was found guilty in a court of law and lost her appeal…she was and is and will be LABOUR and thus above suspicion of foul play.
They will also never accept that a similar campaign was perpetrated against Charles Anglin in Princes Ward Lambeth during the same elections. No, that whole campaign was by some unidentifiable “other” with no motive. Maybe it was “Badge man”?
This is, after all, the party that brought us Smeargate (TM).
The comment from MBoy is not accurate. The Labour Party has acted to exclude Miranda Grell for the offence.
However, I’m not sure the extent to which a volunteer organisation can exclude people from assisting in their own time and at their own cost from helping in an election.
@markpack I don’t envisage how the Lib Dems could ensure that no disgraced former member is barred from volunteering at election day.
Now watch Labour spin and try and wheedle their way out of the facts of the smears against Barry Smith and Charles Anglin, as MBoy has stated.
I see there is a by-election in Charles Anglin’s old ward. I hope the Lib Dems there stick it to them and make the Labour bigots pay.
Matthew: you’re right that it would be hard to stop someone, for example, displaying a window poster. But parties can control who does telling for them or who they give lists of supporters to in order to go knocking up on polling day. Miranda Grell, I’ve been told, is doing both.
By the way, I thought she had not been expelled from the party (unlike other cases, in a range of parties, where conviction has resulted in expulsion)?
Clearly Miranda Grell has been tried not once but twice, found guilty and been convicted. Even those of among us who struggled to believe the accusations, in my case mea culpa blissfully unaware of the detail of these, and/or who insisted on Miranda’s right to a full appeal accepted long ago that she’d been done. Bang to rights. And that was that.
But I don’t know what the terms of her suspension or expulsion from the Labour Party are? Do you? Is this not a bit of a smear? I don’t know the extent if any to which her conviction excluded her from voluntary political activity. Or standing for election and serving, should she ever again be elected.
And, whatever the legals, I don’t know whether there is some period of time that needs to elapse before helping a campaign as a volunteer would be acceptable to either our party or to our opponents.
What I do know however is that I could name a Lib Dem, ex-Councillor in one NW Town with convictions for sex crime who has apparently been most active in the Lib Dem campaigns in another NW Town.
In fact he made the news recently – though without refernce to his criminal record.
I could also name an ex-Conservative councillor in this region who was “warned off” rather than charged over similar matters (as used to be the way, back in the day) and is very much still hands on to the Tory pumps.
The questions Mark are:
– How long is long enough (a) if there is any form of apology/acceptance and (b) if there is not? And …
– Does this required anathema status apply only to Labour party people?
{Gets back up off floor}
Wow, a quite reasonable post from Chris Paul, with questions that deserve a fair response.
The approach taken in the criminal system is that rehabilitation is not complete until there has been repentance and remorse. Grell has shown neither – she manifestly continues to promote the image of victim of a vast implausible conspiracy, and as such is clearly still not suitable for re-admittance to any decent organisation.
To readmit her without any of the above is an insult to the legal system and to her victim, and to the all victims of homophobia. The message it would send is that if you just keep denying it, eventually you will get away with it.
I do not have a problem with people who have criminal records (even for serious crimes) joining political parties and holding elected office – provided they have left their offending behaviour behind them (and can demonstrate it).
The difficulty with Miranda Grell is that she is unrepentant about what she did. She used honmophobia and homophobic libel to do down a political rival and win an election; and she doesn’t seem to think there is anything wrong with that.
If Grell is allowed to be active in the Labour Party without having acknowledged her wrong, and without having apologised to her victim, then it gives the appearance that the Labour Party condones the use of homophobia as an electoral tactic.
Interestingly when I put a side comment about Miranda Grell to do with a posting on my website about Harry Cohen she responded saying that she was going to appeal.
`I maintain my innocence and continue to fight to clear my name. Once I do I shall be seeking a retraction from you and the removal of my name from this article. Best wishes. Miranda Grell`
Thanks MBoy
If Miranda Grell is not going to acknowledge her conviction in some way she will clearly remain persona non grata for longer than if she were to do so.
As you say.
Though it seems to me that MG really does seem to believe that she did not say the things she was accused, charged and convicted of and does truly believe that she was victim of a cunning conspiracy (or incredible coincidence) of mishearings, mistakes, or even malicious group perjury.
The court twice thinks not. Perhaps MG did in fact say these things, but is in complete denial, cannot remember or recreate doing so, may even be as horrified as everyone else that she might have done so, fuelling the denial, and so on.
Perhaps she should go and see the top people’s shrink Derek Draper for advice? Only joking.
But certainly she should either appeal decisively, inevitably meaning new evidence would have to be brought forward, or she should come up with some form of acknowledgement, regret, apology.
Meanwhile we’re left with the other cases I referred to. I’ll have to check but I don’t think there’s been any great acknowledgement in the case of the NW Lib Dem convicted in one town, re-emerged in another. And the NW Tory is still hanging round like a very bad smell.
But I would say right away that the first mention – of a specific local party unit – is closest to correct. In fact it may be the judgement of one or two individuals. But if they’re from the local unit then OK.
Subsequent mentions from Mark (4 of them) and for example Sesenco in comment 7 tend to make this the whole Labour Party. The whole Labour party can do nothing until it is aware of the issue. And I think it is fair to say that despite control freakery there is some local autonomy in our party!
And also that there are regular smears from individuals and cabals in other parties. Labour don’t have a monopoly. Far from it.
I’ll perhaps blog about MG and another related case at some point over the weekend. We’ll see.
Why are people suggesting Grell was homophobic? As far as I’m aware she allegedly told a couple of voters that the LibDem had a younger boyfriend. This was untrue, but we cannot surely allege that any mention of another candidate’s homosexuality is homophobic? Presumably she didn’t say ‘…so don’t vote for that dirty faggot’. I think everyone deserves a second chance, and whether or not she’s actually guilty I see no reason why she shouldn’t hold office again in the future – and I say that as a gay man.
I think your second sentence John hugely understates the nastiness of what happened.
Here’s how the BBC reported the outcome of the case: “A Labour councillor has been found guilty of falsely branding a Liberal Democrat rival a paedophile and telling electors he had sex with teenage boys … Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court heard in police interviews Grell admitted she had discussed Mr Smith’s sexuality with one local resident. She said she told the man Mr Smith claimed to be married despite having a 19-year-old Thai boyfriend … another resident, Caroline Dargan, told the court Grell had a similar conversation with her. Outside court Ms Dargan told BBC London: “(Grell) just started to talk about the Lib Dem candidate. She made some suggestions about him being gay, and I sort of knew that. But then I felt the conversation deteriorated into her saying that he was actually interested in young oriental boys.” (From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7006231.stm )
If Chris Paul (or anyone else for that matter) has any information on other individuals which has a bearing on their acceptability as a representative, candidate or other worker or volunteer in a political capacity then he should come forward with his evidence and those people should be dealt with accordingly where it is appropriate to do so.
To make unsubstantiated and unsupported claims does nobody justice and expresses nothing but contempt and cynicism for the political process.
He should not be able to escape making such remarks without challenge – for him to be able to get away without specifying details degrades the fabric of political debate in this country.
It is not acceptable to tar everyone with the same brush and excuse bad behaviour by effectively saying “they’re all as bad as each other, so if they can do it so can we”.
Mr Paul brings politics into disrepute by his weaselish commentary.
We should expect the highest standards from our politics and our politicians, not sink into the mire with tit-for-tat squabbling, therefore we should also expect equally high standards from ourselves.
So I would like to encourage him to ante up and show he has something more substantive to offer than pure rumour if any action is to be taken to try to improve the situation.
Actually not surprising considering that if your a Labour Party Member you can literally get away with murder. In Hackney the Labour Party tried to cover-up the sexual abuse in Hackney children’s homes by Labour Party Activist Mark Trotter.