Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Think would be a plan just to FOI them anyway and see what they say. If they reject with that reason then you know at least.

Maybe also at same time FOI council - try and work out what kind of information LEMB fed up to council (if any).
I don't get this discussion.
If the miscreants are being prosecuted they must have been reported as fraudulent by Lambeth Council.
Why would 20 or so EMB people, having given evidence in court be inclined to truthfully and sensibly answer a FOI?

Ultimately this is down to Lambeth Council IMHO - and the auditors of the EMB.
I wouldn't jhold out much hope of the auditors assisting though. Many audit firms are themselves under investigation these days.
Suggest you check Grant Thornton as an example. I could give you ancient history on them, but most recently they resigned as auditors of Mike Ashley's Sports Direct when he told them on the day of the companies results he had been hit with a tax demand from Brussels.
 

Spyfly

Active Member
LEMB would be accountable under the Freedom of information act as they are a public body.
If not then Lambeth Council would be. depends on what information your asking for and if its available.

what information would you ask for?

A list of all creditors paid over the past 8 years?
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
LEMB would be accountable under the Freedom of information act as they are a public body.
If not then Lambeth Council would be. depends on what information your asking for and if its available.

what information would you ask for?

A list of all creditors paid over the past 8 years?
How about getting those People's Audit people on the case then?
 

local guy

New Member
Trial (Part Heard) - Jury retire to consider verdict 09/08/2019 13:12
Trial (Part Heard) - Hearing finished for FOLASADE ADEDOTON 09/08/2019 13:20

Inner London / 09-08-2019

Hearing Finished : The hearing of the case is concluded for today. It is not an indication that the case has finished just that today's hearing has finished.


we are now waiting for :

Verdict A verdict has been reached by the jury and is being presented to the court. The verdict must be unanimous unless, under certain circumstances, a majority decision has been deemed acceptable
 
Last edited:

local guy

New Member
Can the jury reach a Majority Verdict ?

A majority verdict (in favour either of a verdict of Guilty or a verdict of Not Guilty) is permitted only after the judge gives the jury a majority direction. A majority direction can only be given at least 2 hours and 10 minutes after retirement, although it is rare to give a majority direction after such a short period of time. Much depends on the complexity of the case and the issues involved and in a long and complex case it can be days before a majority direction is given. Often the judge will only give such a direction after discussion with the prosecution and defence advocates. Notwithstanding the precise timing of a majority direction, it is extremely important that a jury should never feel under pressure of time to reach a verdict.

There will be 12 jurors at the start of any criminal trial but sometimes jurors are discharged during the trial due to illness or for some other good reason. The minimum number of jurors permissible is 9, so any less would require the trial to be aborted.

When a majority direction is given the jury will be called back into court and told that the time has been reached at which a verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty by a majority can be accepted. They will be told what the permissible majority is and this will depend on the number of jurors left on the jury. When there are 12 jurors the majority verdict can be 11-1 or 10-2. When there are 11 jurors the permissible majority verdict is 10-1. For 10 jurors it is 9-1. For 9 jurors no majority verdict is permitted so no such direction could be given.

If a jury returns after receiving a majority direction, the court clerk will ask the foreman if at least 10 of them (or 9 if there are only 10 jurors) have agreed on their verdict; if the answer is yes the foreman will be asked if the verdict is Guilty or Not Guilty. If it is Guilty the foreman will be asked if that is the verdict ‘of you all or by a majority?’ If it is by a majority the next question is how many agreed and how many dissented? If, on the other hand, the verdict is Not Guilty the court clerk will not go on to ask if it is a majority verdict.



What happens if the jury cannot agree on a verdict? The Hung Jury
If a jury cannot agree on a verdict, either unanimously or by a permissible majority, they will be discharged. A jury who are unable to agree on a verdict are known as a hung jury. It is often quite obvious when a jury cannot reach a verdict, not only from the time it is taking to hear from them but also from their body language when they are asked to return to the courtroom.


Crown Court trial Part 3 | Defence-Barrister.co.uk — Defence-Barrister.co.uk
 

RHK

Always look on the bright side of life...
Odd and a general question but in a court case are the defendants or their barristers given the verdict of a jury before it is announced in court in front of the judge?
 
Last edited:

local guy

New Member
Hi,
the jury may return a verdict (Guilty / Not Guilty) at any time. They are sitting in the backroom of the courtroom. Normal working hours are (not before) 10 am and (not later than) 4.30 - 5 pm.
When the jury has agreed on a verdict, they knock the door and let the usher know about it. In fact that general message ("verdict") is being passed on the paper to the judge directly. All parties are then called to the courtroom, what is announced via loudspeakers fitted along the corridors : "All parties in Adedotun please come to the courtroom 3". Therefore the parties i.e. defendants, defence team, prosecutors must be in /around the building (the court) all the time. When all are present (including the judge !) the usher asks the foreman who is a member of the jury, to stand up and answer only "yes" or "no" to the questions of unanimity /majority of the decision and, further, "on count 1 do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?" , "on count 2 do you find...".
If the defendant is found to be guilty, the sentence will be decided some times later (up to few weeks), taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case.

If the defendant is found not guilty, he / she is free to go.

Answering your question : absolutely no one knows a verdict of the jury until and unless it is announced by the foreman.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RHK

RHK

Always look on the bright side of life...
Hi,
the jury may return a verdict (Guilty / Not Guilty) at any time. They are sitting in the backroom of the courtroom. Normal working hours are (not before) 10 am and (not later than) 4.30 - 5 pm.
When the jury has agreed on a verdict, they knock the door and let the usher know about it. All parties are then called to the courtroom, what is announced via loudspeakers fitted along the corridors : "All parties in Adedotun please come to the courtroom 3". Therefore the parties i.e. defendants, defence team, prosecutors must be in /around the building (the court) all the time. When all are present (including the judge !) the usher asks the foreman who is a member of the jury, to stand up and answer only "yes" or "no" to the questions of unanimity /majority of the decision and, further, "on count 1 do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?" , "on count 2 do you find...".
If the defendant is found to be guilty, the sentence will be decided some times later (up to few weeks), taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case.

If the defendant is found not guilty, he / she is free to go.

Thanks local guy. Appreciate it.
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
Crikey! They receive money from Lambeth. I would have thought a FOI would apply.

Considering it's inexperienced residents who run the estate for residents and Lambeth Council I would have thought that on the whole generally residents would be kept more informed about how all the money they receive is spent and not just the very few who attend the Board meetings but earlier posts touched on this already.
Agree with BusLanes its worth doing anyway to see.

A
 

RHK

Always look on the bright side of life...
Peter and the board do not get paid ROFL

At the most recent AGM 2018/19 they awarded Peter as LEMB chair £10,000 per annum automatically as expenses and all other board members £2,500 per annum to reflect how much hard work and responsibility they have, ‘I’m not sure about what they do’.

Apparently there is now a HUGE internal fight for who wants to be the next volunteer LEMB Chair.
Wow not a bad weekly rate!


20190728_171649.jpg
 

local guy

New Member
BOTH found NOT GUILTY

TMO chair and ex-council officer found not guilty of fraud

TMO chair and ex-council officer found not guilty of fraud
News12/08/193:45 PM by Nathaniel Barker
A tenant management organisation (TMO) chair and an ex-council officer accused of defrauding a London council have been acquitted.

Jurors found Peter Shorinwa, chair of the Loughborough Estate Management Board (LEMB) in Lambeth, and Folasade Adedotun not guilty of fraud by abuse of position at the Inner London Crown Court on Friday.

Ms Adedotun was also found not guilty of a second charge of fraud by failure to disclose.

Lambeth Council had accused the pair of making a fraudulent payment of £56,308.32 to Ms Adedotun in November 2016.
 
Last edited:

GarveyLives

Well-Known Member
Thank you for sharing your detailed eye witness account of the public meeting on 21 March 2019.

Another report also appeared here:

Violent Crime Public Meeting @ Loughborough Community Centre

An interview with Ira Campbell, Managing Director, Marcus Lipton Community Centre, was published yesterday and raises urgent issues that go beyond Loughborough Junction:

A Fatal Stabbing Took Place At This Man's Youth Club - Now He Speaks Out
The trial of those accused of the murder of Glendon Spence, which was witnessed by a number of children has now commenced at the Central Criminal Court:

Glendon Spence death: Attack at Brixton youth centre was 'merciless'
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Regarding the LEMB trial, I have found it difficult to obtain information, but this paragraph is quite interesting:

"Lawyers defending Mr Shorinwa and Ms Adedotun argued that they believed the £56,000 payment – which was later repaid – had been legitimate and described a “David and Goliath battle” between LEMB and Lambeth Council."

If it is true that the £56,000 had been repaid, isn't it a bit odd to prosecute?
I don't know much about the law, but isn't it unusual for people committing fraud to make restitution voluntarily?

I wonder if the EMB board paid back their £2,500 expenses payments?
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
Description
We want to invite you to join us for the Arches Launch Party on the 4th of september from 5 pm.

This event is an opportunity for us to share with you all that has been acheived through the initial competition, show you the finished design in action and look to the future potential. There will be drinks and nibbles available and the opprtunity to talk to the design team from Boano Prismontas, Meawhile Space, Lambeth Council and the Greater London Authority.

We look forward to seeing you on the 4th of September and sharing the sucess of this project with you.

History of the Arches Design Challenge

Since 2017, Meanwhile Space and Boana Prismontas (BP) architects have worked in partnership with the GLA, LB Lambeth and Network Rail (now Arch Company) to deliver a design led strategy that continues the work to unlock underused spaces and provide business incubation opportunities.

In order to make more unused arches available for meanwhile use, Meanwhile Space wanted to find a “kit of parts” solution which will cost less or on par with £10,000 which is the standard Network Rail cost to do the basic lining of the arch and make it water tight and safe. This does not include any thermal qualities and capital cannot be reinvested into another arch. This kit of parts allows the capital investment required for a meanwhile use to be reused in many subsequent arches once the initial meanwhile use term had expired or when an earlier break is required.

The Arches Design Challenge competition was launched. Following design development with Atkins, the project was awarded to Boana Prismontas who have now completed the Phase 1 of their prototyping by building two complete kit of parts in Arch 500 and 510 Ridgway Road, SW9.

Their design was chosen as it is freestanding, provides a secure space internally, creates a warm and dry space, it is demountable and repeatable, and most importantly the design can be achieved in under £10,000 per arch, depending on the arch size and the chosen range of internal finishes.

The design is flexible enough to change to suit different arch shapes (tall, narrow, double length etc), making it an attractive choice to deal with an array of difficult arches and undercrofts nationwide. The design is also fully demountable, can be compactly stored (20 kit of parts could be stored in a single arch) and be moved to another location should the landlord require the arch back for further redevelopment. Once all the CNC cut timber, polycarbonate facades and insulation are on site, the construction of an arch can be completed in 2 weeks making it quick and cost effective to redeploy.
 

GarveyLives

Well-Known Member
The trial of those accused of the murder of Glendon Spence, which was witnessed by a number of children has now commenced at the Central Criminal Court:

Glendon Spence death: Attack at Brixton youth centre was 'merciless'
17-year old Rishon Florant, of Waltham Forest, and 18-year-old Chibuzo Ukonu, of Loughton, Essex, have today been found guilty of killing Glendon Spence, who, together with friends, had sought refuge at the Marcus Lipton Youth Centre in Brixton, south London, when the two hooded teenagers arrived armed with large knives arrived at the Marcus Lipton Youth Club and ran at them.

Glendon, a regular at the youth club, tripped and fell by a table tennis table and was set on by one of the attackers suffering a stab wound to his thigh, which severed the femoral artery, as well as defensive cuts to an arm and hand.

Florant was accused of delivering the fatal wound and was found guilty of murder. He denied being involved and told jurors he had been wrongly identified on CCTV of the attack.

But his co-accused, 18-year-old Ukonu, who was convicted of manslaughter, told the court that Florant had carried out the stabbing. Ukonu told jurors he was at the scene but had no intention to cause any harm to Glendon, let alone an intention to kill.

It is unclear why in such circumstances anyone would have found it necessary to be armed with large knives.

Ukonu took a coach to Manchester the day after the killing while Florant was arrested as he attempted to take a flight to Uganda from Heathrow Airport.

Judge Mark Dennis QC adjourned sentencing until 11 October 2019 for probation service reports and lifted an order banning identification of the younger defendant in light of his conviction.

The limited media coverage of the trial to date gives no indication of any motive for the killing.

However, the immediate consequences of the murder were previously described here.
 

critical1

All views expressed are definitely my own.
Regarding the LEMB trial, I have found it difficult to obtain information, but this paragraph is quite interesting:

"Lawyers defending Mr Shorinwa and Ms Adedotun argued that they believed the £56,000 payment – which was later repaid – had been legitimate and described a “David and Goliath battle” between LEMB and Lambeth Council."

If it is true that the £56,000 had been repaid, isn't it a bit odd to prosecute?
I don't know much about the law, but isn't it unusual for people committing fraud to make restitution voluntarily?

I wonder if the EMB board paid back their £2,500 expenses payments?
Not really if they want to avoid a criminal record and it looks good "It wasn't me" Look I paid it all back.
I suppose in the end if you believe you have a right to it, why indeed would you give it back.

I've recently seen Peter Shorinwa hobbling around on his crutch looking a lot older, a former shadow of his youthful self, but I suppose he will be cured soon by using that £10,000 of residents money.
petercure.png
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Not really if they want to avoid a criminal record and it looks good "It wasn't me" Look I paid it all back.
I suppose in the end if you believe you have a right to it, why indeed would you give it back.

I've recently seen Peter Shorinwa hobbling around on his crutch looking a lot older, a former shadow of his youthful self, but I suppose he will be cured soon by using that £10,000 of residents money.
View attachment 183341
This post is obscure to say the least. Is Peter exercising the healing touch here.
Or is it a random selection of people and crutches?

It would be nice to hear that the Loughborough Estate EMB were going to review their management procedures in the light of what has happened. Unfortunately it seems that the main disease of local democracy - apathy - will probably ensure this does not happen.
 

LondonKate

New Member
Does anyone know what is going on inside the closed NISA on Coldharbour Lane? There was some work going on inside the other week... Hopefully, they are going to open a nice, elegant coffee shop/ bakery there! :)
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
All very amusing.

Since moving to LJ one thing I've found particularly refreshing is that the average LJ resident round my patch doesn't want gentrification. Sees what has happened to Brixton as something they don't want.

So no Waitrose isn't wanted here.

Feel at home here despite some of the problems here.

Ive been at meetings where locals have told Cllrs they don't want anything like Pop in their neighbourhood.

:thumbs:
 
Top