Politics of Hackney
QUOTE
The
borough was formed in
1965 from the area of the former
metropolitan boroughs of
Hackney,
Shoreditch and
Stoke Newington. For most of that time it has been a Labour run authority,
although there was a period of Conservative administration from 1968 to 1972
There was a period of changing coalitions during the 1990s. These
coalitions followed the upheaval following the Mark Trotter affair, involving
allegations of a cover up over a child abuse scandal
when the Labour Party split between Councillors following the former mayor Nick
Tallentire (which called themselves "The Hackney New Labour Group") and
councillors following the former council leader John McCafferty, who eventually
got the backing of the national Labour party.
UNQUOTE
It happened. It
seems that the Barratt Report claimed that there was no cover up. Hodge
was part of it.
Hackney Council Criticized Over Paedophile Scandal
QUOTE
A Labour-run council has been severely
criticised by an independent inquiry for its handling of a paedophile scandal.
The inquiry, headed by former Cambridgeshire County Council chief executive
John Barrett, criticised the way Hackney Council in east London dealt with
allegations that one of its social workers, who later died of an Aids-related
illness, was abusing children in his care but said there was no political
cover-up.
The report revealed widespread
incompetence and mismanagement at Hackney in dealing with the Mark Trotter
affair but it cleared the council of corruption.
The inquiry centred on allegations
that Trotter, a social worker who worked for the authority from 1981 to 1993,
abused children in his care.
|
Mark Trotter:
believed to have abused children in his care |
He was about to be arrested over allegations of sex abuse when he died of an
Aids-related illness in 1995, aged 34.
Trotter is thought to have sexually
abused at least twelve children during a fourteen-year career as a social worker
in Liverpool and Hackney.
The report is "highly critical" of the way the council carried out an
internal investigation following Trotter's death and its handling of four
complaints of sexual abuse of children in Hackney and Liverpool made against
Trotter while working for the council.
It said Hackney's handling of these
two matters amounted to "impropriety" but ruled out allegations that the Trotter
affair had been covered up because he was a Labour activist.
The inquiry was triggered by
allegations in the Evening Standard and caused a row within Hackney's ruling
Labour group.
Seventeen Labour councillors
subsequently resigned, and were later expelled, thus causing the party to lose
control of Hackney Council in September 1996.
Labour no longer has control of Hackney Council but the party's group leader,
John McCafferty, said: "I am pleased the independent report has concluded there
was no cover up. Hackney Labour was wrongly accused.
"This accusation has been completely
rebutted by this independent inquiry."
The Liberal Democrats said while the
report was good in places questions must be answered by the Labour Party about
its handling of the affair.
It was claimed that Trotter, who was
openly gay, had strong links with the then-ruling Labour group and stayed in his
job despite being suspected of child abuse.
UNQUOTE
The BBC is an
enthusiastic promoter of homosexuality for personal as well as political
reasons. However they have told the truth more or less.
PCC Complaint In Re Trotter
QUOTE
Complainant Name:
Ms D Robson
Clauses Noted:
1, 3, 7
Publication:
Evening Standard
Complaint:
Ms D Robson of London E5 complained that an article headlined
"The council officer told her friend: Don't use Trotter as your babysitter. But
the public was never warned" and a leading article headlined "The Shame of
Hackney" published in the Evening Standard on January 21 1998 contained
inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), identified her in breach of
Clause 3 (Privacy) and suggested that her child was a possible victim of sexual
abuse in breach of Clause 7 (Children in sex cases) of the Code of Practice
The article followed publication of the Barratt Report into Hackney Council's
inaction in dealing with a paedophile social worker, Mark Trotter. It identified
the complainant as the woman highlighted in the report, but not named, who had
received a warning not to use Trotter as a babysitter. The leading article
included the complainant in a list of people which the paper thought should be
called to account.
The complainant said that by identifying her the paper had intruded into her
privacy and she thought that Clause 7 had been breached by suggesting that her
child may have been sexually abused. She said that her inclusion in the pieces
was not justified: she had not been a councillor at the time and she had not
known either that the warning had not been extended to others or that no action
was being taken by the Social Services department. Furthermore, it was
anachronistic to criticize people about their dealings with paedophilia more
than ten years ago as understanding about the subject had changed so much. She
objected to the journalist asking her questions on the subject when she was with
one of her young children.
The complainant also raised complaints about accuracy. She objected to a
perceived implication in both pieces that she had acquiesced in political
corruption in Hackney and that her lack of action after the warning meant that
no action at all was taken over Mark Trotter. She added that the Barratt report
had not ascribed blame to anyone for the affair and she thought that by
criticizing named individuals the Barratt Report had been distorted by the
paper.
The newspaper said that the Barratt inquiry was established in the first place
largely as a result of the newspaper's own inquiries and that while there was no
evidence of a cover-up the report did confirm incompetence, impropriety and a
divisive political culture. It was a matter of legitimate public interest to
identify the complainant as she was a former councillor (who was to become a
councillor again after the warning) and a member of the local Labour Party who
was in receipt of privileged information which had been denied to others. The
article had made clear that the complainant was not a councillor at the time of
the warning but this fact did not exempt her from her public responsibilities.
In any case it was merely common sense to suggest that the complainant could
have at least made enquiries about what the council was doing regarding Trotter.
The editor stood by the leading article which he said accurately reflected the
fact that the complainant had not explained why the warning was not extended to
others: after all, the complainant had refused to comment to reporters when
given the opportunity to do so. The article had not suggested that the
complainant was corrupt and the editor denied that there was any implication
that her child was a victim of abuse.
Decision:
Not Upheld
Adjudication:
It was not for the Commission to come to any view regarding the
matters covered in the Barratt report. Indeed, any complaint that the report had
been distorted would have been a matter for the author(s) of the report to make.
The Commission's task was to determine whether the identification of the
complainant, which had not been made in the report, was an invasion of her
privacy, and whether the complainant had shown that the references to her were
inaccurate or misleading.
The Commission noted that the newspaper had been closely involved in
investigating matters relating to the subject of the Barratt report for a period
of years. Although the report had apparently not found any evidence of a
cover-up, it was clearly the newspaper's view, robustly expressed in the leading
article, that nonetheless responsibility should be apportioned. The Commission
noted that the Barratt report had mentioned the existence of an anonymous woman
who had been warned not to use Mark Trotter as a babysitter and therefore placed
the circumstances of the complainant's involvement in the case, if not the
complainant's name, into the public domain. The Commission considered that there
was a public interest in identifying the complainant as this woman, given her
past responsibilities on the council and her close association with the
political party which controlled the council at the time. The Commission noted
that the complainant had been given an opportunity to comment on the story but
that she had not wished to do so, and considered that the newspaper had
fulfilled its obligations in putting the matter to her for a comment prior to
publication. The Commission did not therefore find that it was inaccurate for
the leading article to have said that the complainant had not explained why the
information regarding Mark Trotter was not shared. With regard to the complaint
under Clause 7 the Commission noted that the name, age, and sex of the child had
not been given and neither had the article stated how many children the
complainant had at the time that the warning was given. There had therefore been
no breach of the Code which states that the child must not be identified.
The complaints were rejected.
UNQUOTE
So the Barratt Report existed in
1998.
Luke's
Blog: It had to happen
"On 16
January
1998, your Council issued a
press release entitled: "OUTCOME OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS
BARRATT REPORT". It stated:
..."
lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2006/06/it-had-to-happen.html