Despite press claims, analysis of detail of media reports shows no evidence of ‘string’ of calls, nor of any ‘naked photos’ of ‘love rival’, except in verbal claim by prosecution – but judge says they may mean prison anyway
The whole of the so-called ‘mainstream’ press is parroting headlines that the conviction of Labour MP Claudia Webbe on a single count of harassment, supposedly driven by jealousy of her fiancé’s woman ‘friend’, involved a ‘string’ of phone calls and a threat of an acid attack, what is actually in evidence from the detail reporting appears to be grossly at odds with those headlines – and with the ‘atrocious’ decision of a magistrate to convict her.
The prosecution alleged in court that Ms Webbe had persistently called the other woman – but the only call whose content was in evidence in the trial, according to what has been reported, was made by the accuser to Claudia Webbe:
Only that call appears to have been played in the trial. It did not contain any mention of acid. Instead, the bizarre phrasing ‘you should be acid’ was relayed by the accuser and repeated by the prosecuting barrister, along with claims – again unevidenced – that Webbe had called her a ‘sl*t’ and a ‘sl*g’.
Webbe was reportedly heard in that recording saying that she had seen the other woman’s ‘naked pictures’ and would send them to others if she didn’t back off – but no evidence that any such photos actually existed seems to have been presented to the court.
Other than that, the call appears to have consisted of Claudia Webbe repeating some fifteen times, ‘Get out of my relationship’.
Other reports say that there were records (but no recording) of two 8-second calls from Webbe to the complainant – not from a withheld number and not a ‘string’ – and then the complainant called Webbe back as she was having a row with her fiancé. During the call a neighbour is said to have heard Webbe scream and called the police.
Webbe told the court that she had suffered domestic abuse and gaslighting during her relationship. The prosecution did not dispute her testimony.
Despite the apparent paucity of evidence beyond mere accusation, the magistrate took those accusations to be true and convicted – and even used the unevidenced acid ‘threat’ as justification for saying that he may impose a custodial sentence.
Ms Webbe’s supporters have called the verdict ‘atrocious’ and the decision to prosecute on such flimsy evidence shoddy. She plans to appeal, even though there are risks associated with that option.
Magistrate Paul Goldspring had previously let a neo-nazi convicted of terror-related charges walk free because the young man’s teachers said he might get good A-level grades.
Shamefully, rather than stand by an MP whose suffering of domestic abuse and gaslighting was uncontested, at least until the appeal process is completed, Labour’s right-wing regime immediately took the opportunity to publicly state that she should resign her seat.
Anti-black racists have already begun attacking Ms Webbe on Twitter in the vilest and most threatening terms.
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.
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.
So that’s about seven hours now you’ve been struggling (in case anyone didn’t see it, Mr H posted EXACTLY the same comment – word for word – in another thread earlier, AND that TOO was the first comment in the thread!).
If you’re still struggling with it tomorrow, it might be worth paying your GP a visit.
PS And I couldn’t help but notice that you had nothing to say about what was said in the above article, but then I wouldn’t want for you to struggle to do so.
fs!
Allan – Thanks for taking the time to let us all know that you can’t explain it either.
Explain what?
Allan – https://skwawkbox.org/2021/10/14/webbe-trial-detail-says-no-proof-of-acid-threat-and-only-one-recorded-call-by-accuser-but-convicted-of-harassment/#comment-202498
Out of 69 comments (at the time of writing), 34 of them were posted by SteveH!
I assume your paymasters gave you a bonus!! As promised!
🙄
Library definition:
“Playing the ‘race card’—White people often make this accusation against People of Color whenever they call out institutional racism.”
See link – https://www.r2hub.org/library/overt-and-covert-racism
Forbes Magazine on ‘Playing the race card’.
Given the rise of the Black Lives Matter movements globally since the death of George Floyd at the hands of police brutality, we’ve seen this phrase batted around in the media, online, and likely in your social circles. People who have the privilege to discount their race altogether as part of their journey because it is viewed as the default are now faced with conversations around a topic that they either have directly avoided for years or do not have/want the background or context to discuss are using this phrase to derail conversations and recenter their experiences and viewpoints.”
Or to put it another way only white neoliberal voices matter.
It’s curious how some comment posters, obsess about Black women going from Swawkbox news report to another news report, to condemn them. Then when this is drawn attention to they give us the ‘what me…butter wouldn’t melt my mouth’ treatment.
But you just have to look at the victim list of those thrown to the dogs in unequal treatment by the corporate media to observe this is not about individual cases.
Jackie Walker, Malia Bouattia, Naz Shah, Diane Abbott, Angela Davis et al
But a reflection on those piling on, who think women-of-colour should know there place.
Thanks to Alan Howard for being the first to point this out!
Why are the ‘woke left’ so desperate to make the injustices in Palestine a skin colour issue?
Bernie – Still desperately trying to play the race card I see.
Bernie – You appear to be the one who is obsessing about race. It never even occurred to me that it was an issue in this case. Can you explain why Claudia Webbe chose to ignore police instructions. The police coming round and warning you to back off would have been a wake up call for most people.
Some posters caught stalking MS Webbe from Skwawkbox news page to news page, are now trying to complain that it never occurred to them that race was an issue here. This is a quote from the Skwawkbox story – see above – they’ve supposedly read and then commented on.
“Anti-black racists have already begun attacking Ms Webbe on Twitter in the vilest and most threatening terms.”
Bernie – Don’ be silly. These are just the deeply unpleasant knuckle draggers who jump onto any passing bandwagon I was clearly referring to case itself which as far as I can see doesn’t have a racial element.
Since when has white colonial conquest and apartheid domination – in Palestine, like South Africa and Rhodesia – not been a racial issue? It is called ‘racist-imperialism’ for a reason.
It is also true that Israeli Apartheid victimizes Black Jews almost to the same extent as Palestinians.
Currently Ugandan Jews – born and bred in the faith – are not even allowed into Israel. Yet Afrikaner converts are welcome to resume their white privileges under Israel’s middle-eastern apartheid. See link –
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-cleansed-by-the-torah-why-these-afrikaners-became-jews-and-moved-to-israel-1.10254835
Bernie – Why are you so desperate to play the race card. For goodness sake give it a rest. What the fuck does any of that have that have to do with the Claudia Webbe trial.
Just to clarify my 6.27 post was a response to the Palestine issue raised by other posters. This topic originated with them.
And to further clarify – unlike those same posters who come on this site to discredit the left using just about anything – I am not about to pretend racism doesn’t exist or does not still have relevance in everyday politics.
If you don’t want the issue of racism raised then don’t go from Skwawkbox news page to news page, smearing the same Black woman, with the same repetitive pre-packaged soundbites.
It’s boring and and given those responsible clearly don’t care for the left or Black anti-racism, you have to question just what their purpose is in being here?
Bernie – For goodness sake give it a rest with your manufactured outrage. You are the one that has singled out that Claudia is black. (why is this in any way relevant to the case).
Is it not pertinent to ask why someone who is pleading her innocence chose to ignore and disobey the police’s advise and instructions. Nobody has managed to come up with a reasonable explanation yet.
This just looks like a case of someone who lost their sense of perspective because she let her emotions get the better of her and in the process ruined her professional life. What was she thinking.
I really don’t give a jot what colour her skin is and neither should you, it’s irrelevant.
Note to the Moderator.
You have someone here unchecked, continuously using the phrase “playing the race card”.
Can you say ‘there wouldn’t be any racism if Black people weren’t uppitty’ ?
Equivalently, are you also going to allow posts using the phrase “playing the holocaust card”?
Bernie – Oh dear, Is telling tales really the best you could come up with?
Note to Moderator.
Again, are the ‘playing the race card’ comments really being allowed?
Well I was struggling too. But this article has eroded that struggle into concern. The ‘,evidence’ on which she was convicted is, to say the least, untested.
lundiel – I am guessing that the magistrate who listened to all the evidence is in a better position to judge than any of us and he has made his judgement quite clear. Can you explain why Claudia chose to ignore police’s instructions.
Can you explain your obsessive interest in this case, why you accept hearsay evidence without question and why you think the opinion of a magistrate is inviolable?
lundiel – It may have escaped your notice but this article is about Webbe’s court case so it should come as no surprise that my comments refer to it. You’re here are you also being obsessive?
Why are you surprised that I have put more faith in the judgement of the District Judge who sat a a senior magistrate in this case and unlike you heard all the evidence.
Have you worked out yet why Claudia chose to ignore the police’s instructions. What was she thinking.
My two comments as opposed to your sixteen and counting in response to this article and God knows how many overall says you be an obsessive nutter with issues over Ms Webbe (Misogyny? Racial? Or more likely sectarian).
lundiel The only issue I have with Ms Webbe is her apparent stupidity. You are more than welcome to quote anything that I have said that is “Misogyny? Racial? Or more likely sectarian
STeveH -the allegations made against WEbbe were not backed up by evidence ..
yet they are quoted by yourself and the MSM as FACTS.
There were many calls to the victim with no factual evidence that they were from Webbe
– the only evidence was that TWO were from her.
There was NO evidence that she threatened acid ..
.. no evidence that she threatened to show naked pictures ..
no evidence that she even HAD naked pictures .. and whatever was
said during that call was in the context of her being in the middle of a row
with her boyfriend.
If there were any others facts revealed to the court and relevant
to her guilt why were they not reported?
Decisions of guilt or innocence should be made “beyond
reasonable doubt” and there is a massive amount of doubt here.
Really the only evidence we have is that the “Judge” has made an
unacceptably lenient decision in another case . where the
defendant is right wing and white and has terrorist material.
Given that Webbe is black and leftwing – the only conclusion most
would make “beyond reasonable doubt” is that the Judge is prejudiced
and has made an incorrect decision.
The only puzzlement I have – is why Webbe does not get rid of her
current partner .who is controlling – a fact that is not disputed?
I hope she appeals and gets herself a good lawyer and with luck the
Judge at appeal will strike out the case against her just as soon
as he or she has read the court papers
HFM – Let’s not forget that she has actually been found guilty. Neither of us were in court for the 3 days so at present all I have to rely on is the court’s judgement.
The most senior Magistrate in the country presided on this case. Given that his decision would have been very carefully weighed I would be surprised if his judgement was found to be wanting.
We will see how the appeal goes, if there is one.
Out of 69 comments (at the time of writing), 34 of them were posted by SteveH!
I assume your paymasters gave you a bonus!! As promised!
Allan – Did you have fun counting them
She probably has acted like a human being “somthing you wouldn’t understand.You obviously have a very high opinion of the legal profession.By now especially going off the behaviour of your knight of the realm and a bottom feeder supremo you would have a good understanding.Unfortunately like most of the right wing you are emotionally dysfunctional.
Joseph – “emotionally dysfunctional”?
I’m not the one who continued to harass a woman after being told to stop by the police.
I’m not the one who has been convicted of harassment.
“I’m not the one who continued to harass a woman…”
A comment poster stalking a Black woman from site to site is hardly in a position to make this claim.
And in a world where only white Israel supporters are allowed to make the complaint of racism, and – where replacing the Commission for Racial Equality, the EHRC is now stacked with Tories and neoliberals that don’t even believe in ‘equality’ consequently – boasting of not like Black women of equivalently being subjected to institutional scrutiny, is no sign of innocence and virtue.
Bernie – I’m not the one who brought race into this discussion. It never even occurred to me that race and/or identity politics was an issue here. Why do you think it is?
Bernie – I simply saying that a judge with many years of experience and who heard all the evidence is in a far better position to reach an informed judgement than some numpty who has read a couple of very partial SB articles.
You seem to be convinced that there is a racist element to this case, could you explain what it is or are you just desperately trying to play the race card to cover for the fact that Claudia inexplicably decided to ignore police instructions.
Let me get this clear, SteveH.
Are you saying that the Skwawkbox report is inaccurate?
Are you saying that evidence of the “acid” statement WAS presented?
Are you saying that evidence of multiple calls WAS presented?
Are you saying that evidence of a “naked photos” threat WAS presented?
Or are you simply showing an antipathy towards Ms Webbe, for who she is?
The following – regarding the Tory Government’s intention to fluoridate our water – is self-explanatory:
According to Howard, Micklem and Connett, “The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. You can repair a damaged tooth but early damage to the brain (especially during foetal development and infancy) cannot be repaired or reversed. This is so serious for the future of our country that the matter should not be resolved by the kind of “sleight of hand” used by those who wrote the script for the CMOs’ statement.”
They were referring to the statement by the Chief Medical Officers of England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, which was widely covered by the MSM. But needless to say, what the three British scientists said about damage to the brain – and especially during foetal development and infancy – received no coverage at all by the MSM. And THAT tells you ALL you need to know about them!
And fluoride won’t just be added to drinking water, but ALL water – ie the water you use to wash or shower with or bathe in, and the water you water your garden with (if you have one) or water your house plants with. And also in many processed foods.
https://londonlovesbusiness.com/is-it-safe-to-drink-tap-water/
’50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation’
https://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
Please take the time to read it, and please share as far and wide as possible. We REALLY have to stop the PTB from doing this. Thanks
So, let me get this clear. Webbe is accused of a “campaign” of “harassment” that consists of her doing 2 calls lasting 8 seconds each and a third recorded call *from the “victim”* during which ms Webbe is telling her to get out of the relationship?
Was the “friend” having an affair with Ms Webbe’s then partner?
If I get this right, all I can say is that two calls, no matter how angry those were, does not consist of “harassment”
Ben – I suggest you read aquaint yourself with the facts of the case before commenting further.
I don’t need snarky comments. I just want to know if I get it right. The only two worthwhile possible answers are
1. Yes, that’s the gist
Or
2. No, not quite because … [explanation no longer than 3 or 4 sentences]
I will never read comments longer than the actual article above the line.
Ben – Here are the basic facts of the case as explained by the CPS.
https://skwawkbox.org/2021/10/14/webbe-trial-detail-says-no-proof-of-acid-threat-and-only-one-recorded-call-by-accuser-but-convicted-of-harassment/#comment-202638
“A *number* of phone calls”… How many? That matters if we are talking of *harassment* campaign. From a withheld number, lasting a few seconds… Has it been established it was from her? Could it be she “bum dialed” her? Could it be she wanted to talk to her then bottled it at the last minute? Anyway, all what is left is like TWO actual telephone conversations? I’m no legal expert, but TWO telephone conversations over a year and a half, no matter how unpleasant ms Webbe might have been, does not constitute “harassment”. It should never have reached a judge in the first place.
Ben – According to the CPS – Despite being asked to stop by police she continued, making at least 15 further calls after April 2019..
It is self evident that the magistrate presiding over this case Senior District Judge Goldspring, (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales (the most senior magistrate in the country) having heard all the evidence judged that there was enough evidence to convict her. We’ll see how her appeal goes if there is one.
The Magistrate needs to be either, re-educated or dismissed and preferably dismissed if he believes a previously convicted neo-nazi is fit and able to be allowed to do continue to spread his hatred in society without punishment. Seig heil.
barriereid – As you don’t know either the details of the case or the sentence that was handed down then you are not really in a position to make an informed judgement. The fact that you think you are is telling.
It is written in the article asshole. It does not bode well for society if Neo-nazis are to be rewarded for their misbehaviour and rancid views…and you are fond as always of opening your second anal sphincter as if it were of importance.
barriereid – Better late than never I suppose, unfortunately it wasn’t worth the wait,
It is in the article is it.
What was the non custodial sentence that this teenager received?
I’ve learned that any ‘report’ from any journalist is subjective & inaccurate. Conjecture & comment based on hearsay & prejudice? Too many axes to grind for any objective truth.
Steve – So just like the comments section here then
Since I started visiting this site, in addition to many reflective and considered comments, I have seen:
1. Comments with which I disagree
2. Comments which I believed were completely wrongheaded
3. People getting involved in calling each other names
4. People returning to a favourite hobby horse
So what!
Some will have disagreed with comments I made.
Some may have thought that some of my comments were wrongheaded.
I hope that there will not be some who have thought that I indulged in name calling.
Some may have thought that I have a hobby horse.
So, good on those who have said things I disagree with, and those whom I think have made wrongheaded comments and those with hobby horses, and even the name callers. I have no complaints.
However, SteveH, you are the only one who has said anything that I find truly disgusting; and this is clearly displayed in your comments on this report.
Yes. I know. “You are entitled to your opinion”, so there’s no need to play the record again.
goldbach – “SteveH, you are the only one who has said anything that I find truly disgusting; and this is clearly displayed in your comments on this report.”
Really ???
Can you please be more specific and directly quote what I said that you find truly disgusting. Or are you just making stuff up again.
Nobody “makes up” how they feel. We feel what we feel.
However, “…are you just making stuff up again?” is not an expression of feeling, so it would be instructive to know what you consider me to have made up.
goldbach – But you were quite specific
Quote
SteveH, you are the only one who has said anything that I find truly disgusting; and this is clearly displayed in your comments on this report.
So finding a quote that illustrates this should be easy for you. I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation.
“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.”
“The police coming round and warning you to back off would have been a wake up call for most people.”
“The only issue I have with Ms Webbe is her apparent stupidity. ”
Could it really be true that you can’t conceive of the possibility that the complaint to the police that resulted in the “warning” may have been made with malicious intent? If Skwawkbox’s report is correct then there was nothing other than the word of the complainant to say that there had been any harassment. Clearly, given the position you take you are either in possession of information to show that there was, indeed, other contact about which we have not been told – in which case you should share the information. Or, you accept that the report on this site is accurate – in which case you seem rather over-eager to assert that Ms Webbe is guilty when there seems to be significant grounds for doubt.
I don’t know whether there was other contact between the parties than what is outlined in the article so the fact that you seem determined that Ms Webbe is bang to rights would appear to be a case of taking a position for purely factional reasons. That is what I find somewhat disgusting.
I’m sure that you’ll disagree but then you have a right to your opinion, as someone once said.
goldbach – I can’t be bothered to repeat myself again.
https://skwawkbox.org/2021/10/14/webbe-trial-detail-says-no-proof-of-acid-threat-and-only-one-recorded-call-by-accuser-but-convicted-of-harassment/#comment-202638
goldbach – …and this is what the presiding magistrate thought of Webbe’s testimony.
https://skwawkbox.org/2021/10/13/abused-webbe-will-appeal-atrocious-verdict/#comment-202468
but you think he was wrong on the strength of a couple of partisan Skwawkbox articles. 🤔
Just reading the excellent ‘Hitler’s British Traitors’ by Tim Tate (2019) and it shows how middle class & upper class pro-fascist toffs including one then Tory MP, Archibald Ramsey, were let off with a slap on the wrist from their prosecutors who were from the same classes (some of the toffs it is claimed were preparing for a fascist coup?) but the more proletarian fascists (who equally stupidly fell for the ridiculous Jewish conspiracy theory) were treated more harshly when they all should have been!
It is argued the working class speak more directly (we are more straight to the point) and the middle class more indirectly (they use more adjectives) so when people open their mouths those from the same class can at an instant more easily relate to each other.
I have a theory that if you took 4 different people from different backgrounds and tried each tried for the same offence – the upper class/middle class one may get off more lightly? The working class one would get 5 times the sentence? And the Black and Asian person etc would get 7 times the sentence?
So I wonder – has anything changes in recent years?
Perhaps we need judges etc that actually reflect the population and who are trained in cultural awareness.
In this case I think Claudia should perhaps be arguing that she should be tried by a jury of her peers?
And if she is appealing then she is innocent until proven guilty so Right Wing Labour should not have rushed in when literally the jury may still be out.
Bazza – My impression is that Claudia and her legal team were quite happy for this case to be heard in the magistrate’s court.
Where is the racial element in this case, is there one?
Hmm Mr ‘Evidence’ SH gives his “impression” as fact?
I cannot comment on the actual case as I was not sat in the gallery throughout.
If I had been I may have observed a black female defendant, a white male magistrate and perhaps a white prosecutor and defence counsel?
In my opinion it is best to be tried by a mixed jury of your peers?
Bazza – ….and yet Claudia and her legal team seem to have been quite happy for her case to be heard in the magistrates court.
If I ever ended up in court where I live the reverse situation would exist and it would give me no reason for concern. Her race and colour are irrelevant to the case. Their appears to be very little concern for the victim of her crime on these pages.
So SH decides someone is guilty and someone else is a victim without access to the full evidence.
CW may be guilty or innocent.
Someone else may be a victim or not.
As there may be an appeal and as I have not had access to the full information and the court room I couldn’t possibly comment.
But I feel it is always best for citizens to be tried by a jury of their peers.
Bazza – It is self evident that I didn’t decide anything about anyone, the Court did that. As for where she was tried, do you have any evidence to the contrary.
Right wing Labour and, on the evidence here Steve H, do not bother themselves with a proper investigation of such trivial things as evidence, preferring to treat the general and pervasive bias of the MSM and Establishment in a manner similar to that renowned British character known as the gullible halfwit – they certainly treat their readers and listeners as such.
In the olden days, my A level Critical Thinking students would have cracked this case in a matter of a couple of minutes.
Seventeen comments in this thread from SteveH about Ms Webbe’s conduct. I don’t recall him ever saying anything about John Woodcock, or Mike Hill or the whole ‘hands on’ approach to women that’s common in Westminster.
lundiel – I don’t recall another thread where people were so anxious to play the racism card to distract from what someonehas been convicted of.. Do you?
I have no specific recollection of what I may have said or not said about the individuals that you have highlighted but you are more than welcome to remind me if you want to get past just speculating. Please remember to supply the links.
Whether or not racial animosity plays a part in this I have no idea, though I think it improbable. It seems to me that the animosity on display in this discussion is more likely to be based on animosity towards anyone considered to be to the left of Gordon Brown (to quote from the report on the activities of the GLU in relation to antisemitism).
……… and still no response to my questions posed at 8.10 on 10th.
Maybe there is no rationale to it all.
goldbach – What is there to answer?
In case your short term memory is fading, here it is –
“Are you saying that the Skwawkbox report is inaccurate?
Are you saying that evidence of the “acid” statement WAS presented?
Are you saying that evidence of multiple calls WAS presented?
Are you saying that evidence of a “naked photos” threat WAS presented?
Or are you simply showing an antipathy towards Ms Webbe, for who she is?”
goldbach -Surely your question should be – Is this ‘truth’ the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The court obviously thought not.
Have you read what the judge said about the veracity of her evidence when he gave his verdict. I’m guessing that he had more insight than either of us.
“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,”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-suspended-labour-mp-claudia-25207990
So, no answer to my queries then.
Go have a Pina colada and I’ll have my bedtime cuppa.
One wonders if SH had been around at the time of the original Birmingham Six Judgment which side he would have been on?
Blind faith in the 1st round of the legal process?
Bazza – Surely you are not claiming that there are similarities between this case and the Birmingham 6.
No but I don’t have blind faith in judges who can be wrong and have been proved wrong in the past.
As in the classic case given as an example.
There is likely to be an appeal so it is not over yet.
I don’t desert comrades at the first drop of a hat then pile in on the attack.
The truth will come out.
But some of us demand a more rigorous process including ideally a jury of our peers.
No I just do not have a blind faith in judges who can be wrong and have been proved wrong in the past.
As the classic case I gave as an example demonstrates.
I do not desert comrades at the drop of the first hat then pile in on the attack.
There is likely to be an appeal so it is not over yet and the truth will come out.
Perhaps some of us would prefer a more rigorous process ideally with a jury of our peers.
Despite the persistent attempt at posting distracting red-herrings, it seems obvious that Bazza is asking, is the legal system that gave us the Birmingham Six, Guildford four, Craig Murray in jail, Salmond subjected to a malicious prosecution, Assange in prison and according the UN and under torture, un-scrutinised/un-punished Black Lives Matter deaths at the hands of the police, and a crisis of police violence against women, really to be trusted?
Unsurprisingly some are questioning whether some of the pro-establishment a-historic trolling on this site, is establishment financed.
Goldbach, I think SH is rattled, is making mistakes.
He first says “the court decided” (implies a plural ie a jury?) but it was one magistrate who decided.
Secondly he says “the judge” hmm.
Bazza – It was quite legitimate for me to refer to the pesiding magistrate Paul Goldspring as a judge. His official title is Senior District Judge Goldspring, (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales.
This is what the CPS had to say about the verdict.
Claudia Webbe MP guilty of harassment
MP Claudia Webbe has been convicted of harassment after the Crown Prosecution Service showed she made a number of obsessive nuisance calls to a woman over an 18-month period.
Webbe, 56, was found guilty of harassment today (13 October) after Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard evidence she made numerous short, silent telephone calls from a withheld number, before hanging up.
In March 2019 Webbe spoke to her victim, threatened to use acid against her, and threatened that naked photographs and videos of the victim would be shared. There is no suggestion the images were real.
Despite being asked to stop by police she continued, making at least 15 further calls after April 2019.
A final threatening call in April 2020 was recorded by the victim when Webbe again made the threat to release naked images, prompting police to interview her.
Specialist Prosecutor Lisa Rose of the CPS Special Crime Division, said: “Claudia Webbe’s persistent nuisance behaviour caused considerable distress and alarm to her victim who became genuinely concerned for her safety.
“Webbe told police she did not appreciate the calls were unwanted or causing distress. However the prosecution case was that the police had issued her with a clear warning about her conduct.
“No-one should have to endure this sort of harassment. We are determined to bring perpetrators to justice and help protect victims.”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/claudia-webbe-mp-guilty-harassment
“In March 2019 Webbe spoke to her victim, threatened to use acid against her, and threatened that naked photographs and videos of the victim would be shared. There is no suggestion the images were real.”
I’m not aware of any evidence to back this up other than the victim’s word.
“There is no suggestion the images were real” suggests the victim herself knew no such photos/videos existed. That means one of two possibilities. Ms Webbe was unbalanced and paranoid at the time or, the victim wanted to make the complaint something more than a minor nusence. Also, Ms Webbe was never charged with any offence around the threat to use acid. This means the prosecution had no evidence other than the victim’s claims. In my opinion, the judge was wrong to mention this and it will be raised on appeal. While the original charge may stand, the judgement will most likely be set aside as the judge wants to sentence her for far more serious but unproven matters.
lundiel – Senior District Judge Goldspring, (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales. who was the presiding magistrate sitting on this case and who, unlike you, heard all the evidence obviously disagrees with you. This wasn’t any old lay magistrate doing their bit for law and order who was sitting on this case but the most senior magistrate in England and Wales.
Have you read what the CPS had to say about the case. (scroll up to my reply to Bazza at 10:51)
Why did Claudia choose to ignore the police’s advise/instructions, what was she thinking.
Thanks for repeating the case for the prosecution but I think Goldbach & Skwawky raise valid points re the defence.
SteveH – rely on the Courts judgement you say? Well
(1) we would hope that the Courts judgement relies on EVIDENCE
and that has not been presented – even by the MSM who have
decided her guilt. Conclusion – there is no evidence. You seem to be
saying that there WAS but it is invisible to us!
(2) I do not rely on any persons judgement who does not deserve
trust and that is the case for the Judge in question. This would not be
the first cases when disastrous mistakes were made.
You appear to be making the following erroneous inference
in that the Judge is beyond reproach and this his decisions are
always without flaw.
THEREFORE – although the evidence against her that we have heard
is sparse verging on non-existent there MUST have been evidence we
have NOT heard which is conclusive.
This is a bit like one of the appeals off the BIrminghanm 6 where the
judge in question stated he believed that previous judgements – per se
– must be correct .
HFM – You can come back and tell me all about it after the appeal if there is one.
Here is Claudia Webbe’s post verdict statement.
“I am deeply shocked by today’s verdict. I am innocent and will appeal this verdict.
As I said in court and repeat now, I have never threatened violence nor have I ever harassed anyone. The details of the events of the 25th of April that have emerged today are deeply personal. As the court heard, I was facing a domestic incident at the time of the call.
I was deeply frustrated that my partner and my accuser had been socialising in the middle of the Covid pandemic, contrary to the rules and all health advice. I was frightened and frustrated by his behaviour. But that fear and frustration could not and should not have been interpreted as harassment. The recording of the call has been taken out of context.
I would like to thank all those who have supported me through this ordeal and continue to do so. These are the people who know me; my character, my values and my behaviour – they know I could not be guilty of this crime and I intend proving them right.
While I’m preparing for the appeal I want to assure the people of Leicester East that I will continue to stand up for them in parliament, fighting on their behalf.”
There are statutory provisions for conducting a trial without a jury. They ate outlined here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/non-jury-trials
Inter alia, it states
“A Prosecutor who wants the Court to order that the trial will be conducted without a jury, under Section 44, must apply under Rule 3.15 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for a preparatory hearing in writing as soon as reasonably practicable and not more than 14 days after the Defendant pleads not guilty.
The Prosecutor should serve the application on the Court officer and the Defence team and explain:
What evidence there is of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place;
What steps, if any, reasonably might be taken to prevent jury tampering; and
Why, notwithstanding such steps, the likelihood of jury tampering is so substantial as to make it necessary in the interest of justice to order such a trial.”
and goes on to say
“The trial of a serious criminal offence without a jury … remains and must remain the decision of last resort, only to be ordered when the Court is sure (not that it entertains doubts, suspicions or reservations) that the statutory conditions are fulfilled.”
Real and present danger of jury tampering?
Come on!
Surely our legal system wouldn’t use legislation designed to ensure that organised criminal gangs were not able to intimidate juries against a woman who, whatever she may or may not have done, was not nearly in the same league.
Would they?
I’ve also been trying to find out about who Paul Goldspring is. For someone in such a senior position, he offers very little information to the googler.
Claudia Webbe, as I recall, has been an advocate of Palestinian rights.
It is my opinion that the judge in this case is racist, especially as the same judge allowed a neo-nazi to go free.
That is a very serious accusation to make on the basis of very little knowledge.
less is more. no charge.
Just got to the computer, so just saw this:
“SteveH14/10/2021 AT 11:08 PM
goldbach – I can’t be bothered to repeat myself again.”
Is that a promise that we can hold you to?
goldbach – Oh dear, if only we were all as clever as you think you are. 🤔
Takes one to know one, as they say.
goldbach – 🥱
Claudia Webbe: MP convicted of harassment gets suspended sentence
Claudia Webbe was expelled from Labour Party after being given suspended prison sentence.
Last month Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard she made several calls over two years and threatened the woman with acid.
Webbe was handed a 10-week sentence, suspended for two years, on Thursday.
The 56-year-old made 16 calls to Michelle Merritt, a long-term friend of Webbe’s partner Lester Thomas, between September 2018 and April last year in a campaign of harassment borne out of jealousy, the court heard.
https://labourheartlands.com/claudia-webbe-mp-convicted-of-harassment-gets-suspended-sentence/
You note the bizarre phrasing, “You should be acid”… This is idle speculation, but that looks to me like a mishearing of the much more likely phrase, “You should be ashamed.” Since the conversation wasn’t recorded, we have only the differing accounts of the two participants to go on.
Rachel – Claudia Webbe will be back in court for her appeal hearing next week. Her case starts on Wed 09/03 and is expected to last for 3 days.