Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Clive Hart's Local Labour accused of something nasty

God knows politicians, are only human but having a quick read of Cllr Mark Nottingham's account of Cllr Clive Hart's (Local Labour Leader) role, in Mark being de-selected from Northwood Ward and subsequent investigation, leaves a smell more offensive, than the mess I just cleared up left by the family cat, (Mr Puss has no finesse).

Mark's post, is one that needs careful reading but a cursory glance would suggest that Clive Hart and other members of Thanet's Labour party, ought to resign assuming Mark's account is true, which since I understand, it is well documented, I have little reason to doubt.


  1. Marks has been writing spin/lies about others on his blog for a long time, what makes you think he is telling the truth this time?

    Mark is very good at being very nasty - what goes around comes around!

  2. Clive is the leader, Mark is just a tin pot politian who is jealous of Clive!

  3. It has more than the ring of truth Mark made it clear to me, that the dismal behaviour of some of your Labour party was well documented

  4. Nobody likes bullies, it seems that Clive's mates have acted like little children.

    Who wants to be in Clive's gang?

    Not many

  5. Read Mark Nottingham's comments with immense pleasure. Don't you just love it when the nasties turn on each other but, I noticed old habits die hard for, he still got in a bit about kitten killing and drink driving. Perhaps he has not noticed sundry Labour politicians being placed in situations where the birds cannot crap on them as well.

  6. You sound positively orgasmic, Bluenote. Just remember - if you have a lucid moment - that the sort of stuff Nottingham is writing about happens, has happened, and will happen in your Party too. It is the stuff of the politician, not just those on the Left.

  7. And when it comes to election time most people will not care a hoot. Most vote along with the national issues and the state of the economy and how many pounds they have in their pockets. Thanet can be very volatile, swinging from 29 con seats one year (1991) to just 3 in the next election (1995).
    Not a lot of local politics gets reported in local newspapers and I dont think the BBC or ITV will be reorting a local squabble.
    So I think all is to play for in May regardless of the Mark/Clive spat.

  8. I could not agree more, Anon 7:39, that it happens in all parties, which is why one should treasure the moment when it is the other lot. Orgasmic though is a bit strong for it would take more than a couple of lefty blokes having a ding dong to turn me on, being of the straight persuassion.

  9. Yes Bluenote I would have preferred that Mark had adhered to the greater public interest questions. I refer, of course, to a Margate Charter Trustees meeting circa 1998.

    Converging on that meeting were a number of inquiries.

    (1) SERICOL who we now know had a secret remediation project after contaminating Thanet aquifer for thirty years. We now know (Thanks to my FOI applications) that the leak was discovered in 93. Which calls into question the role of Thanet Cllrs who were privy to the contamination knowledge. Such as tory George Richard MAISON (Of the planning cttee who have a duty re aquifer ?) who was Sericol Chief site safety maintenance engineer.

    In 98 Sericol raised inquiries into thefts and obtaining employ by the deceptive use of forged qualifications.

    By coincidence Sericol MD Mr KING decided to give MAISON ten grand severance. About two months before MAISON was due to face a libel action in High Court brought by Margaret MORTLOCK.

    Happily I was able to notify Mrs MORTLOCK's solicitor that MAISON appeared to have gained ten grand of capital which would need to be added to his means described to the High Court.

    I am told (By A Labour cllr) that they were told that Sericol contamination had only just occurred and had not reached the aquifer.

    So a Cllr with duties to the people. Did he reveal to Planning about aquifer or did he declare an interest ?

    (2) KCC Youth Group affiliation officer was trying to investigate Kent Adventure Training Corps including its former adult leader MAISON and others. For the previous 18 months his police contact (Supt George ROGERS) had overlooked to tell him about the Kent Adventure Training Corps adult leader with alleged forged Army Service record who had worked for Reliance Security at Deal Barracks and been subject of a security complaint in 1988/89 prior to the 22.9.89 bombing of the barracks.

    Naturally I put this right and KCC would have wanted to know whether inquiries touching on Cyril HOSER, his former associate MAISON, Sericol and Kent Adventure Training Corps had been properly cross referred with the Deal Barracks bombing inquiry of which Supt George ROGERS was then deputy senior officer. (Later MI5 would give a press release that the Kent Police Deal bombing investigation team had been replaced with a new team)

    (3) In August 1997 Sir John GRUGEON of Kent Police Authority had called on his Chief constable for inquiries into all of the above matters and more. This call remained open.

    (4) Further inquiries by KCC and by a Labour cllr of TDC (A Charter trustee I think) were about a bogus black belt and whether he had gained a seat on Thanet Sports Council, whether he had served imprisonment for indecent assault on a child and whether he was an associate of Kent Adventure Training Corps.

    (5) As I understand it two Labour cllrs (I think both ex WW2 paras) moved to end the Charter Trustee funding of the pseudo military cadet group. They won the vote but as I understand it two tories voted trying to sustain public funding for the cadets. Daly and Watt Ruffell.

    (6) My information is that County Cllrs reported to the trustees that there were ongoing "Special Branch" Inquiries.

    That is very interesting because Jack STRAW Home Secretary later wrote to his shadow, Ann WIDDECOMBE, that Kent Police had informed him no such inquiries had taken place.

    (7) In 1998, whilst the above account of County Cllr knowledge should now be weighed, did Cllr HAYTON tell the High Court on oath that there had been and existed no procedures of inquiry touching on tory Cllr George Richard MAISON ?

    (8) There is an implication to this for a number of cllrs. So when voting for nil action to question HAYTON those cllrs were actually in a position to know there was substance to the complaint against HAYTON.

    It was Cllr Neville HUDSON who withheld the evidence file from the Standards Cttee. And it was he and Labour's Richard NICHOLSON who moved nil action to full council.

    Whose toes is Mark treading on ?

  10. Would I be right in thinking that Tony used to be a Labour party member? The barely restrained glee with which he reports this would seem to indicate that he was.

  11. I think, Bluenote, you are shaping up to be a nasty piece of work, well in keeping with others on the political right locally. Apart from your visceral post under another strand - about conceding defeat - you post on here about your immense pleasure over Mark Nottingham's announcement then go on his blog and offer obviously hollow commiserations. Your absolute insincerity is what gives politics - at whatever level - its sordid name.

  12. Funnily enough, 1:44, I do feel sorry for Mark Nottingham because, whilst I do not agree with his politics, I respect the fact that he has always fought his own party's corner. Having had my father treated the same shabby way by Labour almost certainly puts me on the side I now stand which, as I have told you before, is more anti-Labour than anything else.

    I can, however, still feel for my fellow man when shabbily treated even if, as you suggest, my anti-Labour view makes me a nasty piece of work. I love you too, sweetie!

  13. Retired, for the sake of your fellow man please give this Kent Adventure Cadets, Deal bombing and sundry other nonsense a rest. Can't you see how boring you are. Many people have told you so.


    Of course there's been no shady goings on in local Labour

  15. Mark Nottingham's wildly inaccurate and defamatory allegations made in his 'open letter' to me have come as a great disappointment. He appears to be very angry at the situation he finds himself in, and sadly he is therefore lashing out at anyone and everyone, whilst totally failing to look at himself.

    Firstly, I can't help but note the timing of Mark's 'open letter' to me which coincides with my having two close relatives (my mother and brother) in hospital, both fighting extremely serious and potentially life threatening conditions.

    Mark's sad and anxious rant is full of inaccuracies, false allegations and ridiculous innuendo and it says far more about him and his state of mind than it does about myself or any other member of the Labour Party.

    I have a longstanding and completely unblemished reputation and in particular I have spent the last two decades, leading, supporting and working passionately with and for numerous community, voluntary and political organisations at local, county and national level. My life is an open book. My comprehensive CV is attached to this email and absolutely anyone can follow my daily life through twitter & facebook on the internet.

    Labour is a democratic party and local branches choose their own candidates for town, district and county elections, it was therefore Mark's own Ramsgate branch who decided to 'deselect' him. I am a member of Cliftonville branch and I took absolutely no part in the selection meeting held in Ramsgate. I feel extremely sorry for Mark but at the end of the day, members of his own branch, for whatever reason, decided they didn't want him to be their candidate in the 2011 elections. If I were Mark I would be asking myself what had I done to make that happen, not trying to point the finger at everyone else.

    Mark's concerns have been thoroughly investigated and rejected by all the relevant bodies and committees here locally in Thanet and following yet further and extremely thorough investigation, the Labour Party South East Regional Director has confirmed "Labour's candidates for Thanet District Council were selected by the Labour Party's agreed process. The allegations made by Mark Nottingham have been fully investigated by the Labour Party and all of his complaints have been dismissed. Mark Nottingham is not a candidate for the Labour Party for the Thanet District Council elections".

    Unfortunately, Mark will simply not accept the situation.

    I am a team player and always have been. However, I simply refuse to be the leader of a group with a member who behaves in the manner of Mark Nottingham.

    1) I therefore intend to stand down as the Leader of the Labour Group.

    2) As I have done consistently, every single day for well over three weeks now, I will continue to visit and support my close family members in our local QEQM hospital.

    3) I will remain a loyal Labour councillor and continue to work with colleagues Cllrs Linda Aldred and Doug Clark for the residents of Cliftonville West and to retain our seats at TDC, where we still have so much work to do.

    4) I will continue in my role as secretary of Cliftonville Labour Party.

    5) I will most certainly continue with all my numerous voluntary and community roles in organisations across Thanet.

    6) I will consider the possibility of any further roles within Thanet Labour Group after the May elections, if and when I am re-elected, in a group which the Regional Director has clearly stated will not include Mark Nottingham.

    7) I will also be taking time to seriously consider possible legal action against Mark Nottingham.

  16. Curious that Cllr Hart only chooses this blog to reply to the open letter. Is he about to defect to the SDP as well?

  17. You're wrong anon 4:21, he's posted his reply on several local blogs (though not on Naked in Thanet, so presumably he has no plans to strip off!).