Advertisement
Candidates clash over Miller case
Reporter: BEATRIZ AYALA
Date online: 05 May 2010
ELECTION 2010
Rival parliamentary candidates have squared up over the bungled Vance Miller case.
Michael Meacher, Labour candidate for the Oldham West and Royton seat in tomorrow’s general election, has laid the blame for the failed prosecution of the kitchen trader against his Lib-Dem opponent Mark Alcock.
However, Mr Alcock has branded the attack as “politically motivated mud slinging by a desperate Labour candidate”.
In a letter to Mr Alcock, cabinet member for Environment and Infrastructure, Mr Meacher claims the case will result in a significant financial burden on every household in the borough.
The letter said: “My reason in writing to you is that you are the Oldham Council cabinet member responsible for the assembly of this case, for the decision to bring it to court, and for its general conduct.
“This is the biggest self-inflicted disaster for Oldham in living memory, and is going to impose a significant burden on every household in the town.”
Mr Meacher has claimed Oldham taxpayers will have to foot the £3m council costs in the case, and could face having to pay the £2m co-defendants legal costs.
He claims residents will also have to fork out for the £500,000 costs awarded by the judge against the council at a hearing last week.
Mr Meacher said altogether, this would amount to a charge of £65-70 on each household in Oldham.
He said: “Since this occurred on your watch and you bear personal liability for this debacle, perhaps you could explain how you propose to make an apology to the people of Oldham and, even more importantly at this time, how you can think that someone who has been so negligent at such enormous cost to Oldham can be a fit person to represent the town in Parliament?”
But Mr Alcock countered the stinging attack by attacking Mr Meacher for failing to raise any issues under previous Labour administrations.
Mr Alcock said: “Mr Meacher has suddenly decided that for nothing other than for political reasons he would attack me, having said nothing before when the case was started by the Labour council in 2004, or in 2006 after the raid on the mill, and even before the court case started in 2009.
“This is just politically motivated mud slinging by a desperate Labour candidate.
“Would he have attacked the council if Labour were running the council, I think not.”
Mr Alcock said any costs that the council have to pay will be covered by the council’s own insurance so Oldham residents will not have to fork out.
He added that at the directions hearing at Manchester Crown Court, the judge accepted that he could not make a final order on the costs application until an assessment had been made on the claims sought by all parties.
He said: “We are still awaiting the judge’s written order. The council will vigorously defend any separate legal proceedings brought by any of the defendants in this matter.
“Mr Meacher says that decisions I made have cost the tax payers money. This case was started by his Labour-run council in 2004 not by the Lib-Dems. As I have said, any costs are covered by insurance, so that claim is false.
“On costing taxpayers money I would like Mr Meacher to justify the millions of pounds and hundreds of lives lost by him and his Labour party voting for an illegal war in Iraq.”
Catch up with the candidates at www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/elections/
Comments
However Alcock wants to try and deflect this, the truth is that he and the Lib Dems are responsible for the case going to court.
Is Mr Alcock quite sure that there is insurance in place to cover the total payout? I think you will find that the way in which the case was mishandled and thrown out will invalidate any apparent insurance cover.
I wonder why Elwyn watkins isn't passing comment on the case, given that Phil Woolas has also pointed the finger at the Lib Dems?
The investigation of customers' complaints, forwarded by authorities from all over the country, was initiated under the previous Labour administration. The decision to progress to legal action, and how that was to be carried out, was made under Liberal councillors Alcock, and Sykes with the Chief Executive Charlie Parker. Liberals have to accept responsibility for their actions at some time.
It's nothing to do with the polictians, this was entirely down to a rogue officer. Sykes and Alcock had nothing to do with it - what politician would in any local authority? They don't decide who to prosecute - that way lies fascism. The Vance Miller is just a one-off - an extraordinary debacle that hopefully will be learned from and never repeated.
I think the desperate (sick joke) here is alcok lets face he just does not have that bit of intelligence required to hold the position or any credibility With regards to elwyn the employer that doesn’t quite understand the minimum wage well enough said. ‘Out with the tree huggers’
Cllr. Alcock says this is politically motivated.OF COURSE IT IS!We are in the throes of an election campaign, and the people responsible for the Miller fiasco are the Council.A POLITICAL ENTITY!
Whilst were on the subject,I've just got the Lib Dem rag through my door for the local elections. One of it's boasts is "Oldham has the most litter free streets in Greater Manchester"!IS IT ME?
Whatever the ins and outs of the Miller case, in the general election it's irrelevant. If you are voting in the local election, then it's something to consider.
If as reported Mr Meacher said; “Since this occurred on your watch and you bear personal liability for this debacle etc. etc". Would he please explain the balance in jobs won and jobs lost for Oldham people on his "watch" since 1970 and i don't include jobs in a couple of new shops in town, he has watched from the sidelines as our traditional industry has died, to be replaced by NOTHING. We need real investment in real jobs, it's time you earned your wages.
Have Your Say
Mr. Meacher must have read about this case in the news seeing as he is never up here. (Except when he wants our vote, ahem.)
By The Noise @ 05/05/2010 12:51:36