Mark Daley Revisited

Is ex-Councillor Mark Daley an innocent victim as some have depicted him, or was he culpable and responsible for his own fate?

What of the other Councillor who resigned in the Phelps email scandal,  Mark Daley?  Not much has been written about this Councillor here as he was honourable enough to resign once it became clear that he was on the select group of individuals on the recipient list of Phelps’ pervert emails featuring images which sexualised young boys and were often accompanied by smutty captions.  The view of this blog has been that as Daley was honourable enough to resign, accepting his responsibility for being on the Phelps email list of this disgusting material, he has paid the price of sacrificing his political career and he should be allowed to return to a private life.

However, this blog is revisiting the matter of Mark Daley not to renew the obvious and just condemnation of him being on the recipient list, but to correct some of the mistaken and overstated comments of others who have spoken in his defence by going so far as stating he was completely innocent and that he should not have resigned.  This blog totally disagrees with these views and believes that Mark Daley made the right decision to resign. 

This blog  has been the main source of information and evidence for members of the public and for the press concerning the Phelps email scandal. It was established on the very eve of the announcement of the resignation s of Cllr Barry Phelps and Cllr Mark Daley.  The resignation of Cllr Mark Daley was a surprise to this blog,  as although we had evidence of Phelps’ emails which contained a recipient list, we did not know that a “Daley” that was part of an email address of one of the recipients was Cllr Mark Daley.  When this fact became public this blog was disgusted that another Councillor on the Council was in receipt of these emails. 

The following considerations should be taken into account by those who consider that Mark Daley is entirely innocent.  The recipient list that we know of was very small and exclusive.  Although Phelps is known for sending out unsolicited emails, he did not send out his pervert emails through which he obtained sexual gratification from young and under age boys, to all the other members of the Council.  Only the then Cllr Mark Daley was the recipient. The obvious question is why was he alone among all the other members of the Council a recipient of these emails? The other consideration is the duration in which these emails were received.  From the evidence obtained, we know that Phelps sent out these emails to this select list of recipients over many years.  If Daley was an unwilling recipient why did this continue for so long?  Why did Phelps maintain Daley on his list,  risking exposure and complaint about what he was doing?  Why is there no apparent record that Daley asked Phelps not to send these emails, and why did not Daley block these emails, or even change his email address or close down that email account?  More importantly, given that the emails sexualised young boys and contained smutty captions, and given also that Daley must have known that Phelps was sending these emails using the Council’s email system, why did he not report Phelps to the Leader of the Council or the Chief Executive?  Contrary to what some defenders of Phelps or Daley have stated, there are some images that Phelps sent in his emails which are blatantly sexualising young boys and are not innocent in any way.  A person with a sound moral sense would be outraged to receive such material and would not acquiesce in being on a recipient list without taking the strongest action to be removed from it at the very least, if not to actually report such disgusting material to the appropriate authorities.

But what should be of even more concern to those who believe Daley to be entirely innocent is the following fact.  This interesting fact comes from the individual who was a willing recipient of Phelps’ emails, who was formerly on the Committee of the “Earls Court Village Residents’ Association”, and who this blog has previously reported as having sent dog excrement to several residents in Earls Court.  This Committee member stated that it was very hard to get on this list as it was important to win Phelps’ trust.  This makes a lot of sense, given the disgusting content of what Phelps was sending and what was at risk for all of them if caught.  Phelps would need to trust his recipients that they would not report him to the authorities.  And none of his willing recipients did, including the then Cllr Mark Daley.  The blog would like its readers to know that some members of the Earls Court Society knew for some time about the Phelps’ perverted emails before the scandal became public, but did nothing to expose the matter, and indeed some have even come to his public defence.


There Is A Labour Candidate For Earls Court

Labour Voters Should Be Cautious Before Tactically Voting

The blog is pleased to inform our readers that there is a Labour candidate for the Earls Court by election.  The candidate’s name is Joel Bishop.  You can read about him here

It appears from our research that at last, alone among the main parties, there is a candidate that is not from among the members and officers of the socially narrow circle of the Earls Court Society.

Having established that there is a Labour candidate in the by election, the blog believes that it is very important that voters in Earls Court who wish to vote Labour are not seduced by arguments in favour of tactical voting, whereby a Labour supporter votes for the Liberal Democrat instead of their own first choice, inorder to get the Conservatives out.  If there are any Labour supporting readers in Earls Court who are reading this blog, and are contemplating a tactical vote for the Liberal Democrats, it is important to take into account the following arguments against this:

1. The Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the Conservatives nationally.  The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting a government programme of savage cuts in housing benefit which will severely affect vulnerable and low income individuals and families living in private rented accommodation in Earls Court, effectively forcing them  to move out of the Borough to a cheaper area.  There is nothing to be gained from voting out a Conservative Councillor only to have a Liberal Democrat Councillor who will support the same policies of cuts that their party is committed to nationally.

2. Even worse for a Labour supporter, is the prospect of supporting a party, the Liberal Democrats, that is committed to supporting a drastic change in the law concerning the security of tenure of tenants in social housing.  The most vulnerable members of the community in Earls Court, who are tenants in social housing, are facing being forcibly evicted from their homes under the Government plans to force tenants to move out of their homes if their income rises above a certain level or if they under occupy their property.  These government proposals will also include an end to tenancies for life, but instead fixed term tenancies, which will effectively mean that people on low incomes will not have permanent accommodation anymore, but will face the prospect of continual upheaval after the expiry of these short term tenancies.  This will make a stable home environment very difficult for low income families, the disabled, and the elderly, that need stability and security.

3. On the issues that the blog has campaigned on, including an end to malpractice, and for greater openness and transparency and accountability from our elected representatives at the Town Hall, the Liberal Democrat candidate has fudged on this issue in respect of one very modest request of just calling for the resignations of Jennifer Ware and Sophia Lambert from the Standards Committee.

4.  By voting for the party of your choice you are sending an important message to those who would want you to compromise what you believe in inorder to support somebody else’s agenda and beliefs rather than your own.  A Liberal Democrat victory will not bring the changes you wish to have.

5. There is every reason to believe that the Labour vote may actually increase as a result of disaffected Liberal Democrat voters who are appalled at what their party has done in going into coalition with a party which appears to have declared war on low income people, the disabled, and other other vulnerable groups, and the dismantling of the welfare state which great Liberals such as Lloyd George and Beveridge helped to found.

More Of The Same

Is There a Real Choice For The Voters Of Earls Court?

“I believe that in the light of your extraordinary conduct in this important matter you failed to provide a fair and impartial consideration and administration of Mr Cameron’s complaint against Barry Phelps.  In failing to exclude Jennifer Ware from the Standards hearing on Phelps you did not adhere to basic principles of natural justice and impartiality central to the conduct of an independent Chairperson, whose position must be above reproach or suspicion of bias.  I believe that in the light of the evidence which has emerged , including your own statements on this issue, your position is compromised and untenable and you should resign.” Justin Downes, Open letter to Sophia Lambert, See blog entry below dated 5 August 2010

“Those who are entrusted with making the system work fairly need to be motivated by “goodwill” and not be engaged with “working the system” for corrupt purposes.” Donald Cameron, Stitch Up At The K & C Standards Committee, See blog entry below dated 6 August 2010

Linda Wade is the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Earls Court by election.  When this blog first heard that the Liberal Democrats were going to put up a real challenge to the Conservatives in the Earls Court Ward, and they were making such positive noises in the direction of change at the Town Hall and campaigning against Cockell’s expenses, and so on, all the indications were encouraging that at last there was a mainstream political party that had listened to the concerns of Justin Downes and was prepared to campaign seriously on these matters.  That was until the Liberal Democrats announced that their candidate was to be yet again Linda Wade, an individual who has been trying to get elected as a Councillor for Earls Court and miserably failed on numerous occasions going back many years.  That fact alone is enough to make the heart of any reformist sink.  But then there are the disturbing facts that Linda Wade is a colleague of the Conservative candidate, Malcolm Spalding, on the Earls Court Society, and has a long standing friendship with Jennifer Ware, of the Standards Committee. This is the Jennifer Ware whose friendship with Barry Phelps was not publicly declared at the Standards Committee hearing concerning a complaint made by Donald Cameron against Phelps. The positions of Justin Downes and Donald Cameron on this issue are clearly stated in the introduction to this article, and this blog has campaigned on their behalf on this issue and in response to their supplying this blog with clear evidence in support of their view. Jennifer Ware is also a colleague of Linda Wade in the Liberal Democrats.  These facts alone suggest that Linda Wade is not a fresh candidate who is free from being compromised by her friendships and other political or social relationships with many individuals who are the subject of complaints made by Justin Downes and Donald Cameron.  This would make it very difficult for anybody who sympathises with Mr Downes and Mr Cameron’s position to support Linda Wade in this by election.

However, this blog as readers may recall, has written to all the known candidates in the Earls Court by election, and the two existing Conservative Councillors, Cllr Buxton and Cllr Read, with questions for them to respond to concerning issues of Phelps’ misconduct and the Cockell regime at the Town Hall.  Unfortunately, to date, neither the Conservative candidate, Malcolm Spalding, nor his Conservative colleagues who are the two sitting Conservative councillors, have responded.  It is to Linda Wade’s credit that she did at least take the time to respond to these questions, and the blog wishes to express its thanks to Linda Wade and will be posting her responses soon.

But the blog was shocked and disappointed by Linda Wade’s refusal to call for her friend Jennifer Ware’s resignation from the Standards Committee, along with Sophia Lambert, over their role in the “stitch up” at the Standards hearing concerning Donald Cameron’s complaint against the then Cllr Barry Phelps.  The blog reproduces below part of the email that was sent to Linda Wade’s election agent, Mr Robin Melzer, which explains why the issue is so important and puts the question to Linda Wade concerning whether she will call for Ware and Lambert’s resignations. The blog stated to Robin Melzer the following:

“As you might know, the blog has launched a very vocal and sustained campaign, based on overwhelming evidence, concerning the conflict of interest of Jennifer Ware, and the scandal of Sophia Lambert permitting Ware to sit on the Standards Committee which adjudicated on Donald Cameron’s complaint against Barry Phelps earlier this year, despite Lambert knowing of Ware’s close friendship with Phelps.  The blog has reproduced correspondence on this matter from many interested parties, including Sophia Lambert, Mr Donald Cameron, and Mr Justin Downes. The issues and facts presented are quite easy to grasp and are fully presented on the blog, including Sophia Lambert’s own admission that she knew of Ware’s friendship with Phelps. Having looked at the facts and the scandalous way Donald Cameron’s complaint was handled by the Standards Committee, a clear “stitch up” as he calls it, the blog has joined with Mr Downes in demanding the resignation of Jennifer Ware and Sophia Lambert for their misconduct and in bringing the Standards Committee into disrepute by failing to exclude somebody whose conflict of interest would render any decisions of that body discredited and unsafe.

This issue is therefore a very serious one for the blog, and one on which it intends to mount a sustained campaign to highlight to a wider audience the scandal of having such individuals continuing to serve on such a body which is charged with upholding standards of probity and conduct of our elected public servants on behalf of residents and voters in the borough.

In view of this, and in view of the obvious interest for our readers in a challenger to the Conservatives in Earls Court and how things would be different with a Lib Dem Councillor, I wish to put the question of calling for Ware and Lambert’s resignation again, inorder to clarify Linda Wade’s position.   The question I wish to put on behalf  of the blog is:

Is your friendship with Jennifer Ware the reason you are not concerned that she sat in judgment on Donald Cameron knowing that
she was a friend of Phelps? Do you think Ware should resign from a Committee charged with upholding Standards- or not, or can you see no moral issue about the situation?

I think a straightforward answer to this would go a long way in establishing Linda wade’s candidacy as a candidate of change and a real break with the old politics, the narrow social pool on which the political class of all parties is drawn, and how things are conducted in the Borough at the moment.”

The blog is unable to reproduce Linda Wade’s response but we can paraphrase that she completely fudged the issue of calling for Ware and Lambert’s resignation, by stating that on the advice of her agent she will not campaign against individuals who are not running in the election, and that if elected she will be addressing wider concerns of problems, transparency and representation in the borough.  The blog posed a straightforward question to Linda Wade, on a matter on which most of the facts had become apparent in the public domain, not least through this website, and she has refused to give a straight answer, which can only fuel speculation that her friendship with Jennifer Ware has compromised her position on this important matter.  The blog was not asking much of Linda Wade, it was not asking her to commit to something she could not deliver, it was only asking whether she would call for the resignations of Ware and Lambert from the Standards Committee.  Linda Wade was also informed by the blog of the importance of this issue.  In fact it can be seen as a litmus test of the commitment of a candidate to real change in how politics and administration is conducted in this Borough, as the Standards Committee is charged with upholding standards of conduct by our elected representatives and is one of the principal means, outside of local elections, by which voters and residents can hold the conduct of their elected representatives directly to account.  A Standards Committee which is not impartial, or representative, or fair, but is instead made up of people who are compromised by their friendships with Councillors, is no longer a means of openness, accountability and transparency, but is instead rotten and undemocratic and renders unjust decisions and props up corrupt regimes.  When confronted with the evidence and asked to call for the resignations of Ware and Lambert, Linda Wade refused and prevaricated.  As a result of this, the voters of Earls Court can reasonably ask if this is because she has put her friendship with Ware above the interests of democracy and the interests of residents in Earls Court and the Borough.

For this reason, the blog cannot support Linda Wade, as once you cut through the rhetoric about change, a new politics, and tackling corruption at the Council, when you ask her concerning one specific means by which this can be done, she has evaded the issue.  This leaves open the option for her of continuing with the existing regime, of business  as usual, after the election.  If she cannot even commit on such an issue of calling for the resignation of Ware and Lambert before being elected, this really does not bode well for her performance as a catalyst for change after her possible election, which the blog now suspects is as distant a prospect as it has been many times before.

Liberal Democrat Misinformation In The Earls Court By Election

The Lib Dems Are Not The Clear Opposition To The Tories In Earls Court

Of the three Lib Dem Candidates in the May 2010 election Linda Wade performed the worst, polling fewer votes than one of the Labour candidates!

Voters in Earls Court are being told by the Lib Dems that Labour has no chance and that they are best placed to defeat the Conservatives.  This is hogwash and grossly unfair to the Labour Party in Earls Court.  If you visit the Council’s election results page you will see the facts are different to the exaggerated picture given by the Lib Dems.  The link is here   As you can see Linda Wade got 560 votes in the May 2010 election, but one of her Labour opponents got 569 votes!  One Labour candidate did very badly with 179 votes, but the other got a respectable 487 votes compared to the other two Lib Dems who polled 621 and 578 votes respectively.  While two Lib Dems got more votes than the two other Labour candidates, only one of the Labour candidates polled very poorly.  But most important of all, Linda Wade performed the worst of all the three Lib Dem candidates in May 2010, receiving fewer votes than one of the Labour candidates!

At the time of posting, we do not know if the Labour Party is running a candidate in the by-election, but for the Lib Dems to present themselves as by far the main opponent to the Conservatives in the by-election is an overstatement and a gross misrepresentation of facts.

Coming soon … More Of The Same

More Of The Same:  Is There A Real Choice For The Voters Of Earls Court?

The blog will be posting an important must read article on the Liberal Democrat candidate, Linda Wade, in the Earls Court by election.  The campaign rhetoric promises that she would bring about change at the Town Hall, a new politics, or is she from the same mould as her Conservative rival in the election, Malcolm Spalding?  The blog has already informed our readers of some disturbing facts concerning Malcolm Spalding, and an equal degree of scrutiny is now being given to Linda Wade and her position on many important issues on which this blog has campaigned.  The blog has been happy to lend its support to the campaign against malpractice at the Town Hall led by Mr Justin Downes of Residents First, and has especially given its support to the outrageous injustice that Mr Donald Cameron experienced at the Standards Committee concerning his complaint against the ex-Councillor Barry Phelps.  Mr Justin Downes, on this blog, has quite rightly demanded the resignation of Jennifer Ware and Sophia Lambert from the Standards Committee over Ware’s conflict of interest in not declaring publicly her friendship with Barry Phelps at the Standards hearing, and Lambert’s failure to exclude Ware from that hearing.  This issue is a litmus test for any candidate’s commitment to change at the Town Hall, as it involves a major step in cleaning up malpractice and providing for greater transparency and accountability, as well as raising standards of conduct of those representing us.  The blog shall be providing our readers with an analysis of where Linda Wade stands on these important issues and whether she will be any different from Malcolm Spalding if she was elected.  But don’t hold your breath on this one, as the information which has emerged and which will be presented to our readers can only cause considerable disappointment to those of us who thought that this was an excellent opportunity for a candidate to emerge who would want real change at the Town Hall.  

Is Phelps Back To His Old Tricks?

Disgraced ex-Councillor Barry Phelps sends mass unsolicited emails to Councillors

For pervert ex-Councillor Barry Phelps it seems that old habits die hard.  The Newdesk has been informed that Phelps has sent an unsolicited email to dozens of former colleagues in all parties on the Council in which he tries to attack Justin Downes. The exchange forwarded to the Councillors concerned Phelps previous email as reported on this blog, where he gloated that he was not being prosecuted by the police and wrongly attributed Justin Downes as having instigated the police investigation against him.   Justin Downes remarked to Phelps in a subsequent email exchange that:

At least your curious new email is devoid of indecent images.
What a common and vulgar man you are !


Phelps then reproduced this comment from Mr Downes and stated:

Subject: Justin Downes’ Unusual email

Email below tells you a great deal about Justin Downes. Barry

While Justin Downes’ comment to Phelps speaks for itself as a judgement most of us would share on Phelps after his behaviour sending images sexualising young boys and the disgrace he brought upon his office as Councillor by sending these images using the Council’s email system, there is also much we can learn from what Phelps is now doing.  Is Phelps trying to rehabilitate himself, dipping his toe to test the water to see if he can return to the limelight, maybe even stand as an independent in his former Earls Court Ward? However, the recipients of his unsolicited emails might well have cause to be wary of being on a Phelps unsolicited mail recipient list, as  Mark Daley could testify. Even Cllr Blakeman is included in Phelps’ latest mass mailing of the Councillors.  A further cause of concern for these Councillors is that Mr Downes, and who knows who else, was sent by Phelps a full list of the private email addresses of the recipient list for the latest Phelps emails!  Phelps is irresponsible with private data and just circulates it around anywhere.  Fortunately for the Councillors whose private email addresses Phelps has failed to protect,  Mr Downes has been honourable enough to erase these private email addresses from his computer, but what if these fall into the hands of people less scrupulous?

A Pervert Perverts The Truth

The blog has been informed that the pervert ex-Councillor Barry Phelps has been circulating an email, which we reproduce below (with his email address removed), in which he gloats that the police have not prosecuted him for the disgusting emails sexualising young boys, and he mistakenly attributes the police investigation as having been instigated by Mr Justin Downes, the founder of Residents First.  This blog is disgusted that Phelps has sought to try and justify himself or win back some credibility in this way, but it confirms how utterly unrepentant and arrogant this man is.  Mr Justin Downes has written a strong response to Phelps, condemning his email, and correcting Phelps’ complete misunderstanding of who instigated the police investigation against him.  The blog is grateful to Mr Downes for his permission to reproduce his email to Phelps on this website.

From: Barry Phelps
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:54:46 +0100
To: Barry Phelps

Subject: The many and the few

To the pleasure of the many and the displeasure of the few Mr Justin Downes complaint about me to the Police has been examined and dismissed.



Justin Downes Responds to Barry Phelps, the Abscess of Deviance

Dear Mr Phelps

As ever,  you are woefully misinformed.  At no time did I report your vile and perverted emails to the Police – and for that I admonish myself.  Your fascination with under age males should have made you the subject of medical treatment, if not police supervision.

No, the truth, if that commodity ever interested you, is very different.

As I recall, I was walking through Cadogan Square when my telephone rang.  It was Det Sgt Nick Ellis of  Notting Hill Police Station asking if I would mind visiting him at the Station.  I agreed and recall being kept waiting – to my annoyance.  Anyway, when we met I suggested that he was going through the motions in interviewing me – presumably so that the Council could say they did the ‘right thing’.

Now this Phelps is the bad news…..

DS Ellis said, “Mr Downes you could not be more wrong.  We take this very seriously and the complaint has come via the Town Clerk to the Borough Commander.”  Evidently, Mr Myers was furious about your behaviour, not just because it reflects upon the moral standards of the Borough, but more importantly, as a family man, he found your interest in under age boys repellent.

This is all I have to say in the matter.

My chief regret is that I did not report you and that a successful prosecution did not ensue.  You are an utter disgrace.  You say,  To the pleasure of the many‘.  One assumes that the ‘many’ are those fellow perverts to whom your shocking emails were sent.

Justin Downes