As usual this posting is the subject of rumours, allegations, anecdotes, observation historical memory, but, for the very first time written admissions by the suject concerned, on this blog yesterday.
Following G Letchfords comments posted on here yesterday a very serious discussion took place amongs our group on what Letchfords admissions revealed, how much more information did we have and whether or not to donate a full page to Mr Letchford, as you can see the latter won.
We have not yet decided whether Mr Letchford is naieve, stupid or just bloated with the arrogance of his own treachery and the treachery of his partners in crime in North Street.
As you can clearly read in yesterdays comments Letchford claims he was not a member of the Labour party when he appeared in the BNP youtube film campaigning for Barnbrook in the run up to the 2006 local elections.........thats all right then isnt it?
As you can clearly read in yesterdays comments Letchford states that he banned all councillors from his TRA meetings, in the full knowledge that as a resident Barnbrook would be able to attend, which he did, and grandstanded at every meeting he managed to attend.
Mr Letchford please do no think we are as stupid as you are we have been getting feedback on the activities at your TRA meetings for months and months, you are a very foolish man if you believe that everyone there loves you.
Anyway we are further assured that if as a TRA you received funding from the council as a start up grant and a maintenance grant you had no authority to ban Councillors from your meetings.
Letchford openly admits in writing that he meets Barnbrook on a regular basis, yes we know that Mr Letchford, our people do tell us, because in Mr Letchfords view Barnbrook is the only councillor who gets things done. And Letchford is a member of the Labour party???????????
We have also been informed that the Hatfield Road Community Association were none too happy with Mr Letchford especially when he waltzed in, tried to take over and tried to spend their hard earned money for them. Yes Mr Letchford its surprising what contacts we have isnt it.
And finally, for the moment, perhaps you would like to explain just what did happen about your house? you know the one you were due to be evicted from, until a very, very friendly benefactor stepped in, bought the house, but allowed you to remain there as tenant, bit odd that one, just who was the friendly benefactor Mr Letchford, was it the BNP (who of course will want you to stay in place and get elected, especially as you are so close and friendly) or did the North Street mafia have a whip round for you? Of course your partners in crime would really want to keep their friends close.
As usual this post is a matter of rumour, allegations, observations, anecdote, historical memory and this time written evidence from G Letchford himself.
Looks like you lot didnt have to do much to out Letchford, looks like he has done it all by himself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he is so full of himself, he believes he is untouchable. That is certainly the impression he gives to us residents in Goresbrook ward.
We have known about his closeness to the BNP for ages and we were really shocked to read that Labour are actually going to be stupid enough to stand him as a councillor for their party.
well me and the wife will not be voting for him because after all we have seen a vote for him is just another vote for the bnp.
This comment may seem a little late in the day, but i have only just been introduced to the site. i have been a labour supporter for more years than i would like to shake a stick at, but i can see that there are a number of misinformed people out there. Firstly with regard to Goresbrook ward, and when we speak of Graham Letchford it ammounts to the same topic. Something that you all seem to have convieniently forgotten was the labour council openly branding all tenants and residents in the ward as B.N.P activists. these open comments were omitted from the minutes of the meetings where these allegations were made but it was well heard by those of us present. Secondly you fail to apprieciate one of our fundimental rights, that of choice, so if a number of residents voted for councillor Barnbrook they have as much right to his attendance at TRA metings as the residents that voted for Warren Northover. do not forget TRA's are representative of all tenants and residents in the ward. when arguements arose concerning Warren not attending if Richard was there Graham was left with two options 1 leave it well alone and risk the chance of losing TRA membersthrough inner conflict or 2 ban all councillors and leave it to the individual to attend their surgeries. obviously if you are guarding the existance of the TRA then the second option is the one to take. with regard to the statements made about the hatfield hall, well i don't know where your source of information comes from but as i was a member of their committee at the relevant time i can positively assure you that there is not an element of truth in the statement, some thing that should be borne out by the minutes of the meetings, i wiil endeavour to locate my copies.Finally, one last ommition on your part. the labour party selection committee have to abide by the ruling of the party who set certain criterior for selection. obviously those de-selected did not meet the requirements whilst those selected did. simple yes? Freedom of speech is another of our rights and i would not deny anyone that right all i would say is that it takes the intelligence of the listener to determine whether it is fact or fiction. from the comments above i feel thatthe intelligence was left somewhat wanting.
ReplyDelete