http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6846492.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/25/bnp-barnbrook-false-murder-claims
http://www.mpacuk.org/story/250909/bnps-barnbrook-face-ban-murder-lies.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/12/bnp-barnbrook-murders
He claimed three murders took place in Barking & Dagenham over a period of time. It turned out that two were attempted murders because the victims subsequently recovered, and the third murder did not take place in Barking but in Newham, though the victim did come from Barking.
When this was pointed out to him, he argued that it was still substantially true, in that this was the average number of murders that takes place in his borough and the real situation as regards knifecrime is even worse, because not all knifings are reported to the police by victims.
The video of him discussing this was placed on YouTube and on his blog and stayed on for four weeks/months(?) after this factual error was pointed out to him.
The action was brought by Labour Councillor Val Rush who claimed that by knowingly lying about these facts, he had brought his office into disrepute and that he was whipping up fear of crime and causing confidence to be lost in the police. The pretext that anyone in this country has any confidence in the police nowadays, when fear of violent crime is so high that we are now a "walk on by" society, is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.
When asked by Councillor Barnbrook how this could have brought his office into disrepute, particularly as no one else had complained about this factual error apart from her, it was merely repeated by Councillor Rush that he had brought his office into disrepute. The impression he had given of knifecrime in Barking was substantially true he suggested, after reading from a list detailing murders on a year by year basis in the borough. The average of 3 was about right, he claimed. In fact, in some years it was even as high as 6 or 8.
"Even one murder is one murder too many," Councillor Barnbrook said.
Councillor Rush repeated her allegation that he had whipped up fear of crime and brought his office into disrepute, without saying how or why (probably because she was unable to), though she was asked this question twice.
The tribunal (or should I say kangaroo court?) unanimously found him to be guilty as charged and punished.
Barnbrook said he would be appealing, and I hope he does.
If he has not brought his office into disrepute (and it was certainly not proven or even explained how he had done so), then he should not be punished.
The enmity between Councillors Rush and Barnbrook as individuals and as members of rival parties is well-established, and is detailed in the documentary evidence. Only Councillor Rush, who had an axe to grind, complained after he mentioned her name in the YouTube video in an aside about how Labour is using taxpayers' money to publish a free local paper which gives an unrealistically rosy view of life in Barking. This attracts advertising away from the local paper which publishes real news, nice and nasty. It would suit Labour to not have the bad news reported by any other paper, Barnbrook was suggesting.
Since no one else has complained about Barnbrooks video, it is certainly arguable that the tribunal was biased. It is well-known that all the mainstream parties regard members of the BNP as "evil", "racist", "fascist", "Holocaust Deniers", "Nazis" etc and an electoral threat.
The documentation was substantial and lawyers were of course instructed to prepare them. I therefore wonder how much taxpayer money has been used to facilitate the victimisation of this BNP councillor who was expressing concern about knifecrime and exploring ways of dealing with it, in the face of the ruling party's understandable desire to pretend that nothing is as bad as the media says it is and its anxiety to assure us that everything's under control.
No comments:
Post a Comment