JHE
.
But you just wrote that you don't know what the allegations are
Yes. Do you know what they are?
Boris's Deputy's mayor Ray Lewis in sexual misconduct charge...
- Thread starter stretchy18
- Start date
Yes. Do you know what they are?
Divisive Cotton
Now I just have my toy soldiers
Bahnhof Strasse
Let's av ya fuckin' dancin'!
Yet you claim not to quote tittle tattle until the facts are known.
Unless it suits your bias of course.
'Cos Lewis was a nobody during the campaign. He only got appointed afterwards.
I've visited his 'school' and it's god-awful. One step up from a prison, basically.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IIRC Lewis's PR men kept representing him as a former "prison governor", as in "the head of a prison", whereas his actual grade was that of a junior governor, otherwise known as a department governor, one of 6-12 (depending on the size of the prison) deputies and/or juniors a prison governor has to do the footwork for him.
I wish KBJ was still with us
I want to taunt him
Where's KJB gone?
Did I miss something? 
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
IIRC the Eye pointed this out before the election, though they didnt mention the CofE stuff.
HackneyE9 said:
He wasnt a nobody - the Tories have been associated with him for ages, as this remarkably gushing Guardian piece shows (indeed, while we are on the subject of the Grauniad)
Maggot
The Cake of Liberty
I don't know where the allegations of sexual misconduct have come from. Have been listenening to the radio and the only case against him I've heard was that some woman lent him £25,000 to 'help poor people' or something and he didn't pay it back as quickly as he said he would.
the button
out on the kocker
Daily Mail, and therefore 100% true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-I-called-police--claims-ex-parishioner.html
untethered
For industry & decency
I some people here are getting things slightly out of proportion.
Firstly, I fail to see how any of this reflects on Mr Johnson's judgement. I presume the usual background checks were run on him and didn't turn up any problems. Is Mr Johnson expected to know about allegations made against someone that resulted in no police action, not an arrest, not a charge, not a conviction? It may well be that Mr Lewis would have been prudent to make a full declaration of these matters before taking the post and perhaps it reflects badly on him that he didn't. Either way, it's not Mr Johnson's responsibility.
Secondly, let's put this in the context of Lee Jasper. Mr Jasper had a number of serious allegations made against him concerning misuse of very large sums of public funds while in office. The supervision of Mr Jasper and overall scrutiny of LDA spending during that period was Mr Livingstone's direct responsibility. If the allegations against Mr Jasper are indeed ultimately proven to hold water, Mr Livingstone must inevitably share some degree of the blame for either permitting or being negligent in missing that misbehaviour with Londoners' money while in office.
By contrast, the allegations against Mr Lewis relate to a period long before his employment in the mayor's office. If it turned out that the allegations are well-founded then he will have no option but to resign or be sacked. But until then, I think it's a little rich to expect Mr Johnson to conduct a forensic-standard inquiry into the background of every one of his appointees.
Firstly, I fail to see how any of this reflects on Mr Johnson's judgement. I presume the usual background checks were run on him and didn't turn up any problems. Is Mr Johnson expected to know about allegations made against someone that resulted in no police action, not an arrest, not a charge, not a conviction? It may well be that Mr Lewis would have been prudent to make a full declaration of these matters before taking the post and perhaps it reflects badly on him that he didn't. Either way, it's not Mr Johnson's responsibility.
Secondly, let's put this in the context of Lee Jasper. Mr Jasper had a number of serious allegations made against him concerning misuse of very large sums of public funds while in office. The supervision of Mr Jasper and overall scrutiny of LDA spending during that period was Mr Livingstone's direct responsibility. If the allegations against Mr Jasper are indeed ultimately proven to hold water, Mr Livingstone must inevitably share some degree of the blame for either permitting or being negligent in missing that misbehaviour with Londoners' money while in office.
By contrast, the allegations against Mr Lewis relate to a period long before his employment in the mayor's office. If it turned out that the allegations are well-founded then he will have no option but to resign or be sacked. But until then, I think it's a little rich to expect Mr Johnson to conduct a forensic-standard inquiry into the background of every one of his appointees.
untethered
For industry & decency
editor
hiraethified
Thing is, those two haven't been entrusted with running London.
More than I'd trust these men, at the moment.
See the difference?
fogbat
The Talibum
Bahnhof Strasse
Let's av ya fuckin' dancin'!
untethered
For industry & decency
Of course.
So what's your solution? Run an in-hindsight re-election for the mayor's office?
Perhaps you could address my substantive points above. There is no serious suggestion that Mr Johnson (the one here that was elected, not appointed) has done anything wrong. If it turns out that Mr Lewis has misbehaved then I'm sure everyone would be glad to see the back of him.
I fail to see how this is a major disaster for anyone other than perhaps Mr Lewis.
Now if the alleged irregularities had happened while Mr Lewis was in office it'd be a different matter. But that's not the allegation.
Did anyone actually find out what the "sexually inappropriate behaviour" was supposed to be?
elbows
Well-Known Member
I still think it would have been most amusing if Jeffrey Archer had been elected Mayor of London back in the day, if his downfall had come after election rather than before his campaign ever got going.
Meanwhile Boris is going to be a lot like Bush - bad for credibility. Ideally he'd do so staggeringly badly that everyone would be reminded of the Tory horror without having to vote them back in at a general election and suffer years of their rule, but I fear that is wishful thinking.
Meanwhile Boris is going to be a lot like Bush - bad for credibility. Ideally he'd do so staggeringly badly that everyone would be reminded of the Tory horror without having to vote them back in at a general election and suffer years of their rule, but I fear that is wishful thinking.
editor
hiraethified
Right. So the Mayor is not in any way responsible for the person he personally hired to be his deputy?
Nothing to do with him at all. Not his problem. The buck goes somewhere else.
untethered
For industry & decency
He is responsible for:
- running reasonable and adequate background checks on his appointees;
- supervising them adequately while in office.
As yet, there's no serious suggestion that he has failed in either of these tasks.
If you lied on your CV (perhaps by omitting something) and got a job, would your employer necessarily be responsible for hiring you? I suspect the responsibility would rest with you unless it could be shown that the employer had been entirely negligent.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And once Boris got in and appointed a lot of deputies, it was clear that the real story, and policy, would be coming mostly from them. Even so I was surprised at how quickly they made the news, and the first advisor was lost. No idea at this stage whether Ray Lewis will have to go, most of the detail seems yet to emerge. Cerainyl the stuff that he is applauded for (the scary schools) seems bad enough, let alone any naughty naughty he may have been up to? Even if he survives the investigation, there has been some talk that he is the sort of bloke who needs to be able to do things his way, in his own style, or he will leave of his own accord.
Tim Parker 'The Prince of Darkness' is the deputy who 'interests' me most. Is there likely to be any dirt on him or not?
Tim Parker 'The Prince of Darkness' is the deputy who 'interests' me most. Is there likely to be any dirt on him or not?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yeah but politics is no ordinary business. Politicians are judged far more by their choice of appointee's. Not that this necessarily means they will ever be held to account.
At the end of the day, if Boris has much more scandal arise from his choice of deputies, his judgement will be called into question. And as Boris's judgement was already an issue long before he was elected, expect him to have a rough ride.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
I dont think the buck applies at all, really. If these are ten-year old "allegations" that havent resulted in anything, then it is a lot different to if he is found guilty of doing something, or even (as it appears) there is an ongoing investigation into a person that would detract from the running of their office (as with Jasper).
Otherwise you end up in the bizarre situation that just because someone alleged something in the past you are automatically viewed as being guilty and therefore unfit for office. Its also questionable as to whether Lewis would have to declare (noone else does, iirc) mere allegations when he was being recruited.
Similar threads
