Announcement Breaking comment

‘Abused’ Webbe will appeal ‘atrocious’ verdict

MP found guilty of harassment but allies say verdict a travesty, while Labour machine again shames itself

Labour MP Claudia Webbe will appeal against her conviction on a charge of harassment, Skwawkbox understands. Ms Webbe had told the court during the trial that she was a victim of ‘domestic abuse and coercive control’ and had been ‘goaded and gaslighted’ – a claim not disputed by Lester Thomas, her partner to whom she is still engaged.

A close associate of Ms Webbe told Skwawkbox:

She’s another abused woman caught in the awful behaviour of a coercive, controlling partner – like Apsana [Begum]. Apsana was found not guilty but this is an atrocious conviction.

In true Labour right style, Labour has not stood by an abused woman MP pending the outcome, instead exploiting the opportunity, instantly disowning Webbe and calling on her to resign her seat – moves that would certainly have followed had the right’s stitch-up of Apsana Begum been successful.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to without hardship, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. I am struggling to understand how an obviously intelligent person who is a barrister, an MP and had also been warned off by the police ever got herself in this position.
    What was she thinking.

    1. I saw her on TV asking questions of Dominic Raab about the situation in Byalorusse. Didn’t see any evidence of intelligence there. Her partner didn’t dispute any question about coercive control because none was ever put to him (in the same way he didn’t dispute the earth wasn’t flat or Biden was President). A jury has heard all the evidence including her very competent defence team’s submissions and found her guilty. She has the right of appeal but doesn’t look like much of a miscarriage of justice especially from the point of view of thousands of women who have been stalked and threatened.

      1. PC – According to reports, there was no jury trial. See my comment below.

      1. Joseph – So you don’t have an explanation either. Thanks for letting me know.

  2. Apparently Starmer has failed an HGV driving test, after crashing his lorry. Makes a change from crashing his party, but there’s a pattern developing ….

    1. Did this happen just recently, Joe? I’m surprised he had the time right now!

  3. Should she have to stand down, her majority of 6,019 in Leicester East, doesn’t look all that secure given the party’s and Starmer’s unpopularity. Would the Southside Stasi even dare to impose someone controversial like say, Ruth Smeeth ?

    Wouldn’t put it past them.

    1. This is not good for labour. The last thing they want is another by-election. Smeeth definitely won’t be making an appearance.

  4. Within minutes of a guilty decision from Westminster Magistrates’ Court, a nameless party official proclaimed “The Labour Party strongly condemns Claudia Webbe’s actions and she should now resign.”

    No-one’s coming out of this looking good, Sir Deceit and Betrayal the least.

  5. How easily would it have been for Sir Deceit and Betrayal of the Ten Pledges to have not ensured that within minutes of a guilty verdict he did not have a spokesperson say ““The Labour Party strongly condemns Claudia Webbe’s actions and she should now resign.”

    Is anyone surprised? Losers do as losers are.

    1. Doubt she’ll have expected any sympathy. To those people it’s just one less left-wing MP to vote for a leadership challenge. Probably the same reasoning behind the unwillingness to readmit Corbyn too.

      The two warring factions with the SCG + members + unions on one side, and the PLP RW Blairites and their London media mates, trying to hold back the tide, on the other.

      1. Andy – Would those be the same Unions that voted through all Keir Starmer’s rule changes and voted down Proportional Representation becoming Labour policy..

      2. SteveH- The most important rule change i.e., switching back to the electoral college – wasn’t voted on at all. They backed down in the face of union opposition.

        I don’t like how all the unions behave. I think their opposition to PR is self-defeating. When you consider every European country where proportionate voting systems are in place, is more progressive and has better union rights and worker protections than the FPTP lumbered, Tory dominated UK. You’ve got to wonder why they so stubbornly cling on to FPTP?

        My best guess is, they fear a kind of permanent neoliberal centrism under PR? But PR would allow new, more progressive parties to grow, to break that hold of the centrists.

      3. Andy – I think it has far more to do with the FPTP system enabling them to maintain their power.

      4. Andy – You should wade through the latest rule book and contemplate the changes. The ‘electoral college’ thing was just a ‘dead cat’, I doubt anyone realistically expected it to pass.

      5. SteveH – The unions like to mentor & support union-linked candidates to be MPs I get that. But what has that brought them in terms of real improvements derived from Westminster?

        I think Sharon Graham realises Westminster won’t provide the answers, or a route to union empowerment. I don’t know where she stands on PR though?

        The unions must look at the relative strength of unions in Germany and Scandinavia and be envious. Sweden’s current PM Stefan Löfven is a former trade union chairman.

      6. Andy – Bugger all unless Labour is in power. Which may explain their actions.

    2. qwertboi – I would have been surprised if they hadn’t prepared a statement. They no doubt had a different one for if the verdict had gone the other way.

      1. SteveH – You may have a point. The party did the same to Fiona Onasanya, in January 2019, under a then Corbyn-led Labour. After she was given a three-month jail sentence for lying to avoid a speeding ticket. The party along with the Tories urged her to resign.

        But under Starmer the factionalism does seem much more intense. Everything is now seen in terms of left vs right.

      2. You mean, as with Apsana Begum when she was acquitted, a couple of months ago?

        To my knowledge, no one from Southside Labour, has spoken to her, yet.

        Which only points up the calibre of ‘socialist’ they are, in there.

        Petty and mean-minded.

  6. I am very puzzled by this whole thing. Ms Webbe appears to have been charged with harassment and putting someone in fear of violence (if the BBC report is accurate – I know it could be a big if). But, if this is so, the maximum sentence is quite high – “If the offence is harassment (putting people in fear of violence) or stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress): the maximum sentence is 10 years’ custody.” My understanding is that, where a guilty verdict could result a sentence of more than 2 years, and where the accused pleads not guilty, the case must go to a jury trial.
    So why was this case tried by a magistrate?
    Has the law changed?
    Or was I wrongly informed in the past?

    1. It was presided over by a district judge, who Google tells me, handles family and civil cases. They sit alone but receive expert guidance.

    2. Goldbach you see some weird and wonderful things in a magistrates court.When I was a child I was caught in Bolton magistrates court playing truancy by watching the court in the public gallery for a month or so until I was caught in my school uniforms declaring me as a pupil of st Joseph’s primary school..Many years later I was sued in a private prosecution for causing a Senior officer in the mets gang busting squad for causing him alarm and distress.(the lowest tort).This giant of a man claimed that I had intimidated him in a public place and he felt it his duty even if the police in Reigate wernt interested that it was his public duty to pursue me in court.My Barrister a personal friend of a friend in the IRISH mafia(joke)allowed the officer to bragg and claim how experienced he was in breaking the London gangs including the krays.then proceeded to descibe me as although much smaller than him has comparable to “Al.capone” and a very sinister meet on a dark and rainy night in Reigate..The gang busting cop asked to plead to the court after loosing and bursting into tears and get my Winnings “(taxed)and the costs of his private prosecution paid out of the public purse.The three magistrates were ex Tory councillors and despite avoiding sniggering at the cops claims of alarm and distress caused by being terrified by me they still let the public pay for a private prosecution that cost me thousands even in them days.although I won I felt my money was tarnished.The moral of the story is that justice is a mockery and it only stretches to what you can buy and justice doesn’t come cheap even for Al copone

  7. It was heard in a magistrates court under a district judge and she was represented by a QC. All seems a bit strange. It appears she was guilty as charged and Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott should have steered clear of being character witnesses, the media jumped on that with glee.
    If her appeal fails, which looks likely, she’ll have damaged herself, the victim, the movement and her constituents. A bad business all round.

    1. As the Magistrate said –

      “I do not find the defendant to be cogent, compelling and truthful in all aspects of her evidence,” he said.

      “Some of the things she said I believe were made up on the spur of the moment.”

      “In short, I find Ms Webbe to be vague, incoherent and at times illogical and ultimately I find her to be untruthful.”

      “Threatening to throw acid at somebody and to send intimate photographs to family members crosses the custody threshold,”

      1. She denies violence so I assume that includes threatening to throw acid ?
        She said the so called “intimate photo” was of the guy with his top off. The recorded
        conversation was apparently out of context ..

        However – the Mirror piece seems confusing to me ..

      2. HFM – Only if you want it to be. The report is consistent with other reports including those reports from earlier in the trial.

      3. Steve H Hall….And vague is usually the summing up in a magistrates court because most of them are not trained in the law.The normal phrase for a liar is her statments are unreliable,the fact that this amatuer lawman went to great lengths in castigating the acussed wreaks of bias and unprofessional conduct.IF you have no knowledge of the law lottery you should button it.

      4. Joseph – Perhaps you should do a little research before putting pen to paper.

        This ‘amateur lawman’ is Paul Goldspring, aged 49, will be known as Senior District Judge Goldspring, (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales. He was admitted to the Roll in 1997. He was appointed as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) in 2009 and as a District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) in 2013.

        If all you’ve got are your own prejudices then perhaps you are the one that should keep quiet.

  8. The conviction of Claudia Webbe is a travesty of justice and I hope she manages to overturn this with her appeal.

    1. Richard – Don’t you think it should have been a bit of a wake up call for her when the police warned her to cease and desist.
      For goodness sake the woman is a barrister and an MP. Claudia made 16 further calls after being warned not to by the police. Did she think they were joking or that she was immune.

  9. Some of the calls were never made – she rang the number then changed her mind.
    Furthermore she alleges her calls were concerned with the threat of Covid.

    WE now find (from other article) there was very little actual evidence about what she did.

    So NO evidence about acid and ONE piece of evidence about pictures ..where “threats”
    were taken only of context

    The information about a previous decision of the “Presiding Judge” is also significant
    in that it is evidently extremely poor ..

  10. I think that it is time that somthing better than unstable relationships were invented to help solidify society.and strengthen family life..Has anyone considered that odd old fashioned concept of dare I mention it Marraige “?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: