Lambeth Councillor resigns after arrest over porn allegations

[Rushy]

I received a letter from Steve Reed about this today. This chap was my ward councillor. Obviously just allegations at this stage but still not very pleasant news.

http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/...r_resigns_after_arrest_over_porn_allegations/

"A Lambeth councillor has resigned after he was arrested on suspicion of downloading indecent images from the internet.

Former Tulse Hill ward councillor Toren Smith's home in Lilford Road, Camberwell, was raided on Friday by officers from the Met's specialist child abuse investigation team.

The unmarried 42-year-old's computer was seized and will now be checked by officers for illegal images. He was bailed by police while officers continue their investigation."

 

[editor]

Please note that these are allegations and that he has not been charged yet.

 

[butchersapron]

lib-dems got form mind.

 

[DaveCinzano]

lib-dems got form mind.

Even looks like Astley.

 

[co-op]

I received a letter from Steve Reed about this today. This chap was my ward councillor. Obviously just allegations at this stage but still not very pleasant news.

So what does Steve Reed say about it all?

 

[Rushy]

So what does Steve Reed say about it all?

Just that Torren has resigned for personal reasons at the request of the Labour Party and apologies for having to have a new election so soon after the last one. I think it is 1 July.

 

[Gramsci]

Please note that these are allegations and that he has not been charged yet.

Exactly. Not all allegations are proven or charges brought. Nor is there clarification of what illegal images the police were looking for. I assume its child porn.

I dont like the knee jerk reaction that immediately assumes that once a person is investigated they appear to look suspicious. These allegations arent funny and mud sticks even if someone is cleared.

Toren Smith was an experienced Cllr who dealt with planning matters. Met him once or twice.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

one of my friends suffered one of those raids.
He got his computer back 7 months later with no charges, since he hadn't downloaded any such things.

 

[Rushy]

Exactly. Not all allegations are proven or charges brought. Nor is there clarification of what illegal images the police were looking for. I assume its child porn.

I dont like the knee jerk reaction that immediately assumes that once a person is investigated they appear to look suspicious. These allegations arent funny and mud sticks even if someone is cleared.

Toren Smith was an experienced Cllr who dealt with planning matters. Met him once or twice.

Thank you to both Gramsci and Ed for reiterating the important point I made in the original post. This is just an allegation.

I don't think it is fair to suggest that the post is a knee jerk reaction since it makes no assumptions. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of homes in the Brixton area have been mailed about it this week and it is also on the BBC so it is very much in the public domain and therefore almost certainly a justifiable topic for discussion. An open forum like this also should also give an opportunity for people to offer support and/or personal knowledge if they think appropriate, as Gramsci has done, so it should hopefully be far more balanced than the press. I am also sure that the press will only report further if there is bad news - not if he is cleared - so there is an opportunity for U75 to have a positive effect if this is the case.

Like Gramsci, I only know the poor chap through planning matters. He always seemed to handle public meetings very well but in all the years I've lived in his ward he never responded to a phone call, email or letter (neither have either of the other two councillors, mind you). I hope we get a decent buch of candidates to chose from in the elections and that whoever succeeds him is a little more 'eager to serve'.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Ruth Ling, who lost her Clapham Common seat earlier this month, has been confirmed as the Lambeth Labour candidate for the Tulse Hill by-election.

 

[sexton]

What about loyalty? What about fairness?

The downloading of pornography from the internet is a serious offence, particularly if it contains images of the abuse of young children - not only because of the atrocities which are committed on the victims, but because payments made to the owners of the websites holding such material invariably support serious organised crime.

That said, it is depressing that the Leader of Lambeth's Labour Party, in whichToren Smith served for more than 15 years, has chosen to publish a statement alleging that Mr. Smith has resigned for personal reasons 'at the Labour Party's request'.

Most of those who vote Labour believe passionately in the idea of a fair and just society, and in the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; and the more heinous the offence, the more important it is that this principle should be upheld.

Mr. Smith served his constituents in Tulse Hill well, and is generally well respected throughout Lambeth, so it is most offensive that anyone - and particularly a fellow Member -should make such a statement, which must imply that his Party believes Mr. Smith to be guilty.

In these circumstances how can Mr. Smith hope for a fair trial?

It is also depressing that this blog (and the South London Press and Streatham Guardian, also) should have given such prominence to photographs of Mr. Smith, which, because of the nature of the alleged offence, must surely put his safety, if not his very life, at risk.

 

[ellmann164]

snip.


sub judice

 

[teuchter]

The downloading of pornography from the internet is a serious offence, particularly if it contains images of the abuse of young children - not only because of the atrocities which are committed on the victims, but because payments made to the owners of the websites holding such material invariably support serious organised crime.

That said, it is depressing that the Leader of Lambeth's Labour Party, in whichToren Smith served for more than 15 years, has chosen to publish a statement alleging that Mr. Smith has resigned for personal reasons 'at the Labour Party's request'.

Most of those who vote Labour believe passionately in the idea of a fair and just society, and in the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; and the more heinous the offence, the more important it is that this principle should be upheld.

Mr. Smith served his constituents in Tulse Hill well, and is generally well respected throughout Lambeth, so it is most offensive that anyone - and particularly a fellow Member -should make such a statement, which must imply that his Party believes Mr. Smith to be guilty.

In these circumstances how can Mr. Smith hope for a fair trial?

It is also depressing that this blog (and the South London Press and Streatham Guardian, also) should have given such prominence to photographs of Mr. Smith, which, because of the nature of the alleged offence, must surely put his safety, if not his very life, at risk.

I agree with most of this.

 

[sexton]

In breach of 'sub judice' rules?

snip

Poster has removed his original post, and I withdraw my comment.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Anyone else get a letter in the mail telling you about his resignation and apologising?

 

[Rushy]

Can anyone explain how to use the multi quote function? I'm struggling!

 

[teuchter]

just click the + button on all the posts you want to quote, and the 'quote' button on the last one you want to quote.

 

[Rushy]

just click the + button on all the posts you want to quote, and the 'quote' button on the last one you want to quote.

Thanks.

 

[kyser_soze]

Now, and bearing in mind these are allegations, a couple of questions:

1. Are they talking about his work or personal PC - if it's the former it could be nothing more than bog standard porn

2. Doesn't the term 'indecent images' now also apply to things like BDSM/emetophilia/coprophilia etc? I'm pretty sure that there were lots of BDSM peeps getting stressy about the broad definition of 'indecent image' when the current law was made it basically covered anything that wasn't 'vanilla' sexual activity.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Poster has removed his original post, and I withdraw my comment.

Actually it was me, but I forgot to add Mrs M to the edit box. It was late and I was tired, apologies.


I would remind posters that it's not them in the legal firing line, but the admins of this site.

 

[Rushy]

The downloading of pornography from the internet is a serious offence, particularly if it contains images of the abuse of young children - not only because of the atrocities which are committed on the victims, but because payments made to the owners of the websites holding such material invariably support serious organised crime.

That said, it is depressing that the Leader of Lambeth's Labour Party, in whichToren Smith served for more than 15 years, has chosen to publish a statement alleging that Mr. Smith has resigned for personal reasons 'at the Labour Party's request'.

Most of those who vote Labour believe passionately in the idea of a fair and just society, and in the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty; and the more heinous the offence, the more important it is that this principle should be upheld.

Mr. Smith served his constituents in Tulse Hill well, and is generally well respected throughout Lambeth, so it is most offensive that anyone - and particularly a fellow Member -should make such a statement, which must imply that his Party believes Mr. Smith to be guilty.

In these circumstances how can Mr. Smith hope for a fair trial?

It is also depressing that this blog (and the South London Press and Streatham Guardian, also) should have given such prominence to photographs of Mr. Smith, which, because of the nature of the alleged offence, must surely put his safety, if not his very life, at risk.

Conversely, are we not jumping to conclusions about what evidence the council has or indeed what discussions they have had with TS? He may well have agreed that his position was untenable.

Does it really follow that lack of support from your employer negates the likelihood of a fair trial? If the employer was seen as having been unduly harsh could it not quite possibly have the opposite effect?

As for photos on the blog and press - it would strike me that their publication is more a matter of taste than safety these days. As a councillor and public person his photos and contact details are freely available all over the net even though his official contact detail pages have been closed down. I searched my own name last night and found my photo, address and phone numbers all over the place.

[Incidentally, while searching my name last night Google threw up a photo of my old Dad being carried on a stretcher after being shot down in Italy during WWII. Obviously not relevant to the post but so exciting I just had to share it!]

Now, and bearing in mind these are allegations, a couple of questions:

1. Are they talking about his work or personal PC - if it's the former it could be nothing more than bog standard porn

2. Doesn't the term 'indecent images' now also apply to things like BDSM/emetophilia/coprophilia etc? I'm pretty sure that there were lots of BDSM peeps getting stressy about the broad definition of 'indecent image' when the current law was made it basically covered anything that wasn't 'vanilla' sexual activity.

If it was a work PC and the images were found by work IT perhaps that would explain why the council felt it had to act definitively. According to the articles the case is being investigated by one of the Met's Child Abuse teams. However, is it possible that they become involved when the age of the subjects in the images is uncertain rather than it being particularly 'kiddie porn'? On that basis it would seem possible to be inadvertently guilty of viewing 'child porn' although I cannot imagine that is much of a defence.

 

[ellmann164]

Poster has removed his original post, and I withdraw my comment.

Actually I didnt. Someone else (a fan of ex-Cllr Smith's?) did.

The 'sub judice' rule only applies when a case has actually come to court and on trial. Whoever did it doesnt know their criminal procedure. Reporting the facts of the arrest and (when or if they occur) the details of the prosecution's case against the defendant is perfectly legal and not sub judice.

It would have been more appropriate to censor my post on the basis that it might imply guilt. I implied that he had a case to answer and commented upon the chances of him being eventually charged. That is all. If all posts that arent complimentary of TS are going to be censored then we really do have a problem here.

 

[ellmann164]

Actually it was me, but I forgot to add Mrs M to the edit box. It was late and I was tired, apologies.


I would remind posters that it's not them in the legal firing line, but the admins of this site.

I resent the implication that I dont take seriously the legalities of writing about this matter. Just because you get threatened by lawyers does not mean that you have broken the law. Getting threatened by lawyers is part of the deal of communicating to the public. Every single word of what I wrote was fact. The phrase 'game over' was a reference to the odds of TS getting charged, not a comment upon his guilt or lack of it.

Whether TS will be charged and found guilty I cannot say until I hear more about the case, but at the moment the facts say he was arrested and his computer was seized and that doesnt look good. Why is it okay for other posters to question the propriety of TS's treatment by the police and his former colleagues in the Council and not okay for me to defend it?

 

[ellmann164]

Actually I didnt. Someone else (a fan of ex-Cllr Smith's?) did.

The 'sub judice' rule only applies when a case has actually come to court and on trial. Whoever did it doesnt know their criminal procedure. Reporting the facts of the arrest and (when or if they occur) the details of the prosecution's case against the defendant is perfectly legal and not sub judice.

It would have been more appropriate to censor my post on the basis that it might imply guilt. I implied that he had a case to answer and commented upon the chances of him being eventually charged. That is all. If all posts that arent complimentary of TS are going to be censored then we really do have a problem here.

Actually, the comment in brackets in the first line of the above is inappropriate and therefore withdrawn.

 

[teuchter]

Why is it okay for other posters to question the propriety of TS's treatment by the police and his former colleagues in the Council and not okay for me to defend it?

I think the general principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

As this guy hasn't been tried yet, any public speculation about what he has or hasn't done is, in principle, unfair to him and doesn't respect his privacy, especially in a case like this. The same criticism applies to the newspapers that have reported this, and possibly to Steve Reed for the email he sent out.

As other posters have already said.

 

[ellmann164]

I think the general principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

As this guy hasn't been tried yet, any public speculation about what he has or hasn't done is, in principle, unfair to him and doesn't respect his privacy, especially in a case like this. The same criticism applies to the newspapers that have reported this, and possibly to Steve Reed for the email he sent out.

As other posters have already said.

I have not speculated about what he has or hasnt done. I speculated about the odds of him being charged with an offence. What he has or hasnt done is for the courts to find out. The police are doing what the law requires them to do to help the courts find out whether an offence has occurred.

TS may well be innocent of child pornography charges. He is not innocent of being arrested, having his home searched, his computer seized and his position as a councillor judged by his peers to be untenable. Those are facts. Those things actually happened. They point to him having some major problems to deal with at the moment. Exactly what kind of problems and how big those problems are for him we will find out in due course.

 

[Rushy]

I think the general principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

As this guy hasn't been tried yet, any public speculation about what he has or hasn't done is, in principle, unfair to him and doesn't respect his privacy, especially in a case like this. The same criticism applies to the newspapers that have reported this, and possibly to Steve Reed for the email he sent out.

As other posters have already said.

Are you saying that it is not fair for the papers to have reported the facts? As far as I could tell there was no speculation in the articles I read.

And is it fair to speculate that he was asked to resign without good cause? E.g. he may have agreed that for whatever reason his position was untenable. Or the images may have been found on a work pc and an internal enquiry found him to be seriously in breach of contractual duties before he was reported to the police? For that reason it seems equally speculative to criticise Steve Reed's actions without further info. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in SR's shoes in deciding how to handle this.

 

[ellmann164]

I have not speculated about what he has or hasnt done. I speculated about the odds of him being charged with an offence. What he has or hasnt done is for the courts to find out. The police are doing what the law requires them to do to help the courts find out whether an offence has occurred.

TS may well be innocent of child pornography charges. He is not innocent of being arrested, having his home searched, his computer seized and his position as a councillor judged by his peers to be untenable. Those are facts. Those things actually happened. They point to him having some major problems to deal with at the moment. Exactly what kind of problems and how big those problems are for him we will find out in due course.

Damm I did it again. There's a big fat assumption about the police in the fourth sentence of the first para that still remains to be proved.

 

[editor]

He is not innocent of being arrested, having his home searched, his computer seized and his position as a councillor judged by his peers to be untenable. Those are facts.

Being arrested doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of anything.

That is for the courts to decide, not you or anyone else.

 

[teuchter]

Are you saying that it is not fair for the papers to have reported the facts? As far as I could tell there was no speculation in the articles I read.

And is it fair to speculate that he was asked to resign without good cause? E.g. he may have agreed that for whatever reason his position was untenable. Or the images may have been found on a work pc and an internal enquiry found him to be seriously in breach of contractual duties before he was reported to the police? For that reason it seems equally speculative to criticise Steve Reed's actions without further info. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in SR's shoes in deciding how to handle this.

I don't know what Steve Reed's email said because I didn't get it - it may have been fine (which is why I said possibly) and yes I'm sure it's a tricky situation for him to be in too.

It's more the reporting in the papers that bothers me. All we need to know (if anything) is that he is being investigated by police and no charges have yet been brought. And that the reason he has decided to / been asked to resign is related to this.