Snipe - The Scoop

Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Richard Barnbrook's Standards Hearing postponed

Richard Barnbrook's Standards Hearing has been postponed, after he submitted a last minute piece of evidence to the committee.

The joint committee decided to postpone the hearing, meant to take place tomorrow afternoon, in order to "properly consider" evidence submitted to them last night.

Barnbrook had previously failed to submit any of this evidence despite repeated requests over the last few months.

This is the second time that the date of hearing has been moved.

Last month Barnbrook sent a doctors note to the committee, on the morning of the hearing, stating that he was suffering from a "stress-related illness."

He has not been seen at any London Assembly meetings since.

A redacted version of the evidence submitted by Barnbrook yesterday is likely to appear on the GLA website soon.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ooh I wonder what this new evidence will be.

The Green Arrow said...

I do hope Richard is going to buy a new suit.

David Boothroyd said...

It should be noted that, in common with local councillors, members of the Assembly have a minimum attendance requirement: failing to attend any meeting in six months vacates the seat under section 6 of the Greater London Authority Act. However the effect of doing so would be that the next BNP candidate on the list (Robert Bailey) would get the seat.

AdamB said...

That's a worrying prospect David although paragraph 2 states that "A person shall not cease to be a member by virtue of subsection (1) above if the failure to attend is due to some reason approved by the Assembly before the expiry of that period."

Would this case fall under that provision? I'll try to find out.

AdamB said...

I've just checked with the GLA and I have it on good authority that Barnbrook *would not* lose his seat if suspended for six months.

He wouldn't have a stand in either, so a suspension would mean that the BNP would be totally unrepresented on the Assembly for that period.

This is according to the GLA's own legal advice.

Anonymous said...

My own understanding is in agreement with Adams he would not loose his seat, but, there is a very slight prospect that that could happen in the run up to the local elections in 2010 it really does depend on how much Dicky wants to drag this out. It is all a matter of timing as I understand it.

But coming back to the real offence that it is alleged he committed. Well its not only alleged he has admitted doing it!!!

He Lied, thats it pure and simple, in a nut shell, case closed, He Lied.

This is not about his facist politics, this is not about the fact that he is a Nazi, this is not about the fact, that he dresses in the same brown suits, he has his hair cut in the same style, he has steel caps on his shoes so you can hear him coming, all outwardly the same as his idol Adolf Hitler.

But this is nothing to do with that, He Lied, and he knew he was lying, he could have had the video edited, but he chose not to, when his lie was pointed out to him he could have had the video removed he chose not to.

He Lied, he lied to instil fear into elderly and vunerable people, so that they would not want to walk out on the streets, to go to the shops or play bingo.

He Lied, to try to undermine the incredible amount of partnership work that had gone on between the police and the council, to drive down violent crime, and to reassure residents.

He Lied. Thats it, no more no less. That is what he has to answer for, and so should anyone else who has the trust placed in them when elected to public office.

So please just remember He Lied

tulip

David Boothroyd said...

Being suspended is different from being expelled - it means you are prevented from acting in any way officially. I was referring to Barnbrook's absence from Assembly meetings since July, which if continued might trigger the loss of his seat.

It is possible for the Assembly to grant 'leave of absence' which means members absent for more than six months keep their seats. But the Assembly doesn't have to.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

I'm with the first anon, in that I am exicted as to see what the evidence could possibly be and held back to the last moment.

The second anon clearly has a lot of bad feelings for Barnbrook...

AdamB said...

David - If the hearings continued to be postponed and he continued to remain absent for six months due to "stress related illness" or choice, then yes he could lose his seat.

It all depends on how long he is able to string the process out. The committee could (as I understand it) choose to hold the hearing without him at the next scheduled date, if he fails to turn up again.

However, even if he is suspended, I believe there is an appeals process which could string it out even further (possibly beyond six months). If his absence continues during that process then yes he could lose his seat and be replaced.

He couldn't lose it because of absence due to suspension though.

David Boothroyd said...

Barnbrook has clearly been stringing the whole thing out for a long time now - no coincidence that this sudden 'new evidence' appeared on the eve of the scheduled hearing. However it was quite clear last month that patience with him was running out, hence the firm statement that they would definitely proceed in September even if he didn't turn up then.

When it finally concludes, yes, he can appeal to the Adjudication Panel - but that has a risk that they will impose a stiffer penalty.

Wandering Drunk said...

Unfortunately this is going to drag on longer than an Oscar acceptence speech.

Once Barnbrook finally locates his balls and attends the Panel, thereby bringing us closer to a result, he will no doubt claim this was a political stitch up, a fix, a liberal conspiracy, evidence the UK is being run by one armed communist dwarf lesbians and so on.

There is nothing that can be done about this, but I rather think that the 50,000 plus who voted for him will actually believe the dribble foaming out of his mouth.

Richard Barnbrook said...

I am suffering from dyslexia.

This means that even as the Mayor of white London I m entitled to make the odd mistake.

It's not so much that I misread something and then told a lie, it's just that I was pissed.

Still, I was back in the Crown pub in Blackheath in time to make a complete prick of myself (again).

Messge to one's self: Undo the flies on your pants before taking a piss.