Richard Mawrey QC, the Commissioner of the forthcoming Tower Hamlets election court hearing, yesterday overturned a decision to hold the trial at the Town Hall and ruled it must be heard instead at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
He ruled it will start at 10am on February 2 in Court 38.
It is an early victory for the four petitioners, who are led by Andy Erlam and represented by barrister Francis Hoar.
Another judge at a preliminary hearing had previously rejected their request for it to be heard outside Tower Hamlets and had recommended the town hall.
However, in a written ruling yesterday, Mr Mawrey said the town hall could not be considered a “neutral venue”.
He said there was now “considerable hostility” in the borough to the arrival of Eric Pickles’s commissioners.
And he noted that George Galloway and Ken Livingstone had made “very public calls for campaigns of harassment to be directed against what they describe as interference with the democratic process”.
At a rally last month, Livingstone called for Lutfur’s supporters to protest outside the homes of the commissioners.
All this has been clearly observed by Mr Mawrey.
He said a “considerable” volume of evidence/allegations against Mayor Lutfur Rahman and Returning Officer John Williams had now been placed before him.
He stressed he had made no judgment whatsoever on the veracity of the allegations.
However, he said the allegations included suggestions there was a significant body of support for the mayor in the town hall–where an election petition would normally be heard.
He wrote: “The witness statements include a body of evidence to the effect that the Town Hall staff contains a significant body of political supporters of Mr Rahman whose conduct in the past is said to have gone well beyond what is permissible in the case of local civil servants. There are also allegations (which may or may not be well founded) of Town Hall staff having been involved in (or at least complicit in) active electoral fraud.”
He also revealed in his written ruling that the Metropolitan Police had been present at the recent confidential scrutiny of the Mayor’s vote at the Royal Courts of Justice. He said the police were conducting their own investigations into electoral fraud.
This time, it seems it’s all being taken much more seriously.
Here is Mr Mawrey’s explanation in full. Paragraphs 7-12 are particularly interesting.
NOTE: In the interests of conversational debate, I am going to allow comments on this post BUT please do not ascribe any guilt to any individual. Keep the discussion around the general issues of the election petition and the venue. I stress that allegations have been made, all of which are denied and are yet to be tried. Comments will be moderated.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE M/350/14
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983
AND IN THE MATTER OF A MAYORAL ELECTION FOR THE LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS HELD ON 22 MAY 2014
BETWEEN:
(1) ANDREW ERLAM
(2) DEBBIE SIMONE
(3) AZMAL HUSSEIN
(4) ANGELA MOFFAT
Petitioners
-and-
(1) MOHAMMED LUTFUR RAHMAN
(2) JOHN S WILLIAMS (RETURNING OFFICER)
Respondents
DIRECTIONS ORDER No 7: 19 DECEMBER 2014
REASONS (not part of the order)
1 I have confirmed with the Rota Judges that the powers conferred on an Election Commissioner under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’) s130(5) entitle a Commissioner to order that the trial should take place outside the electoral area under s 130(6). Such an order may be made if the court is ‘satisfied that special circumstances exist rendering it desirable that the petition should be tried elsewhere’.
2 I appreciate that an application was made to Mr Justice Supperstone for an order under s 130(6) and that on 31 July 2014, he dismissed that application. I have read his judgment on that occasion which sets out the grounds on which the Petitioners were then contending that the trial should take place outside the Borough and the reasons why the Judge rejected those grounds and refused the order. Having considered that judgment I would say, respectfully, that I entirely agree with it and that it was the correct decision to be made on the limited grounds and the equally limited evidential material before the court on that occasion.
3 The position today is entirely different from that which was before Supperstone J in July. The parties’ cases have been fully pleaded and a very considerable volume of evidence has been served.
4 May I emphasize at this point that I have, as yet, seen and heard none of the witnesses and I have formed no conclusions on the evidence whatsoever. At this stage of the proceedings the allegations made by all parties in their witness statements remain allegations, to be proved or disproved at trial. Insofar as I have taken those witness statements into account when making this decision, I have in no way prejudged their reliability or veracity. My approach is to treat the allegations on the basis that they might be true or they might not.
5 In general the most likely venue for the trial of a petition challenging a local authority election is the authority’s Town Hall. It is not the inevitable venue and I have tried other petitions (notably Birmingham) in some other building within the electoral area. In this petition, however, the Town Hall was put forward as the most suitable venue and I shall approach the question by considering that venue first.
6 As the parties are aware, I have been uneasy about the Town Hall as a venue from an early stage. This case differs from the norm of local authority petitions. Historically, local election petitions have concerned events in a single ward (occasionally two wards as in Birmingham in 2005). In those circumstances, the Town Hall of the Borough represents both a convenient and a relatively neutral venue. Here the challenge is to the election of an executive mayor whose headquarters is inevitably the Town Hall itself. Even were feelings not running as high as they are here, there must be grave doubts as to propriety of a petition to unseat an executive mayor being tried in his own Town Hall.
7 This case is unusual in that there are persistent and highly publicised allegations that witnesses, in particular witnesses for the Petitioners, have been subject to intimidation of themselves or their families both within the Borough and, indeed, in Bangladesh. Certain of the witness statements have been served with the names and addresses of the witness redacted and there is a possibility that I shall be asked to make witness anonymity orders. As said above, I cannot and do not at this stage decide whether these allegations are well-founded but it would be irresponsible to discount them and to decide the venue in a vacuum.
8 I have also to look at the question of intimidation in the context of the allegations, supported by witness statements, of widespread voter intimidation at the polls. These allegations also cannot be ignored. I fully appreciate that the first Respondent denies the allegations of intimidation and denies that, if it did occur, it can be laid at his door. None the less the evidence submitted does raise at least a triable issue as to intimidation.
9 Furthermore the Town Hall cannot realistically be regarded as a neutral venue. The witness statements include a body of evidence to the effect that the Town Hall staff contains a significant body of political supporters of Mr Rahman whose conduct in the past is said to have gone well beyond what is permissible in the case of local civil servants. There are also allegations (which may or may not be well founded) of Town Hall staff having been involved in (or at least complicit in) active electoral fraud.
10 In this context, though I accept that it is not yet evidence in the case and may never become so, these allegations find considerable support in the PwC report commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It would do little to enhance the view of the court as a neutral and impartial venue if it were held in a venue which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be staffed by people who are, to put it neutrally, partisan. There would be legitimate fears that the staff might obstruct or identify vulnerable witnesses and, whatever precautions are taken, the security of documents would always have a question mark over it (however unjustified that might turn out to be).
11 When the matter was before Supperstone J the concern raised was of disorder at the trial and the Judge pointed, quite rightly, to the powers of a Commissioner to enlist the assistance of the Police. Events have, as said above, moved on somewhat. It is no longer primarily a question of maintaining an orderly trial. If that were the only concern, I would not be revisiting the earlier decision. The fact is that the position of the Metropolitan Police has become more complex, as it is no secret that the Met is conducting its own enquiries as to potential criminal offences committed in the course of the May election (hence the involvement of officers at the Scrutiny) and has been further dragged into this case by the allegations made on both sides of witness intimidation. Nor can I overlook that the case itself does involve criticism (which, as I say, may be entirely unfounded) of the involvement of the Met in policing the election itself. Thus the issues raised before Supperstone J have been overtaken by the subsequent history of this petition.
12 An additional change of circumstances arises from the Secretary of State’s publication of the PwC report and his appointment of commissioners to take over certain of the functions of the Council. Those commissioners have already started work at the Town Hall. The appointment of the commissioners has been met with considerable hostility in certain areas and I cannot overlook the fact that, at a rally attended by the first Respondent, certain of his high-profile political supporters such as Mr Ken Livingstone and Mr George Galloway MP made very public (and much broadcast) calls for campaigns of harassment to be directed against what they describe as interference with the democratic process.
13 This might be mitigated if the Town Hall were otherwise a suitable venue for a trial but it is not. I carried out an inspection last week and the facilities are simply not appropriate for a lengthy trial. The only available courtroom is the Council Chamber. This cannot really be converted into an acceptable courtroom. It has fixed desks which are not convenient for a three-party case, especially one with copious documents. There is no real space for a ‘witness box’. Everything would have to be cleared out for Council meetings. There are no practicable rooms for the judge’s retiring or for the parties’ legal teams. More to the point, the Council Chamber is in the heart of the office area with the staff problems already referred to.
14 For all these reasons I have ruled out the Town Hall as a venue.
15 I indicated at an early stage, when the Petitioners raised their objections, that the parties should attempt to find possible alternative venues within the Borough. The Returning Officer and his solicitors have made considerable efforts to find an alternative venue and I made a tour of the four venues they had located. None of them was remotely suitable and some of the problems involved in the Town Hall as a venue would have applied to those venues even if they had been suitable.
16 I have thus, with great reluctance, come to the conclusion that there are here the kind of special circumstances envisaged by the 1983 Act and that the proper course is to order the trial to be held in the Royal Courts of Justice.
17 Supperstone J remarked, quite correctly if I may say so, one of the reasons for holding election courts in the electoral area concerned is to allow local public access to the court. This is fair as far as it goes but it must be seen in context. When the rule developed in the nineteenth century public transport was much less available and much less affordable than today. In any event, the rule itself does carry its own limitations. In my experience, petitions challenging the election in a ward of the council are heard centrally (often in the Town Hall) which in a large electoral area (Birmingham is a good example) may be several miles away from the ward concerned.
18 The RCJ are, of course, situated in the City of London which is the borough immediately adjacent to Tower Hamlets. If the contested election had been in, say, Merton or Enfield, then the difficulty of the citizens of the borough attending court would be a significant factor. The RCJ may be considered one of the easiest places to get to by public transport in central London and I cannot see any appreciable hardship involved in the citizens of Tower Hamlets attending a trial there.
19 I have therefore liaised with Mr Evans of the Elections Office and he has secured the use of Court 38. It is a large court and its position in the West Green Building will obviate many of the problems attendant on use of a court in the main building.
20 I realise that this may cause some inconvenience to the Respondents but I am satisfied that the interests of a fair and publically transparent trial require the move to be made.
_
21 Finally I should wish to record in these reasons my thanks to Mr Emyr Thomas of the second Respondent’s solicitors for his part in locating and inspecting the alternative venues.
Richard B Mawrey QC
Commissioner
Trial by Jeory 
Hmm. So the judge doesn’t think any supposed intimidators can travel twelve stops on the tube?
It’s part of the looking glass world of the state campaign against the elected Mayor of Tower Hamlets, such as the appointment of Commissioners (in effect Chief Executives) to run the Borough.
I’ve seen a few council CEs who would love to have got rid of their Council Leaders because they think they ‘just don’t get it'(i.e. disagree with them, or not agree with all the officers’ recommendations). Never lacking in pomposity, I still think few of these CEs would have enough front to claim such an action is a democratic advance, as is claimed about LBTH, when it is clearly the reverse.
Does anyone really think the government goes two hoots about local democracy. The same government that is talking about imposing an elected mayor on new authorities based on Manchester and Sheffield when the voters of both these cities have rejected such a Mayor in referenda in the last two years?
The “judge” is known as a Commissioner (an increasingly common term in the recent affairs of the LBTH) whose task is to hear the Election Petition and then make a determination.
Incidentally the Commissioner, when acting as such, has all the powers of a High Court Judge to make decisions.
Southpawpunch asked
The truthful answer is it does not. It intervenes when publicly shoved into action or great political advantage beckons, but otherwise it employs lots of “democracy” civil servants in DCLG and in the Cabinet Office who always fail to promote genuine democracy and genuine accountability in English local government.
Face the truth. England is a backward country and its democracy is unfit for purpose. Probably because all the politicians care about is raw political power for the sake of political control – public service is an irritating inconvenience.
Just what does the Electoral Commission do apart from employing foreigners and spending oodles of public cash on waste and self-promotion ? We aren’t Yanks yet the whole working practise of that Commission is modelled on the USA style.
Curious Cat.
This isn’t about the philosophy or policy relating to the current system for local government elections or the scope or staffing or practices of the Electoral Commission.
This post and the current legal action are limited to the actual application of the current system and the process being used in law to open this up to legal challenge.
@Curious Cat – You really do need to go and set up your own blog so you can expose your prejudices and whinge at length on that about the things you really don’t like instead of repeating the SAME points on each and every post irrespective of their relevance. It’s just soooooooo tedious!
=> You Couldn’t,
The blindingly obvious point, which seems to have escaped your attention, is:-
(A) The system is defective; and
(B) The pending Tower Hamlets election petition is a manifestation of that broken system; and
(C) If the system was not so fundamentally flawed, the Wonders of Tower Hamlets would not immerse so many ordinary people.
That is the reality. Think how much time, effort and Tax Payers money is being spent on pursuing the inevitable consequences of the broken system,
Hope that helps.
Happy Christmas.
Curious Cat.
@Curious Cat
Your assertion: “the system is defective”
My response: No system that involves people can ever be 100% perfect. It would be unrealistic to suggest that the scope for intervention is non-existent.
I would agree that normally most of that intervention which maintains a system people can trust needs to operate at the local level without the need for intervention by an external regulator. Sadly, in Tower Hamlets, that’s not been the situation for some time.
Your assertion: The pending Tower Hamlets election petition is a manifestation of that broken system
My response: The allegations of fraud nationally which led to an investigation by the Electoral Commission has already resulted in “Electoral fraud in the UK – Final report and recommendations” (January 2014)
This clearly stated
“Electoral fraud is not widespread across the UK and reports of significant
fraud are focused in specific places in England, concentrated in a small
number of local authority areas. We do not believe it is likely that fraud has
been attempted in more than a handful of wards in any particular local
authority area.
We do not support introducing temporary restrictions or special measures in
specific areas. However, sustained action is needed especially in those areas
where there is a higher risk of allegations of, or attempts, at electoral fraud,
both to minimise the risk of further allegations and to respond effectively if
allegations or attempts at fraud do arise.
In particular, local police forces, Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and
Returning Officers (ROs), political parties and campaigners are all well-placed
to identify and respond to the risk of electoral fraud, and must each make a
clear commitment to protecting the integrity of the electoral process.”
Also proposals for strengthening key parts of the system (e.g. the need to prove identity and eliminate campaigners from the absent vote part of the process) are intended to be part of the package of measures arising out of that report.
In other words all the issues which had given rise to concerns had been addressed – at a national level – prior to the 2014 election.
Also, the fact that there have been incidents in Tower Hamlets which have led to these sort of events (Electoral Commission Investigations and Reports; Electoral Court Hearings etc) reflects that the system has a process for addressing “untoward events” when they do.
The fact that they happen as rarely as they do is also proof that the system works pretty well in most places most of the time. (see ‘Challenging elections in the UK page 63 “Appendix C: Table of petitions from 2007 to 2012” – most of which relate to individual wards only).
However there is always some scope for continuous improvement in terms of tightening up quality controls exercised by a local authority, its regulator, the political parties, the candidates and agents, the Police and the Minister.
I for one am very much looking forward to reading the final report of the Electoral Commission and the outcome of this Hearing. I’m sure we will be hearing about a lot of things which could have been done better – alongside other findings about what actually happened.
Your assertion: “If the system was not so fundamentally flawed, the Wonders of Tower Hamlets would not immerse so many ordinary people.”
My response: There’s no logic in your argument and your vocabulary/grammar also seems to have gone awry.
It’s not the system that is broken per se. How well it works depends on the people operating it – and, with respect to any alleged fraud or irregularities, the various parties who are wholly responsible for the proper working of election processes are identified by the extract from the report quoted above.
Bottom line – at the end of the day the issue is about diligence, scrutiny and integrity on the part of all responsible participants – no matter where in the UK an election is held.
Where it is held really shouldn’t make any difference if we can be confident in the people responsible for running the election.
=> You couldn’t
Dear Dreamer,
It is going to be hard work to convince a sceptic that
(a) the sceptic ought to inform himself of what actually happens in his country;
(b) all of us are certainly imperfect but when some of us are aware of our imperfections we attempt to improve our performance – that is certainly NOT my personal experience with:-
(i) Electoral Commission
(ii) Cabinet Office’s Elections
(iii) Local authority (principle authority) staff
(c) people vote for brand-names or for named individuals.
(d) local elections have nothing whatsoever to do with national elections or with national and international matters including our European Union, the United Nations and, God Bless It, the Council of Europe who kindly donated their flag to the EU.
(e) people of voting age, especially those paying the Tories infamous Council Tax and working in the community for the good of the community, should be allowed to vote in local elections
(f) Returning Officers should be competent, receive training and instruction (and not have their ‘main’ job descriptions retrospectively created several years after their appointment)
(g) Commonwealth citizens should not automatically have the vote in any UK election – except for a Parish or Town Council – while other European Citizens are denied the vote at national and local elections.
(h) people who are illiterate and use thumb-prints for their signature and who can not understand a word of English, should not get postal votes.
(i) An extra voting choice should be added to all voting forms (also known as ballot papers) = None of the Above, and if None -of-the-Above wins, the election should be re-run with the unsuccessful candidates excluded.
I ought to be devoting my energy into drafting a pleading seeking a change in the appropriate laws rather than effectively wasting my time on a sceptic who mistakenly believes virtually everything is wonderful.
The Electoral Commission was created by Labour to act against Tory donations from businesses, international crooks, slush-funds and tax-avoidance companies in tax-havens (like Jersey then was) etc.
The Electoral Commission is not, and never has been, a fully functioning and independent regulator of all election matters – unlike what other countries have.
That is my perspective. Call me mad, crazy, wrong, deluded, mistaken, nuts – I don’t mind. Unlike you I have witnessed the crap for the last 12 years and the local authority fraud which destroys evidence to prevent (according to the police) a police fraud investigation taking place.
Improving everything local government does – and I don’t mean more expensive privatisations of public services – including the unsatisfactory state of local election matters is, in my opinion, desirable.
I am now pulling the blog’s plug to concentrate on pleading drafting, so I will not be seeing your reply and not anyone else’s either. It’s nice to have the last word
Wishing everyone a Happy Christmas
Curious Cat
u22.net/cat
Really – you mean it? Absolutely the last word?
What a relief. Like I said do please go and start your own blog about electoral matters where you can rant at length.
Your personal experience does not mean everybody else’s experience is the same. Just as what happens in Tower Hamlets is NOT replicated across the country.
To assume that everything should/must change purely based on your own experience and what happens in Tower Hamlets – and that your pleadings might actually might make a difference is naivety in extremis.
If they didn’t give two hoots they wouldn’t have Commissioners at the Town Hall and they’d let Rahman continue to destroy the borough.
Political expediency !
Par 1. I have no idea what the judge thinks, do you? You have asked the question can you give us an answer?
Par 2. It would seem that there is some link of Lewis Carrolesque state campaign against Lutfur Rahman, at least that’s all that I can make of this sentence. Is this because you subscribe to the view that the campaign is the result of ” Islamophobia ” an irrational fear of Islam, or because as the loony left or what’s left of it claim, Rahman has been so successful at a massive house building campaign, expanding social services, resisting cuts and generally carrying out a full blooded socialist programme?
Par 3. Can you name these Chief Executives?
Could you also clarify what it is you are talking about?
To be clear – the house building programme is privately led and financed. He has only built a handful of council accomdation. 2. He has cut social services and social workers in tower hamlets 3. He has not resisted cuts (in fairness he has had to make them like other LA’s). While raiding the reserves to ensure his multimillion pound office is funded as well as his publicly funded preelection “advertising”.
The Commissioner appears to believe the RCJ is not so far away and is a neutral place.
It is entirely possible for the Commissioner to believe ………..
* Rent-A-Mob are very unlikely to get away with intimidation outside the RCJ
* there are multiple entrances into and out-of the RCJ; most are unknown to the public
* the RCJ complex is vast (the main building upstairs was “cut in half” round about the end of the 1980’s or beginning of the 1990’s creating public-less corridors) and it will be difficult (if not practically impossible) for any Rent-A-Mob to run around the entire perimeter seeking to intimidate witnesses before they leave the safety of their vehicles and enter the protected environment of the RCJ.
If the truth of the allegations is to be established, the witnesses’ testimony is important. Unless witnesses can speak freely without fear or worry, their testimony is likely to be incomplete. So lets have genuine Free Speech and let that principle manifest itself in the witnesses’ evidence.
Curious Cat.
Obviously you don’t understand how this borough works. I know adults who haven’t walked from Brick Lane to Old Street their whole lives.
Also, I find the following odd.
21. Finally I should wish to record in these reasons my thanks to Mr Emyr Thomas of the second Respondent’s solicitors for his part in locating and inspecting the alternative venues.
I know I should know who the Respondent are but some Googling only confused me.
If it is the Lutfur side, then it seems odd to inspect a place when presumably they argued against the move; although I suppose it could just be ‘we’re moving, so find someone you agree with’
But if it is the other side it seems perverse. For a disputed penalty, does a ref ask those demanding such to go and look at the video recording for him and report back?
The respondents are listed on the image at the top of the post.
The second respondent is described as the “Returning Officer” i.e. a legal representative of the Council responsible for the conduct of the elections. The person in question also holds the post of ‘Service Head, Democratic Services’ at Tower Hamlets Council.
The Returning Officer is an appointment of the local authority and in the exercise of that appointment ‘independent’ of the local authority who are supposed to make facilities. including staff and buildings, available to him to fulfil that appointment.
There seems to be a contradiction between being independent of the local authority and simultaneously being a chief officer of the same local authority.
Often the RO is the Head of Paid Service (also known as Managing Director, Chief Executive etc.) or the chief lawyer or the Monitoring Officer.
CC.
It’s a distinction which doesn’t appear to pose any sort of problem for the Chief Executives of virtually all Councils in the UK – or their respective authorities and associated political parties.
It’s just in Tower Hamlets that we seem to have a problem………
=> Southpawpunch,
Solicitors in England are officially known as ‘Officers of the Court’.
One of their duties is to assist the Court (which often means the “judge”).
CC.
ok – my last comment is bunk. Either delete it or ignore if published
Only your last one?
Interestingly the House of Commons Library Note on the Roles and Responsibilities of Returning Officers ( http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05302.pdf ) defines them as follows
Returning Officers in England and Wales are treated as honorary positions, and held by a Mayor or Sheriff, and it is the Acting Returning Officer who organises the election, normally the chief executive of a local authority. In turn, the ARO will delegate functions to Deputy Returning Officers. Returning Officers in England and Wales are appointed under section 24(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
I’ver been interested how it came about that a third tier officer of the Council became the Returning Officer for some considerable time.
I’ve never been very clear as to
1) whether the second respondent was officially defined by the Council as the “Returning Officer”, the “(Acting) Returning Officer” or the “Deputy Returning Officer” and
2) who filled the other two posts or whether they were all compressed into one which was held by the third tier officer who is now the second respondent in this legal action.
Can you elucidate Ted? Is this a matter of public fact?
This all gives the impression that things are being taken very seriously. Rahman’s actions are being assessed by some rather more weighty individuals than Rahman himself. Last time such an assessment was made there was significant intervention made, and Mawrey’s comments make it sound like the arrival of the commissioners has had Rahman and his coterie buzzing like a crowd of angry hornets. (Which, in itself, rather suggests that sending in the commissioners was a good thing to do.)
Reading between the lines suggests that the change of venue is as much to do with allowing process to be conducted correctly as much as witness intimidation; para 10 states that the staff at the Town Hall are not trustworthy (which is not an allegation which would be made lightly.) If this is true then moving the venue is a damned good thing.
However it does leave SPP’s comment about intimidation being still possible. If the intimidators really are making threats against families back in Bangladesh then moving the hearing to the centre of town won’t make a blind bit of difference.
Tim.
It’s certainly not the case that all those giving evidence need to do so in full view of the public.
It’s perfectly routine in certain cases, particularly those where alleged intimidation is an issue, for evidence to be given via
1) video link (ie no need to come to court) or
2) behind a screen (ie identity only known to a defined group of people)
It’s also the case that courts will sometimes be cleared of the public – particularly if they are not well behaved.
Now I wonder what’s making me think of meetings in Tower Hamlets Council Chamber?
The proceedings will take place in a building controlled by HM Court service and not the “officers” of tower hamlets council, in streets controlled by “not” tower hamlets police. The head of “communications” or any other “officer” will not have any sway I.e stopping the British free media being outside the building – private land blah blah blah (or indeed inside). The council chamber is adjacent to the political officers, presumably patrolled by the mighty THEO’s. The RCJ building will surly provide a more “equal footing” for parties in a secure court building. I’ve been at full council meetings where the public gallery has been simply hostile and unruly. I think this a great move and will ensure proceedings advance in a controlled and formal setting!
I’m inclined to think that the pragmatic issues related to the lack of proper facilities for holding an Electoral Court were a prime driver – coupled with the fact that all the offices relating to the Mayor are on the same floor.
Plus I would imagine the Council has had to allocate a room on the same floor to the new Commissioners appointed by Eric Pickles. (Can anybody confirm?)
The Commissioners appointed by Pickles have an office on the 6th floor of the Town Hall.
Is the thumbs down because this is incorrect or the unidentified respondent doesn’t think the commissioners ought to have any office in the Town Hall?
The thumbs down probably come from Ribena and the other lead members in the Shadwell Denial Association
The Pickles commissioners have an office on the 6th floor of the Town Hall
Interesting the specific mention of Livingstone and Galloway – they really helped him! BTW, will they be able to get an evacuation ship into that little canal outside the Town Hall?
It’s land locked John.
If we all took a shovel?????
To help Lutfur dig his political grave? Not that he nor his cronies need any help…..
Having worked in Mulberry Place, I think it is the case that LR has a firm base of supporters in a few departments – for example, I was always very concerned that the mayors apprentices did not seem to represent the wider community, as well as in the youth service eg.. The famous rapid response team! This time last year, LR was throwing Christmas parties for the elderly etc.. All quite this year it seems..
Do staff at Mulberry Place not understand that it’s the job of local government staff to be impartial and to support all politicians equally irrespective of which political party they represent?
By the same token the only loyalty a politician can expect from an officer is to “the body politic” ie the institution – and NOT individuals or specific parties.
It strikes me that maybe some managers and staff at LBTH need to go on a Refresher Course when it comes to their adherence to the LBTH Employees Code of Conduct which includes many paragraphs which indicate that open support of a political party at work is entirely inappropriate.
For example:
para 10.6
“All employees are expected to ensure that their private interests and public duties do not conflict. Individuals will need to consider whether action taken as a result of membership of various organisations such as political groups, tenants’ associations, voluntary groups, etc., comes into conflict with their duties as a Council employee.”
11. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989
para 11.1
“This statute prohibits the involvement in political activity of certain Chief Officers and Senior Officers of the Council or officers who by virtue of their posts regularly advise elected Members or speak to the press on behalf of the Council. Where your post falls within any of the above you will be individually contracted to abide by the statutory provisions.”
para 13.5
“Employees should consider whether their public statements made about the Council (Whether as a spokesperson for an organisation or as an individual) could reflect in some unacceptable way upon the employer-employee relationship.”
The politics of religion and community seem deeply rooted in the town hall. When working at Mulberry place clear massages that LR would help us keep our jobs.
Saying things like….?
Someone asked how john Williams a 3rd tier officer became the Returning Officer.
Let us not forget that at the time of Panorama transmission, the Interim monitoring officer used Blackberry Messenger to express highly partial support for the incumbent Mayor ( see earlier postings on Trial by Jeory). As a consequence it was not possible for him to be the Returning Officer. That left a number of options:
– the HOPs himself taking the role
– the HOPs asking a subordinate to undertake the role,
– replacing Sullivan Gould, or
– bringing in a external person.
That’s how John Williams found himself elevated to a role that for all we know he had no desire to undertake or control over his appointment.
It might be useful for the Election Court to explore how this appointment came about and why the HOPs et al did not bring in an experienced independent Returning Officer. This might have cost but as may become clear early next year, might have been money well spent.
Another question that has never been answered is why the Council continues to this day to use the services of M Sullivan-Gould – a mere interim – someone deemed to be so politically partisan that he had to be stood down from the role of returning officer.
One can only speculate as to how aligned the evidence of each of the two respondents will be.
That’s very interesting – that’s the very first time I’ve heard that particular explanation for the appointment of the Returning Officer!
If an external person is appointed to the role of Interim Monitoring Officer – on a temporary basis for a fee (ie NOT appointed) – and then renders himself ineligible due to conversations he has had, then local residents are clearly entitled to ask WHO decided that he should continue to be paid for that role given:
either (1) he is clearly incompetent i.e. no appreciation of what’s involved or the standards required as to political impartiality
and/or (2) his is a temporary appointment and hence there is no employment entitlement and his contract can be terminated at any time.
It seems to me that’s a question that the Pickles appointed Commissioners should very definitely be addressing in relation to governance. However the story of how is all happened is also clearly relevant to the Election Court.
Speaking personally, If I’d have been in the shoes of a certain third tier officer I’d have refused the “poisoned chalice” of elevation. One can only wonder as to the reason(s) why John Williams agreed to do it. Maybe the Court will address that question?
Is Sullivan Gould being called as a witness in the hearing of the case at the Election Court? Is his standing not compromised?