UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Terror on fright night

Yet again the Echo have leapt to the defence of poor picked on Joe who was "attacked" by Graham Sankey on Halloween.

As Joe Anderson and his son cowered in terror within their locked car in a traffic jam, Joe was called an "F***ing Grass" and suffered two small dents to his car.

This must be the first time in history a small dent on a car has made it to the front page in such dramatic fashion.

Sankey has (rightly) been picked up and charged for denting Joe's car, but wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us could count on such police and media protection. Just ask anyone who received a car dent or an egg at the window over the weekend.

Meanwhile the Echo refuses to investigate why Joe (according to the Echo's own report) appears to have tipped off a fellow Labour councillor about a child porn investigation (following which hundreds of files were deleted from a computer the day before that councillor was arrested) won't report that Joe is being investigated for bullying a council employee, and for 8 years have flatly refused to print any letter or story criticising Joe Anderson.

Friends in high places?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Meanwhile the Echo refuses to investigate why Joe (according to the Echo's own report) tipped off a fellow Labour councillor about a child porn investigation (following which hundreds of files were deleted from a computer the day before that councillor was arrested)"
..a case that has been to court and the man found not guilty. You do have trouble understanding court rulings don't you? By the way, repeating a libel is still libel.

Anonymous said...

Is Anderson a mason ?

Anonymous said...

If the allegation against Anderson is untrue, surely he would have taken legal action against the Echo?

Anonymous said...

Dude, if my memory serves me correctly, the jury in the case that has been mention was unable to reach a verdict. That is certainly not the same thing as being found not guilty!!!

Anonymous said...

"Dude, if my memory serves me correctly, the jury in the case that has been mention was unable to reach a verdict. That is certainly not the same thing as being found not guilty!!!"

I think you'll find that it is. This is not Scotland. still having trouble with that legal stuff aren't you?

Anonymous said...

In the case mentioned the man was indeed found not guilty, depite two desperate attempts to secure a conviction. The allegation of Cllr Anderson 'tipping off' is inaccurate and was distorted reporting by the press, but why let the facts get in the way of a good 'sensationalist' smear story???

Ethical Bill said...

The issue Dude is rightly raising is not Ben Williams guilt or innocence, and to be fair he has laid off mentioning it until now - whereas if the boot was on the other foot Labour would have spent the past 18 months slapping it across every leaflet in the city!

Taken at face value, the Echo report indicates that Joe perverted the course of justice.

Joe has not sued the echo, gone to the press complaints commission or had a retraction published, therefor again at face value he is not disputing the statement.

So why has Joe at no stage been asked to explain himself.

If the accusation had been against Warren Bradley, it would have been on the front page with lurid headlines and a quote from Anderson demanding his resignation.

Anonymous said...

I think you'll find that it is. This is not Scotland. still having trouble with that legal stuff aren't you?

Sorry but that's not true. There is a huge difference between a jury being unable to reach a verdict and finding somebody not guilty. regardless of whether you are in Scotland or anywhere else for that matter! As far as the allegation against Mr Anderson goes, given that he prides himself on standing up for the innocent and wrongly accused, it bewilders me why he would allow a newspaper to print such allegations against his own character and do nothing!

Anonymous said...

From memory the report of Councillor Anderson tipping of Ben Williams was in an excerpt from evidence in court. These things are allowed to be reported under "privilege" which means you can't sue for libel. Having said that if I were Joe Anderson and the statement was untrue I would be moving heaven and earth to get a statement published somewhere to correct it - even if that involved writing to the letters page. He hasnt so the natural conclusion is that he did in fact tip off Ben Williams. This in itself is outrageous behaviour for an elected councillor and I am surprised the standards committee of SBE have done nowt about it.

Anonymous said...

Lots of misinformed speculation taking place here. Let's have some facts about this case. As reported widely at the time, the Judge explicitly stated at the end of the trial that the accused was not guilty on all counts. In any legal case, it is the job of the prosecution to convince a majority of jurors of guilt. In both trials, it became apparent that neither jury were ever going to convict, hence why both trials effectively collapsed and the defendant was found not guilty. The 'tipping off' allegation is inaccurate, but the press do like to 'spin'.

Mrs Gillian Smith said...

Well, excuse me, I am just a local resident with an interest in what is going on. Did Mr Anderson or did not Mr Anderson suggest to a possible suspect in a very sensitive case that he should interfere with potential evidence which might incriminate him ?
Whatever, I think the air needs to be cleared and Mr Anderson should have the guts to face any music which needs to be played on the airwaves.

Anonymous said...

If the report about "tipping off" is from evidence in court the press did not "spin" it. Any spinning of court evidence removes the libel protection of privilege and no one, not even the rawest of recruits, would do that.