Sunday, 23 November 2008

Richard Barnbrook investigated for 'false' claims

Richard Barnbrook is currently the subject of a Greater London Authority investigation, following a complaint that he broadcast 'totally false' claims about a series of murders in Barking and Dagenham.

In a video posted on his blog on September 24, the BNP's London representative claimed there had been three murders within the past month in Barking and Dagenham. 

He also criticised the local authorities and the GLA for their inaction in tackling knife crime.

Introduced as a London Assembly Member, by his personal assistant Simon Darby he claimed:

"This year alone, up until now there has been 27 murders of youths between 13 and 17 by knife crimes with several thousand more being attacked by knives.

"In Barking and Dagenham alone three weeks ago there was a murder of a young girl, we don't know who's done it, her girlfriend was attacked inside an Educational institute.

"Again two weeks ago there was another attack by knives on the streets of Barking and Dagenham and two people were murdered."

However, following the broadcast, a complaint was made to the Standards Committees of both Barking and Dagenham Council and the Greater London Authority.

The complainant wrote to the GLA:

"Richard Barnbrook quite clearly states that 3 weeks ago a young girl was murdered in an education establishment in Barking and Dagenham. I know this to be an absolute lie.

"He also goes on to claim a further 2 murders in the borough in the last 2 weeks which is also a lie.

"On making these false statements not only on his blog but on You tube which has a world wide audience I believe that Richard Barnbrook has brought his position as an elected member of the GLA into disrepute he has also tried to damage the reputation of the GLA and its elected Members as well as Barking & Dagenham Council,"

A GLA Standards Sub-Committee met privately on Thursday to discuss the complaint.

After watching the footage, the committee members agreed that it warranted a referral to the Monitoring Officer. 

The Monitoring officer will now investigate a possible breach of the GLA Code of Conduct.

Under section five of the code, a London Assembly Member: 

"must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute."

Richard Barnbrook today declined to comment on whether he had broken any GLA rules. 

However, he did admit to me that his dyslexia may have led him to have "muddled" his account.

He also said that one of the three murders he had referred to in the video, had actually taken place "just over the river" from Barking and Dagenham.

The case is ongoing. All comments will be moderated to avoid prejudicing the investigation.

-Update- The Guardian have now taken up this story.


Helen said...

That's the first time I've heard dyslexia blamed for not knowing which side of the river you're on.

The Troll said...

I've had to moderate out a couple of comments so far. As it has gone to the MO the risk of prejudice is probably pretty low, but it's better to be safe with this one. Sorry if they were yours.

Anonymous said...

Is dyslexia made worse by alcohol? How about being a racist Hitler look-a-like. Is that caused by dyslexia as well?

Lefty said...

"The Guardian have now taken up this story." I think there's an extraneous 'up' in that sentence.

Nick said...

Of course its the BNPs fault again, All those 27 london murders was Richard Barbbrooks fault. If those liberal judges had given proper sentences and done their job properly ...............

To all leftys out there, dont blame the messenger.I belive Boris himself has a few ghosts in the closet. And then their were the the real crooks who served in the previous Admin.

The Troll said...

Nick- it's hard for a judge (liberal or otherwise) to hand out a correct sentence for a murder if that murder didn't even happen.

Anonymous said...

By dyslexia, he meant that when stating; "Again two weeks ago there was another attack by knives on the streets of Barking and Dagenham and two people were murdered."

The latter part of "and two people were murdered" doesn't refer to people within Barking and Dagenham, it refered to London wide. The former part about the 'knife attacks' referred to Barking and Dagenham.

As a previous resident in Barking and Dagenham, Crime did increase dramatically in present times, myself having to phone the police after someone, during an argument with an ex-girlfriend, pulled a knife, so not enough is done to combat knife crime.

The Troll said...

Anonymous- I don't think I will be at risk of prejudicing anything by saying that your comment is transparently bollocks.

1. Nobody would infer that the sentence: "two weeks ago there was another attack by knives on the streets of Barking and Dagenham and two people were murdered." meant anything other than that two people had been murdered on the streets of Barking and Dagenham. Dyslexia or not. Watch the video if you have any doubt on that.
2. How do you know what he meant? Have you asked him? You seem to be very confident about his intentions.

The Troll said...

I'm still getting lots of anonymous comments telling me why he has not broken the code/didn't mean what he said etc etc. I also got one saying why he has broken it. Just to clarify what I said above, no comments anticipating the verdict will be published. Apologies again if your comments have been moderated out.

Anonymous said...

Yes but why didn't you publish mine, which merely ruminated about the general legal definition of "bring into disrepute" and gave some examples of OTHER cases about councillors from a Cornwall council website? I don't know any of the facts of the Barnbrook allegation and have not watched his YouTube entry which appears to be the source of the conduct complained about.

The Troll said...

Apologies if I have been over-cautious on this. Normal service will return on other threads.

Anonymous said...

Can normal service return on this one and redress any mistakes, e.g. by now posting my comment?

The Troll said...

No, sorry it's already been rejected. If you really want it published you can try submitting it again (it would help if you provide links to the cases you're referring to). Without knowing who you are and what cases you are referring to it is hard to judge whether you are an interested reader or just somebody trying to muddy the water. I've had quite a few anonymous comments on this story so forgive me if I'm suspicious.