Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Monday, 2 April 2012

ANDREW LAMONT:THE RAMIFICATIONS

The Dame has decided that Andrew Lamont has been punished enough so won't be commenting further on the outcome of the trial. It's all here in the K&C Chronicle
She would prefer that people did not make any comments-unless of course, they relate to the very serious question of procedures, as picked up below.
Lamont has suffered enough: there is no point in further humiliating him.

However, there should be much concern over the manner in which the Chief Executive, Derek Myers and the Leader, Cllr Cockell handled matters.


K&C Labour Group press release for immediate publication
The Kensington and Chelsea Labour Opposition Group will not comment on the outcome of this criminal trial, except to say that we acknowledge that justice has taken its course.
However, the Labour Group believes it is time for the Council to review the procedures and protocols covering Councillors who may face criminal charges. As in any other area of public life, a person who has been arrested and faces possible criminal charges should immediately be requested formally to withdraw from his or her duties. This can be done either by resignation or by an agreed suspension of duties. It is simply not enough, as in the case of former Councillor Lamont, to make a private agreement that the individual ceases to attend meetings.
The Labour Group challenged the Council leadership through the Standards Committee, and subsequently at appeal, suggesting that existing procedures were not followed, the Code of Conduct was breached and as a consequence the Council had been brought into disrepute. The Standards Committee response, given on 28 February, stated that no further action would be taken as the Council had followed its existing procedures correctly. The response said that the Committee ‘could not establish how matters might have been handled differently, however unsatisfactory this might have appeared to other Members or members of the public’.
However, the implication of this decision is that, should any other Councillor be arrested and face possible charges and subsequent conviction, the alleged criminal could remain as an active Councillor until the day before s/he goes to Court.
Labour Leader Judith Blakeman said: ‘Residents expect more of the Council. There must now be a thorough review of procedures to put a more transparent process in place. Allowing a possible criminal to stay in post for almost a year and keep it secret until the day before he was charged is simply not good enough.’
Deputy Leader Cllr. Emma Dent Coad said: ‘Kensington and Chelsea’s lack of action contrasts badly with the Mayor of London, who faced a similar situation and demanded the immediate resignation of his colleague. The Council says it prides itself on openness and transparency; it must live up to this ideal or suffer the consequences at the ballot-box ’.
 

28 comments:

  1. It is disgraceful that a senior Labour party member and councillor gave a character reference for the DEFENCE

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a FORMER Labour councillor who was sacked by the Labour Group, not just from his position as Labour Leader, but from standing again for re-election. His colleagues had obviously sussed him out, albeit a bit late in the day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cunningham was indeed sacked for very poor behaviour; he was no friend of officers and acted against his own party frequently.

    Officers were glad to see the back of him.

    As for Cockell, he needs to have a major rethink. Three Cllrs associated with pornography, and one would-be Cllr who had been a porn star.

    What kind of people is he attracting? Nobody is safe until they tighten up the rules and have proper procedures to get rid of people they can't trust.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cunningham was a waste of space. Always puffed up, and doubling his pension with the big SRA from Pooter. Of course he was a "pink" poodle. Very sad

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Standards Committee said that the "response could not have been handled differently, no matter how unsatisfactory this might seem to the muppets"

    Well as we know the muppets are the last thing on the mind of Cllr Cockell and his reptile stooges on the Standards Committee. It is all about expediency and justifying the actions of a corrupt administration.

    Brings to mind another bon mot of the Standards Committee after Cllr Cockell was caught out telling fibs to the local paper. "Political rhetoric" they chirped.

    What trash

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kensington Tory3 April 2012 at 08:56

    The House That Cockell built

    High time it is knocked down

    ReplyDelete
  7. The first time I saw Cllr Cunningham at a Cabinet meeting, fawning every time Cllr Cockell spoke to him, all of me turned to goose pimples. The biggest creep that I had ever witnessed

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part of the Cunningham sell out (and traitor to his party) was vocal support for Cllr Cockell's Statue of Liberty In The Park (ie the plan to rebuild Holland Park School at a cost of £100 million)

    I wonder if the rat Cunningham will be invited by Cockell to the grand naming of the "Cockell Building" in September this year when Pooter will be puffed to a scale never seen before

    ReplyDelete
  9. And allowing the affordable housing for the Holland Park School luxury development to be put on the Silchester Garage site within touching distance of the overhead railway. One rule for the rich another for the vulnerable. The Conservatives and their running dogs,走狗.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Dame, dont you just love it when it all goes soooo quiet?

    Hellllooooooo?

    Come on you cowardy custards, it's not true that the Leader knows who's posting (apart from Up Yours of course).

    You can say exactly what you want. No one will ever know.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Person Familiar with The Situation3 April 2012 at 13:30

    Cllr Coleridge is privately telling friends that he is very uncomfortable with his behaviour as a member of the Standards Board

    ReplyDelete
  12. And so he should be! So just how comfortable would he be if another alleged paedophile was allowed to remain Cllr and be governor of a nursery for a year while it was being investigated?

    His inaction and cowardly behaviour could put children at risk!

    ReplyDelete
  13. who was the Tory who spoke up for Lamont. Someone said it was "a man with glasses" - surely not Pooter?

    ReplyDelete
  14. According to the K&C Chronicle Lamont's defence said: "I suggest Mr Lamont is perhaps a bit naïve, unworldly, but essentially he is a nice, amiable man. This is a man of impeccable character, who had Labour and Conservative politicians who have served with him queueing up to say 'this is a man of integrity.'

    Who are all these politicians queueing up to defend a man that a jury of 12 independent citizens have found guilty? The public has a right to know so that we don't re-elect them!

    ReplyDelete
  15. A man so full of integrity that he tried to blame his perverted crimes on his ex-wife and her brother. Lamont punished enough?- he should have gone to jail!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Of course Cllr Cockell should do the honourable thing and step down while an independent enquiry looks at the conduct of the Lamont affair

    But pigs need to fly first

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fellow Bow Grouper4 April 2012 at 08:15

    A gross error of judgement by Cllr Donaldson if it is true that he gave a character reference for the vile disgraced ex Cllr Lamont

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another disgraceful chapter in the reign of Cllr Cockell.

    His political judgement is flawed (Exhibition Rd). His personal judgement is flawed (Lamont). His ethics are flawed (tax paid dinner for "friend" in New York). His Leadership is flawed (SRA driven patronage society).

    Pathetic bunch of Tory councillors who cannot find a better substitute

    ReplyDelete
  19. 18.02, it was Cllr Donaldson who spoke out for Lamont, not a popular man within his own group, and now he will probably be deselected just as Cunningham was before him.

    Something we are all missing here - this 'nice, amiable, unworldly' man deliberately, over many years, sought vile photographs of children for gratification with no thought of the damage he was doing to the children involved. This is extremely alarming - even the judge was conned by this character! So can anybody now do anything, but be vindicated because they are 'unworldly'?

    Unbelievable, frightening and undermining to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lamont, Cunningham and Donaldson all used to go off together on a Council Tax-Payer funded jaunt every year to the Town Planning Conference - several days of living high on the hog and heavy drinking. So they all became very pally with each other. Thankfully this piece of unjustified extravagence has now been stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hopefully, the Opposition will bring this matter (Why was Lamont able to remain on as a Councillor for so long?)onto the Agenda of the next Council Meeting on Wednesday 18th April.
    Concerned parents and residents can then attend and view from the Public Gallery how much Pootin hates any kind of scrutiny. Disgrace!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fed Up Resident4 April 2012 at 16:10

    If Labour has the backbone, and some careful preparation, then a motion of censure is an outstanding idea for the next Council Meeting and the Press should be invited and briefed beforehand

    Labour needs a strong attack team. Cllr Blakeman and Cllr Foreman? They should anticipate lots of silly ridicule from Cockell's attack dog, Cllr Reade. And of course Mayor Mills will be wading in with her very partial Chairmanship of the Council Meeting which is fast becoming a scandal of its own

    If friend of disgraced ex Cllr Lamont (Cllr Donaldson) dares to squeak, it will be a push over to crap all over him

    But the dagger needs to be plunged into the reptile Cockell. Full frontal

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dont forget, 16.10, that the note to councillors informing them of the Lamont arrest was signed by Cockell, Ahern and Paget-Brown

    Pooter is no fool when it comes to covering his tracks. "Not my responsibility" he will mutter. A "colegiate" decision

    Reptile

    ReplyDelete
  24. And of course it was not only residents and parents that were betrayed by Cllr Cockell. The other Norland councillors were also let down badly and hung out to dry. Including the dreadful Mayor Mills and the outstanding Cllr David Lindsay (Norland Ward councillors)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Labour also needs to question the role of CEO Derek Myers in all of this. Did he abdicate his duty to the electorate and side with his paymaster, Cockell?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Labour took the complaint about Cockell's inaction to the Standards Committee last year, and to appeal this year, to no avail. As far as the Leader is concerned he has been exonerated.

    Disgraceful. This could happen all over again tomorrow, and children put at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Councillors should be treated in the same way as any member of the public or employee of the council when cases such as this happen. They are suspended, marched out of the building, people who they work with are informed, they are investigated, sacked or found not guilty. There is a very very clear process which involves the police which apparently Cockell and his mob ignored.

    The judge in Lamont's case was completely wrong in his judgement. He should have been imprisoned for what he did. This was not something that he happened upon on his computer. They would have been the most horrendous images of vulnerable children that he had to enlarge due to his disability. There is NOTHING naive, unworldly, nice or amiable about anyone who searches for images such as this and then enlarges them. This is a deliberate action and he knew what he was doing.

    At no point are any of the children in these images given any consideration in any of the publicity around this, they have no recourse, no one to defend them, no one to say they were amiable, naive, unworldly or nice, and no Judge to do the right thing. THEY were the innocents and are probably still being abused.

    So what should you do dear Tories?

    This has to be the final thing that Cockell and his mob get away with, how can this Council let this continue, when innocent children have been treated this way.

    You all need to do the right thing now, a vote of no confidence in him and the others involved in this. Its now time to bring back some morals to this Town Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So Labour went through the Standards Committee and got stuffed. As usual. The Standards Committee is packed with Cllr Cockell's paid hands.

    If Cllr Blakeman has the balls (pardon the pun) she needs to put down a "No Confidence" motion at the next Council Meeting and go for it. She and Foreman need to put everything they have into a show stopper.

    And get the press there for the debate. Simple, compelling story.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.