Posts
Erith and Thamesmead Selection: Trouble Shooting 5
The VictoriaStreetGate "Burglary"
This is just extraordinary. I'm not about to come out and say that the Labour Party's paid officials are absolutely controlled with a velvet glove over a fist of steel or to lose my head and say that since 1995 there hasn't been a hope in hell for any non-Project supporter, "Old Labour" dinosaur, or "Trot" to get a Party job.
I'm not going to come out and say that. But I will say that they all seem to know the favoured hymns off by heart.
That would mean that the suggestion that the "Burglary" was an "Old Labour" scam to influence the outcome, (c) Georgia Gould (22), would be patently ridiculous. Did Ms Gould actually believe that? We'd not want to rule anything out at this stage. But that seems extraordinarily unlikely. It's not a police matter as the Met are sensitive souls and don't like looking at anything this messy, but we're sure it'll be easy enough for the powers that be to calculate the culprit(s).
After all, you need a pass to enter and move around in the national/regional office, and no locks were broken, windows smashed, alarms triggered. There cannot be too many potential culprits. Can there?
Interesting features of the crime:
- Perp. could easily origami up another cardboard ballot box and cable tie and, having read the runes, even changed a few votes if they were really naughty, seal the new box. Who would know?
- Perp. chose instead to tear some of the ballot papers and leave the mess.
- Perp. apparently did not remove or destroy any ballot papers. Just tore a few.
- Perp. left a crime scene which probably could not be covered up, but did not actually preclude application of sellotape to torn ballots, and progress to hustings and final selection meeting.
- Perp. cannot have been Old Labour, still less (worse still) a "Trot". None of such comrades can get access to the party offices. Colleagues only.
- Perp. wanted to stop process. Implying that whoeverdunnit was supporting a candidate or candidates who were now known to be losing the fight.
2 comments:
Good strategy
Post as much obscure stuff as possible and avoid the debate on expenses
The future ex-prime minister would be impressed
Mushroom Management - Keep them in the dark and cover them in sh*t. (as seen on Question time last night)
Do you have anything to say anon?
We are covering the expenses issues affecting all parties. And looking forward to the local revelations when they come. You can apply a non-comment to one of our posts about that.
But today we're taking a look at a different controversial matter. Without fear or favour. What's your problem with that?
And did consultant urologist Cyril actually remove your balls? Anonymous commenting is so wearying. Particularly when so very vacuuous. Grow some.
Post a Comment