Post in DO WE NEED ANOTHER MAYOR?

Jun 08 21:21 UTC

David,

I read you letter as it has been edited in the Recorder with interest.

[The edited version - as appears in the Recorder - can be found here:
http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/content/newham/recorder/postbag/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=postbagnewham&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=postbagnewham&itemid=WeED05%20Jun%202008%2009%3A46%3A39%3A890
]

As you will be aware, I agree with the point you make about the lack of
scrutiny on Newham Council: I've banged on about it often enough.

In defence of John Whitworth, I have to say that you will be unaware of the
efforts made by John (as well as John Saunders, Sarah Ruiz and myself), from
within the structures of the Labour Party, to address the failings of the
mayoral system that have come about in Newham.

Sarah and I decided to leave the Labour Party as a result of our frustrations.
Both Johns chose to stay in the party but I understand that they remain
committed to trying to address the problems; as a result they were rewarded for
their efforts by being de-selected - an eerie indicator of the power the mayor
has over the supposedly democratic selection procedures as implemented by the
Labour Party.

However, it was a revelation to see that the following passage from your letter
was omitted from the printed version:

" Mr Whitworth is in a far better position to say why no one in Newham Labour
has ever scrutinised any of the Mayors decisions, have never gone on record in
council demanding answers or offering an alternative position. The only one who
did was Mike Law, who resigned and joined the Tories, a man of principle."

First, thanks for the kind words, but I feel a bit of a fraud as I didn't cross
the floor until as late in my term as a councillor as the last nine months.
Prior to the date I did leave the Labour benches, I had voiced my concerns
about the administration at Labour Group meetings and at other venues within
the Labour Party.

The thing that I find most disturbing about the editor's choice of omission is
the fact that he has taken it upon himself to remove from a letter submitted to
the paper's supposedly public opinion page a message of support for someone who
has opposed the current Town Hall administration. On a personal level, I'm not
surprised by the fact that I've been airbrushed out of the letter; I've had my
fair share of run-ins with the Recorder's editor so I expect as much. What
should be of concern is the fact that, if he is that comfortable editing the
words of an ordinary member of the public to prevent upsetting Wales and his
chums, what confidence can we have that there is any truthful analysis in the
articles reporting on the activities of the Council that appear in the
Recorder?

Oh, and it cannot be argued that the letter was edited because of limits of
space on the page - the headings of the letters could be printed in a smaller
type. And there is no issue of "space" on web pages.