Analysis comment

New campaign group asks whether Webbe convicted for being black – demands end to attempts to ‘destroy’ her

#Friends4Claudia group condemns conviction ‘in the absence of tangible evidence’ and says she has been targeted for being pro-Corbyn

The header of a recent article about #Friends4Claudia

A new group set up by black campaigners has questioned whether the conviction of left MP Claudia Webbe ‘in the absence of tangible evidence’ is attributable to her skin colour – and has attacked media coverage that has repeated as fact allegations that were not demonstrated in the court case.

#Friends4Claudia, a campaign led by the Black African Women’s Empowerment group, has asked whether the conviction of a black woman facing a ‘white courtroom and a white judge’ on purely ‘circumstantial’ evidence could be just – and has pointed out, as Skwawkbox has previously covered, that the coverage of the case by the media has treated allegations that were never evidenced as if they were proven.

Ms Webbe herself has said on the day of her conviction:

The judge had a choice to believe someone who happened to be white or me. Despite my many years of public service the judge chose to believe my accuser.

A Powell and Barns Media article points out:

The MP was accused of threatening so-called ‘love rival’ Michelle Merrit, who had allegedly been pursuing a relationship with Ms Webb’s partner. A serious accusation was made that Ms Webbe threatened Ms Merrit with acid. An accusation Claudia Webbe vehemently denies.

However, despite her denial and good standing as a senior politician, despite there being no evidence to support those accusations, despite the fact audio recordings played in court did not contain such threats and Ms Webbe is instead heard repeatedly telling the woman to leave her relationship alone.

Despite this, Judge Goldspring decided to convict the long-standing politician, saying he didn’t believe her. In addition, the tabloids used the acid threat as an opening line and Ms Webbe was suspended by the labour party.

A spokesperson for #Friends4Claudia added:

If this were someone else, if it were two white women, or two black women, this would never have got to court let alone a sentence. How can it be that even a black woman who has ascended to a senior position in the Labour party is not even given the benefit of the doubt? Any evidence presented didn’t stand the water test as it was all circumstantial. So, ultimately the judge simply decided to believe one over the other.

The injustice in her case has been caused by a system that in the absence of real and tangible evidence, favoured the words that are expressed out of the mouth of a white woman over what has been said by a black woman without applying fair balance. This is not justice; rather, this case is an example of someone being discredited, dehumanised, and presented for us to subscribe to the angry black woman, who is aggressively charged and ready to kill someone for a man. It’s disturbing, It’s Claudia today, it could be you or your loved ones tomorrow! We need to stand up to this injustice

The group has also questioned the motives for the Labour party’s lack of support and its eagerness to cut her loose and has called on minority communities to reconsider their support for a party that behaves in such a manner, adding:

The lack of support from the Labour party does make us question if there is a political gain for them in bringing her down. When Keith Vaz was accused of crimes involving a rent boy, when people are caught up in fraud cases and insider trading – none of them have been suspended. In contrast, Claudia is criminalised like Guy Fawkes, for what was effectively an argument on the phone. It’s both complex and simple!

Last week, Skwawkbox revealed that a 41-year-old British man had been arrested and charged in Cork with planning to kill Ms Webbe, a consequence many believe is unlikely to be unconnected to the misleading media coverage. Although white Labour MP Andy McDonald has received police protection after threats were made against him, no such protection has been offered to her nor, Skwawkbox understands, has the Labour party at any time offered its support either before or after the conviction.

On Wednesday, the Crown Court granted Claudia Webbe an appeal against her conviction by a magistrate on a single count of harassment. #Friends4Claudia has launched a crowdfund to support her and help cover her legal costs.

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. Playing the race card looks more than a bit desperate
    As far as I’m aware it is common practice to suspend any member of the PLC charged with a criminal offence and the same would apply to her being expelled from the party once she had been convicted.

    1. If this were two white women, not only would it not have reached court, the victim would have been lucky to get a crime number.
      And speaking of ‘playing race cards’, nothing will ever come near the fake escort of Luciana Berger into the commons by a bunch of sly centrists.

      1. I don’t recall seeing much in the way of expressions of solidarity & support for Claudia from the SCG.

  2. There is no way that this verdict will survive appeal.

    It is shocking that Steve H interprets his brief, to apologise for anything that the Blairites do, to include defending this partisan and racist attack on someone who in the language of socialists is a comrade. And one distinguished for selfless service and courage at that.

    On the other hand nothing these agents of the Trilateral Commission, intent on destroying working class organisations of any kind, shocks us any more.

      1. “bevin – Oh dear, throwing in a conspiracy theory for good measure.

        ‘Conspiracy theory’ Stevieh, that’s exactly the put-down that the ruling elite (the right wing authoritarians in Labour, the trilateral billionaire-ists, the likudist neo-cons, etc) have to use on this TINA-march to anti-democratic authoritaianism.

        You even try it with people who know that covid has a 89.6 – 99.8 percent survival rate and who would rather not take a new type of untested vaccine.


      2. AAAAAGH! rushed typo: should have cited the REAL covid survival range – <98.6 – 99.8%. Sorry….

    1. Well that’s what you have to do when you take Srtarmers 30 peices of silver! But he like the rest of the sockpuppets are getting desprate.

      Especiallly as Starmers time is up! No one belives in him, no one trusts him any more! He has done more dammage that any Tory goverment to the once great Labour party.

      I personnly belive the split is comming the real question is how much can we salvage before as usual the socalists have to rebuild what the right wing distroys…

      But without the right wing in a socalist only party we can offer real hope and a better way forwards. Let the right wing carry on with there no policies jumping on every bandwaggion and cause it’s desprate. Yes it will take time but better that than this unelectable hate filled mess of a so called party! We have all struggled and tried this big tent BS nonsence. Time for the socalist only Labour movement. Sockpuppets need not apply…

  3. In a civil court or in an employment tribunal cases are decided on the balance of probabilities so a judge may decide not to believe someone and decide that on the balance of probabilities that they are lying and then rule accordingly.
    Claudia was convicted of a criminal offence and in the criminal justice system the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused carried out a criminal act. She does not have to prove she is innocent , the prosecution has to prove she is guilty. It appears that no evidence was provided to prove Claudia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt Therefore I agree with Bevin that the conviction will be overturned on appeal.
    However the underlying race issues in this case are a major cause for concern. It seems Claudia was hung out to dry by the legal process and by the Labour party. Not one word of support has been offered to her by the leadership or the majority of the PLP even before she was found guilty.
    Compare this to how e.g. Brendan Cox ( husband of the late Jo Cox MP) was supported when he had to quit his job after being exposed as a sex pest. Jess Phillips called him her friend and said in effect he was sorry for what he did and deserved a second chance. I can only conclude that the reasons for Claudia’s different treatment are her race and political opinion.
    I am glad a new campaign group has been set up to support her- I am sick to death of the injustices inflicted on our black comrades who even in the 21st century have to campaign for monuments to slavers to be removed- and I am happy to help crowd fund Claudia’s legal costs.

  4. Listen to SH’s broken record, a NON-Socialist who has the audacity to come on a socialist website to bla bla bla for the Blairite Neo-Liberal capitalist bootlickers when no-one on here or out there is interested, It’s probably cos his natural home political lightweight website Labour List no longer allows comments.
    I personally hope Claudia wins her appeal and is cleared, and most on here don’t throw comrades under a bus at the drop of a hat then pile in on the attack. Solidarity to Diverse Socialists.

    1. He’s not the only one Bazza This site has a number of regulars who pose as socialists but set out to demoralise and undermine the Left, the Socialist Campaign Group and Jeremy Corbyn in particular in one post after another, day in day out. Its incessant. Some of them are quite subtle and it took me a while to catch on to them.
      However this just proves that the Labour Right Wing, the Tories and whoever else is paying them to post here and on other left sites is still rightly scared of Jeremy and the widespread support there is for him and his socialist principles.

      1. You got it in one Smartboy. Ignore the Trolling Turd Polishers. This infatuation with Corbyn shows just one thing, they are still scared shitless by him and his support. Corbyn could issue just a one line statement that would kill Labour for good.

        “I am starting a proper Democratic socialist Party….”

      2. Reply to BAZ 2001
        I understand your feelings about a new party being set up by Jeremy but we need to be cautious.
        Many of the fake Socialist posters on this and other sites are pushing for this every day – they keep repeating don’t fund Labour, leave and start a new party. I think that it because the people paying them for the posts think/hope a new party would vanish without a trace in the same way the SDP Change Respect UKIP and many others have done over the years.
        This would be a disaster for the Left and would consign us to the wilderness for decades so while I would love to see a new Socialist party I think we need as I said before to be very cautious.

      3. @Smartboy

        I’ll admit to voicing opinion on leaving to start a new party. But upon reflection, I feel this is not the way forward.

        The reason is simply that the new party will rapidly be assimilated like anything else. Money and power are hard to defeat when you have none.

        I believe the way forward is to stop taking part in the charade.

        If the voting pool gets smaller, then the pressure to explain why starts to fall on the shoulders of politicians. Moving forward, with a minority number bringing parties to power, there is valid reason to say they have no mandate. It’ll be tough here in the UK with fptp, but hearing any current politician explain how only 20% of the electorate picked them is worth the price of admission alone

        And besides, what have you got to lose? It’s not like taking part has yielded any results is it?

      4. Reply to NVLA
        Its not that I am against forming a new party its just that if we do that we must have a reasonable chance of success. Thats why as a genuine socialist I am urging caution about this rather than advising we rush into it.
        I don’t agree with you that withdrawing from the political “charade” is a possible way forward either ( that is if I understand you correctly).
        I suppose we are really between a rock and a hard place and I don’t have the answers but I know that whatever we do , we have to do it with cool heads because the future of the Left in politics is at stake here.

    2. Steve H in the balance of probability not all supporters of the knight can be lying thuggish parasites,but in your case I think on balance showing your comments you are guilty.

      1. Again Steve H its the stark unthinking cruelty of the right wing and the discrimination in who to support.Your leaders lack of support for Black \Asian descent Mps is nothing but secatarian and downright racism.Now I am aware that some of my own comments can be cruel,but never in your way of mindless unthinking support for the extreme right wing of the Labour party.I know after a few years on this site that your comments have deteriorated and you have not always been extreme in everything and I can only think that its like a minority on here that support almost anything that comes from the “dear leader of the Labour party” …must try better next term “

  5. Oh dear the broken record of SH the NON-Socialist who regularly has the audacity to come on this socialist website to bla bla bla for the Neo-Liberal capitalist Blairite bootlickers, it’s probably cos his natural home the political lightweight website Labour List no longer allows comments.
    I personally hope Claudia wins the appeal and is cleared and socialists on here don’t desert comrades at the drop of a hat then pile in on the attack. Solidarity to diverse socialists.

    1. Bazza – Well you were obviously interested enough in my brief comment to respond (twice).

      1. I would urge you not to misunderstand people.
        In the days when we were to be found on the streets to counter the National Front, we were not doing so because we were interested in what they were saying. We did so because what they were saying was disgusting.

      2. goldbach – Could you please quote what I have said above that you think is disgusting.

      3. If you read my previous comment, I said that what the NF were saying was disgusting. I passed no comment on what you had said.
        I was simply pointing out that “Bazza’s” comments on what you have said do not necessarily mean that he finds your comments interesting. There could be other reasons – possibly he disagrees with you.
        As for his comments being made twice – it is clear that he must have some computer glitch which is causing this; very many of his comments appear twice.
        Best wishes.

      4. Thanks for the little pictures. if I interpret this one correctly (and I may have misunderstood) it seems to me that you have misunderstood my comment, on top of misunderstanding Bazza’s earlier comment.
        To be clear, I reiterate my comment (15/11/2021 AT 9:14 AM) and assure you that (15/11/2021 AT 12:08 PM) was not meant to dilute or rein back on it.
        All the best.
        (P.S. Even with my glasses on, I do find it difficult to get a clear view of some of these little pictures. If you put any more on could you make them a little bigger?)

      5. Another assumption, for some reason my post only works if I do it twice.
        Sunday Times (14/11/21) reports Starmer during the Pandemic in his 2nd job earned £42,000 advising a gold and copper mining company in the Virgin Islands. Shouldn’t he as an MP have been spending all his time fighting for older people in care homes etc.

      6. Another assumption, for some reason my post only works if I do it twice.
        Sunday Times (14/11/21) reports that Starmer in his 2nd job during the Pandemic earned £42,000 by advising a gold and copper mining company in the Virgin Islands.
        As an MP shouldn’t have have been spending all his time fighting for older people in care homes etc?

  6. Obviously this is caveated by the fact that to properly assess a criminal trial you need to watch all of it. Nonetheless there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence that is not unusual. In relation to the specific offence charged the Prosecution have the burden of proof to the criminal standard. Reasonable doubt does not mean ‘no doubt’ it means ‘reasonable’. The requirement is to prove the Actus Reus and Mens Rea of the particular offence.

    Protection from Harassment Act 1997:

    1. Prohibition of harassment.
    (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
    (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
    (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

    The Mens Rea is ‘knowing or ought to know’ that conduct amounts to harassment. The Actus Reus is conduct that amounts to harassment.

    Interpretation is in s.7

    7 Interpretation of this group of sections.
    (1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5A.
    (2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.
    (3) A “course of conduct” must involve—
    (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or
    (b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons

    The burden on the Prosecution for a s.1 offence is to prove to the criminal standard that conduct (includes speech s.7(4)) occurred towards another person on at least 2 occasions which alarmed or caused distress to the person and the defendant knew, or ought to have known, that the conduct would cause alarm or distress to the person.

    That is it. There is no need to prove there was acid, or pictures, or anything else. 2 phone calls that caused alarm or distress and the Actus Reus is proved. As the question of whether a person did suffer alarm, or distress this has a significant subjective element to it therefore the main evidence of that will be oral testimony by the alleged victim. The finder of fact (Judge) considers the evidence (physical and/or testimony) and then reaches conclusions on the specific issues that are required to prove the offence. If the Judge determined that there was evidence that conduct occurred on 2 occasions (tape recordings/oral testimony/admissions) that element is proven. (Continued)

    1. The criminal justice system would have ground to halt years ago if the letter of the law as you define it were applied. There is far worse harassment and distress caused daily on Facebook many hundreds and thousands of times.

  7. If the complainant testified, that particular remarks/threats were made then the truthfulness of this is a question of the assessed truthfulness of the complaining witness. If they also testify, they felt alarm and distress and the alleged content of the speech could reasonably cause a person alarm or distress and the Judge assessed the witness as giving a truthful account this element is proven.

    Which only leaves the question of whether the defendant knew or ought to have known the conduct could cause alarm or distress. That is an assessment, by the finder of fact, of the oral testimony given by the defendant and if they either knew or ought to have known. This is in part subjective and in part a wider objective assessment of the content of the speech. E.g., I phone you and say my fleet of B2 Stealth bombers is on the way to bomb your house, that is highly unlikely so reacting with alarm or distress would be unreasonable. Compare to a phone call and I say next time I see you I am going to punch you in the face. That may or may not be true but the recipient believing it and feeling alarm or distress is within the realm of normal and reasonable responses.

    All of the discussion around whether certain tangential factual issues were true, or if acid existed etc is irrelevant. An appeal is going to be to the Crown Court in front of a panel of 3 Judges, 2 District and 1 Crown Court Judge. It is essentially a retrial. Unless the complaint changes their evidence or testifies in a manner that is deemed by the Judges to be substantially unbelievable it is difficult to see why a 2nd go will result in a different finding of the Actus Reus or Mens Rea.

    My personal Judgement had I been advising a client in a similar situation would have been to negotiate with the CPS and try to agree a guilty plea for a Police Caution. It would have saved the state money, been quicker, had no custodial penalty and it is not a criminal conviction so Labour couldn’t use it as an excuse to expel. That is not an option anymore. It is a great shame because I like CW a lot. I have had my differences with her but her politics is very sound, she is genuine and very committed. I wish her luck but my professional judgement leans to the pessimistic side.

    1. Thats a smart way to sum up the bias of a judge on here say arguments and political bias towards the defendent.which is very common in the justice system.I can remember a time when a person with a charge of violent disorder against them with a IRISH background and name would automatically be found guilty on circumstantial weak evidence and given a longer sentance.Bias against a persons ethnic or religious as always in my liftime of over seventy years played a large part in guilty verdicts.I am sorry Baron von whatever but your title effects my judgment against your article.

      1. So your point is that irrational bias might exist and you won’t take account of my comment because you have an irrational bias against my avatar nom de plume.

        By the way it is my gamers name that I have had for decades and is a pun on Manfred Von Richtoffen (the WWI fighter pilot known as the Red Baron).

      2. Apologies Baron von Duncs….I have just realised the “cats the Baron von Duncs..and you are a avatar” ?I somtimes go all all ballistic when looking at a Title.Keep posting different veiws are the lifblood of this site.

    2. BaronVonDuncs, would the relentless pursuit of her partner by Ms Miller intend on destroying her relationship be a cause for alarm and distress to Ms Webbe? Couldn’t Ms Miller’s behaviour be constructed as provocation?
      I wonder as to whatever the same judge would have reached the same conclusion if a white MP has telephoned once a black man telling him to stop pursuing his white partner and interfering in his relationship?
      How does a single telephone call provide evidence of harassment? No physical violence was threatened during the phone call and it could be argued that Claudia was provoked by the wanton behaviour of Ms Merrit in her relentless pursuit of Ms Webbe’s partner?
      I am very sorry, but I cannot help the feeling that institutional racism and patriarchy played a part in reaching this judgement. Somehow, I seriously doubt the CSP would have pursue a similar case in which the complainer was a black man against a white male MP.
      The black man would have been most likely portrayed as a “stud” pursuing a white woman and the white MP would have been likely portrayed as a knight in shinning armour protecting her partner’s honour.

    3. BVD – There are many websites that include a “chat” function. Sometimes they use live “chat” and sometimes, as with Skwawkbox, they don’t. It seems to me that, on many a number of these sites, very many of the contributors would be considered to be guilty of “harassment”, given the outline you have quoted. Is that correct?

    4. ‘If they also testify, they felt alarm and distress and the alleged content of the speech could reasonably cause a person alarm or distress and the Judge assessed the witness as giving a truthful account this element is proven.’

      Is there a ‘reasonable bystander test? If not, surely the claim of being ‘distressed’ is very wide?

      Could it be argued that the phrase, ‘You’re acid’, is not a threat to throw acid but a comment as to the toxicity of the person to who it is directed

  8. Baron – I am not a lawyer but ..

    (1) But would not the content of the recorded call bear some relationship
    to the receiver “feeling distressed “? Not only that but the recorded call was
    initiated by the victim in specific circumstances ie the defendant being
    in the middle of a row with her partner. All she said was “Keep away from XX”.
    There was also the problem of disobeying the lockdown rules
    ie by the victim in seeing her partner ..

    (2) Why would she have been granted permission to Appeal if there was
    no chance of a change

    (3) Could the Court of Appeal reduce her sentence – given all that was
    proved about her “harassment” was her saying “Keep off!”

    (4) From what Ive read about the case the Judge did not give a “Desist” order
    ie stop what you are doing ..? Does that not indicate something about the
    nature of the harassment ie in her not deserving a prison sentence.

    1. 1. The statute says conduct which can include speech. It doesn’t matter who initiated the call the material issue is the content of it. I didn’t hear the oral testimony so I don’t know what was said. lockdown has nothing to do with it that is a different offence which was not charged.

      2. An appeal from a conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court is governed by The Magistrates Court Act 1980 s.108(1) and Crim Procedure part 34. This creates an absolute right to appeal a conviction there is no test or criteria applied so the fact it has been accepted for appeal is irrelevant.

      3. The CoA on an application of appeal against sentence can alter it. What is taken into account depends on the sentencing guidelines and the facts the finder of fact determined. If only “keep off” were found it is unlikely that would ground a conviction. The fact a defendant disputes facts would not be decisive. The Judge will sentence based on the facts that were found by the Court and the sentence guidelines. The Crown Court in hearing an appeal will determine both conviction and if necessary sentence. On conviction it can impose any sentence that the lower Magistrates Court could have imposed but not higher. The max sentence is 6 months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

      4. Not sure I see why. The sentence is based on a ‘punishment’ for the criminal act that was committed. The sentencing guidelines give the Judge parameters to work within by their discretion is not as wide as people think. The previous provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 at s.5 which allowed an order to desist were repealed by Sentencing Act 2020 (c. 17), s. 416(1), Sch. 28.

      1. BaronVonDuncs
        Welcome to the site
        A bottle of Brandy if you can confirm that ‘Vexatious claims of anti semitism are hate crimes and should be prosecuted ‘
        Looks like we got ourselves a good goodun to play with on here lads and lasses

      2. “lockdown has nothing to do with it that is a different offence which was not charged.”
        Maybe not, but it does say something about the character of the victim in a case that stands on her testimony.

  9. Wait & see what happens on appeal but I believe it’s again a question of see me see my colour as well as see my gender. The bourgeois race & gender card. I am a product of my experiences, born St.Pauls, Bristol & living a long time in Moss Side Manchester & Toxteth, Liverpool ‘colours’ my perception. I fought for a residency & parental responsibility order for my a family court where I was described by the solicitor representing my son’s black mother as a typically violent white working class yob. An organisation called the Black Sisters of Toxteth, representing the interests of ‘Black Feminist Social Workers’, argued that all children belong to their mothers & my son was black because his mother was black.& therefore his culture was black. I must be removed from all contact to ensure his development as a black man.
    The solicitor was right & I did get angry, telling her that she should substantiate any accusations & that she was an overpaid ‘little pipsqueek’ (actual words) who could only make accusations without substance; name calling with a narrative that fell out of Eastenders.. I was called to the magistrate’s bench to ‘calm down’ & explain my violent fit of temper. I wondered how she might feel if such unsubstantiated accusations were made against her? I was then asked what my occupation was & I explained that I worked as an FE Lecturer (my solicitor interrupted explaining that I was a Senior Head of Dept.) We all had a cosy little chat about what I taught & my aspirations for my son. Soon after I was awarded custody. It is not race nor gender that determined this outcome but social class, despite appearances & my Toxteth address, I was not just a white working class yob.
    Guilty of harassment be damned, only in the Guardian.

    1. Steve Ricjard, I agree with you that class more than anything else has a bearing in Court proceedings. Had the mother of your child been a well healed white woman with a good job, living in a middle class post code and have you been a black man very likely, despite your job and education, most likely you wouldn’t have been given the opportunity to explain your outburst before the judge, you would have confirmed the stereotype of the angry and violent black man and the mother of your child would have been given custody of your son..

      1. fao Maria Vazquez. I was given custody of my son, the right outcome for the wrong reasons, I was one of them, a well educated man with a good degree despite having a ‘Toxteth address’ I said I had aspirations of sending my son to a private school & for him to play rugby for Waterloo & England. He has done neither. Had the mother of my child been a well heeled white woman with a good job & living in a middle class post code, even if I was not a black man, I would not have been given a snowballs chance in hell of being granted custody., however the black female Cafcass Officer recommended the mother be given custody (despite a drug conviction), because she believed that the child would not be allowed access to black culture & not allowed to grow up to be a proud black man. My son can now decide for himself who & what he wants to be..

      2. Steve Richards
        Great to here about your case, in my experience there is a special place in hell for Cafcass and the Family Court
        They nearly killed me, but being a contrary bastard and a loving dad I refused to let them win
        Me and mine survived and I’m now a proud grandad

  10. The case has been well summed up by ‘The Baron’ and we can see that much of the comments on previous posts supporting CW in her case were unfounded. Let her appeal and the evidence she submits in it be considered and we can await the result. Those who blame Tony Blair for Claudia’s predicament would be wise to look at the facts. As should those who who imply she can’t be guilty because of the colour of her skin. She appears to be the author of her own misfortune. I’m sure the voters of her constituency will look forward to voting for her when she stands as an independent socialist in the next bye election or GE.

  11. Plain citizen everyone has made mistakes,and I don’t see why one recorded telephone call regarding a domestic should determin the destruction of a persons life as a busy left wing mp or destroy her lifline to make a living as a Barrister.We have all said things in anger or fear and to give this lady miz webbe a life sentence for defending her relationship is not justice and like we all know the judge and magistrates system is effectively a old boys network and in no way reflects the society you live in or even the modern world.British justice is a world renowned laughing stock,but not if you are a victim of it.and I know that you are judging harshly the actions of a fifty eight year old woman who is not in the best position to earn the type of living she enjoys as a rare active socialist parliament.

    1. Joseph – Most people would cease making those mistakes when warned off by a call from the police.

      1. SteveHm I could be wrong but my understanding is that Ms Miller initiated the recorded phone call, rather than Ms Webbe.
        The victim, I believe was complaining about silent phone calls to her phone. However, I don’t believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those phone calls were made 1st- from a phone under the sole control of Ms Webbe or 2nd-by Ms Webbe herself.

      2. Maria – What you or I believe is irrelevant it is what the Magistrate thought having heard all the evidence that counts.
        The Magistrate for this case wasn’t some retired oldie it was Senior District Judge Goldspring, (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales who I contend would be very unlikely to risk his reputation by making an erroneous judgement on this case.

      3. SteveH, the Labour Party suspended Claudia Webbe MP on September 2020. Judges like any human beings are influenced by events around them.
        Unconcious bias does exist and the fact that the Party suspended her, in a subtle way could have signal that the Labour Party’s establishment believed her to be guilty.
        Can you imagine the same treatment if the accused of harassment has been Ellie Reeves? Jess Philips?
        The treatment of Claudia Webbe by the Labour Party points towards the Labour Party at the very least been a very hostile environment to socialist and at worse to be institutionally racist.

      4. Maria – It is Labour’s policy to immediately suspend any member of the PLC that is charged with a criminal offence. Her race and politics had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to suspend her.
        Your assertion that the Magistrate may have been influenced by this suspension is In my opinion misguided..

    2. Joseph I agree that humility and common humanity means that “Let he that is without sin, cast the first stone” should be a our guiding sentiment, but I think she was warned not to contact the complainant before committing the acts complained of. I will await the appeal but will happily congratulate her on becoming our first independent socialist MP.

    1. charming64 – Really, can you explain why Claudia continued to harass her victim after being warned off by the police? 🤔

      1. SteveH, I could be wrong of course but was’t the only factual evidence of harassment submitted a recorded telephone conversation initiated by Ms Miller no Ms Webbe?
        Anyone can go to the police and made allegations and the police on occasions, will oblige by following with a home visit and advice.
        That the police visited Ms Webbe following allegations made before the police by Ms Miller doesn’t prove anything. For all we know Ms Miller could be an accomplished fantasist.
        The case of Dr Jan Falkowski comes to mind, he was suspended from his job and faced a criminal charge of rape on the evidence provided by the carer of one of his patients. Only to be proven after years of agony that his accuser was an accomplished fantasist. See the link below
        The case was so socking that a TV series ” U be dead” relating the events was made.

      2. Maria – A very experienced judge sat as magistrate in this and having heard all the witnesses judged that she was guilty. He apparently thought that Claudia was making it up on the go.

      3. charming64 – Did he really, and that is relevant because ………. ❓

  12. SteveH – wasn’t that “very experienced judge” one who let off a young man
    convicted of possessing rights wing nazi literature who admired the murderer
    Anders Breivik. This was because he was “intelligent and likely to get good
    A levels and go to UNiversity and it was a shame to spoil his chances in life”.

    Similar claims abiut British justice were made by those judges who
    initially rejected the Appeals of the Birmingham Six.

    Steve Richards – I am sorry to hear of the trouble regarding your son –
    and your being stereotyped as a “white yob male”. Unfortunately there
    are many kinds od stereotype.

    Of course Claudia’s accuser could have been guilty herself of stereotyping
    Claudia as “an angry black woman” – hence her “fear”. Such bias can be

    1. HFM – You don’t know the full details of the case so you are not in a position to make a judgement. Come back and tell me all about it when you do.

  13. SteveH, very experience judges could be bias too, this is how institutional racism operates. Let’s look at it from the opposite angle.
    What do we know of Claudia Webbe? What we know is that she has been a Cllr from many years and in all those years in the public glare nobody has described her as a “bunny boiler”.
    I met Claudia at Labour Conferences in the past and she comes across as an intelligent woman. nobody here is describing Claudia Webbe as lacking intelligence.
    -Now how likely is it that an intelligent woman in the public light will threat a love rival with an acid attack?
    -Would an intelligent woman risk her career by carrying out an acid attack on a love rival?
    -Who has more to lose, Ms Miller? Ms Webbe?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: