Another Labour lass torpedoes the party

[Pale Rider]

Hot on the heels of Angela Rayner's (successful) attempt to derail the Labour Party Conference we have another volunteer willing to go over the top.

Claudia Webbe, who at 56 is old enough to know better, has got herself into an unseemly spat with another woman who may, or may not, have been a love rival.

Ms Webbe is fully up to speed with social media, because among the alleged conduct is a threat to send naked photos of the other woman to her family.

She's also alleged to have used a 'misogynistic' insult.

Slightly unusual for a woman to be accused of misogyny, but I'm all in favour of equal opportunities.

In a hard to keep a straight face defence, Ms Webbe's QC said the phone calls were made because she was concerned the other woman was breaking Covid rules.

So she was only acting in the public interest, got it, far from being in the dock she should be awarded £50 from public funds.

The trial of this low key drama continues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-58706093

 

[Bromptonaut]

What we've heard so far seems to be opening remarks and the start of the prosecution case.

You were similarly certain that Ms Begum's case was open and shut.

And Webbe is not a Labour MP - she was suspended when this stuff came to lihjt.

 

[Pale Rider]

What we've heard so far seems to be opening remarks and the start of the prosecution case.

You were similarly certain that Ms Begum's case was open and shut.

And Webbe is not a Labour MP - she was suspended when this stuff came to lihjt.

That's why I described her as a 'Labour lass'.

I wasn't at all certain Begum's case was open and shut, and I've not said anything about the outcome of this case - stop making stuff up.

What I was certain of is there would be determined, money no object, hook wriggling, which there was.

Same with this case.

For what it's worth it appears they are well on with it because the injured party has given evidence in chief, and she's been cross-examined.

 

[steve292]

That's why I described her as a 'Labour lass'.

I wasn't at all certain Begum's case was open and shut, and I've not said anything about the outcome of this case - stop making stuff up.

What I was certain of is there would be determined, money no object, hook wriggling, which there was.

Same with this case.

For what it's worth it appears they are well on with it because the injured party has given evidence in chief, and she's been cross-examined.

What hook wriggling? She was totally exonerated on all counts. Stop making things up.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If the Tory Party can survive, and apparently thrive, after its leader's serial extra-marital sh*gging exploits, his racist and homophobic comments, his asking a friend to beat up a journalist, his constant lies, his lackadaisical attitude when spending public money on his family and IT consultant etc., then I am sure the Labour Party can survive a domestic spat involving an MP who no one outside her constituency knows, and an injudicious word from Rayner.

This latest piece of tittle tattle will help circulation of the local free rag for a few days and tittilate a few Sun readers, then be forgotten about by everyone bar some party-blinkered saddos who prefer talking about personal gossip than policies and political actions.

 

[the snail]

So does this mean Pale Rider and crew won't be voting Labour next time after all?

 

[Bromptonaut]

I wasn't at all certain Begum's case was open and shut, and I've not said anything about the outcome of this case - stop making stuff up.

What I was certain of is there would be determined, money no object, hook wriggling, which there was.

Your first post on the subject was this one https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclechat-investigates-politics.274819/post-6479866

You referenced 'hook wriggling', surely meaning she was caught 'bang to rights' and expressed scepticism based on the number of rooms she had.

I'll let others judge who is making stuff up.

 

[Pale Rider]

What hook wriggling? She was totally exonerated on all counts. Stop making things up.

A more determined - and expensive - defence than you or I could run.

Webbe has briefed a QC for what is a scratty case in mags' court.

One could speculate, but London based leading counsel could easily charge £50k for a short trial.

Few of us could afford to pull out that sum in cold hard cash.

The aim is to purchase an acquittal, and almost inevitably get a defendant's costs order.

In that event Ms Webbe need not worry, because you and I will be paying m'learned friend's bill.

If the Tory Party can survive, and apparently thrive, after its leader's serial extra-marital sh*gging exploits, his racist and homophobic comments, his asking a friend to beat up a journalist, his constant lies, his lackadaisical attitude when spending public money on his family and IT consultant etc., then I am sure the Labour Party can survive a domestic spat involving an MP who no one outside her constituency knows, and an injudicious word from Rayner.

This latest piece of tittle tattle will help circulation of the local free rag for a few days and tittilate a few Sun readers, then be forgotten about by everyone bar some party-blinkered saddos who prefer talking about personal gossip than policies and political actions.

Everyone can news edit media better than those paid to do it, but the story is everywhere.

MPs in the dock are always news.

Personal gossip and tittle-tattle being approximately 100 times more interesting than policies.

 

[Pale Rider]

Your first post on the subject was this one https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclechat-investigates-politics.274819/post-6479866

You referenced 'hook wriggling' and expressed scepticism based on the number of rooms she had.

I'll let others judge who is making stuff up.

She said she couldn't recall how many rooms she had and how many people were living at the house in the same time.

Another hard to keep a straight face defence, and I'll let others judge whether she was making stuff up.

 

[Bromptonaut]

In that event Ms Webbe need not worry, because you and I will be paying m'learned friend's bill.

All of it?

Really?

 

[Bromptonaut]

She said she couldn't recall how many rooms she had and how many people were living at the house in the same time.

Another hard to keep a straight face defence, and I'll let others judge whether she was making stuff up.

Posts in the thread explained how accounts of the number of bedrooms could differ. The jury decided she was not making stuff up which should be good enough.

The issue here is you making up what you said in that thread. Please don't divert by suggesting, in contradiction of what you're saying here a few minutes ago and that she actually was guilty.

 

[Pale Rider]

Posts in the thread explained how accounts of the number of bedrooms could differ.

The jury decided she was not making stuff up which should be good enough.

The issue here is you making up what you said in that thread. Please don't divert by suggesting, in contradiction of what you're saying here a few minutes ago and that she actually was guilty.

I did not say:

You were similarly certain that Ms Begum's case was open and shut.

Or anything like it.

Quite the reverse, I thought it likely she would be able to wriggle out of it.

But keep trying.

The jury decided she was not making stuff up which should be good enough.

You don't know what the jury thought unless you were in the retiring room.

All any of us know is the jury found her not guilty.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Personal gossip and tittle-tattle being approximately 100 times more interesting than policies.

And 100 times less important or relevant.

YMMV.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Another hard to keep a straight face defence, and I'll let others judge whether she was making stuff up.

All any of us know is the jury found her not guilty.

The important "others" who heard the full details, not the edited highlights, did judge whether she was making stuff up.
Your weasel words mean absolutely nothing in this case.

 

[Pale Rider]

The important "others" who heard the full details, not the edited highlights, did judge whether she was making stuff up.
Your weasel words mean absolutely nothing in this case.

They mean as much as any other poster's.

Like it or not, you cannot know what the jury thought of any part of her evidence.

It's perfectly possible they thought: "That stuff about bedrooms is a likely story, but as whole the case against her is a weak one, so it's not guilty."

Or they may have genuinely believed someone could live in an average house not knowing how many bedrooms it had or how many people were also in residence.

It's hearing comedy gold like that which makes sitting through otherwise dull court cases worthwhile.

I would have rejected that part of her evidence, but might still have voted for an acquittal if the rest of the case against her was as poor as it sounded.