Cllr Ishmael Osamor "admitted three charges of possessing drugs with intent to supply and a fourth charge of possession in a hearing at Bournemouth Crown Court last Friday."
I had no idea that this had being going on behind the scenes. His arrest was known before the selection process, but it seems Mum (Kate Osamor MP) managed to keep mum.
He remains a Councillor and keeps his job in mum's office in the Commons.
I couldn't find any mention in the Morning Star or The Canary, so please make do with this link.
***He finally decided to resign as a Haringey councillor at tonight's Labour Group meeting (Tues 30th)***
As David Lammy has pointed out, the demand for those drugs comes from the middle classes. It wasn't skunk.
It would have been OK for him to have been selected as a candidate if he had declared it, yes.
Nah, this sort of activity means he fails any kind of fit and proper person test for all sorts of reasons.
I've no problem with rehabilitated offenders taking on public roles. But they have to demonstrate that they've rehabilitated themselves first and over a sustained period.
The demand may come from the middle classes, but as David Lammy has also pointed out, that demand contributes to the culture of violence that kids get sucked into. The whole 'county lines' trafficking, the boys round here on their stolen yellow bikes, the dealers at both ends of my road, etc. And Cllr Osamor had a special remit for an area which probably has a huge number of problems with kids and gangs. Which he was perpetuating.
Is that assertion based on any data, John? A quick websearch wasn't rich in pickings, but but did offer this from the Guardian in 2013 which offers a more nuanced overview of the facts:
6.8% of people with an annual household income of less than £10,000 a year were frequent drug users, compared to 1.4% of those in households with incomes of £50,000 or more.
There is also data on which drugs are being consumed by which groups. Broadly, most illegal substances follow the trends described above. But there are exceptions.
Those living in households with incomes less than £10,000 are more likely to use drugs such as amphetamines, mephedrone and cannabis and are 5% more likely than wealthier groups to have consumed any drug at all. But 2.3% of those living in households with incomes upwards of £50,000 have used cocaine in the past year, compared to an average of 1.7% among households living on less than £30,000.
Those drugs were very middle class party drugs. Camp Besitval was a middle class party, £170 a ticket and Rick Astley and Simple Minds headlining. I'm feeling even more sorry for him that he had to listen to that crap, no wonder they all needed drugs.
John, your argument seems to be based on the strange idea that middle-class users of drugs only have themselves to blame. The dealers are no worse than the checkout staff at their local Waitrose.
I'm not sure the parents of Louella Eve Fletcher-Michie would appreciate your view. She died at Bestival, after taking 'middle-class' drugs.
The fact that the supplier of these drugs was her 28yr-old boyfriend from Enfield is worth noting.
John, The Guardian data (the only source I have right now) only singles out cocaine as being more frequently used by higher income groups. Nonetheless, without getting into the debate about who was at the festival and exactly what drugs were taken, in your comment to which I was replying, you referenced a statement that David Lammy made about drug use in general. You did not reference a statement about drug use at the festival. In so doing you lent credence to his statement that most drug use in the general population is "middle class".
Using income as the best available proxy for Lammy's notion of class, I'm trying to establish if that assertion is factually based. I suspect that it's not. Political grandstanding apart, there are all sorts of reasons why it's not desirable to misrepresent the data on this issue.
Individually, it would be very poor of me to blame someone for their death under circumstances like this. Collectively, I think it's fine to say that the demand for these drugs at this festival is not from the same demographic that the drug dealers in West Green are supplying.
John, I think you're probably right. The drugs used and the drug users at the festival are probably not the same as those in the general population. I'm glad that's been clarified. But, to be clear, that's not what the comment you reproduced by Lammy appears to be saying. Perhaps there's context you omitted that explains his apparent misrepresentation of the facts.
The more recent survey conducted by the Social Metrics Commission paints a very different picture: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/16/middle-class-consum...
I'm inclined to trust this data, precisely because it was based on an analysis that didn't just use income as a proxy for class.
How on earth do you survey the young people of Haringey who are wasted on skunk half the time? I presume they're not telling their parents.
Thanks for the link to the data, Charlotte. I haven't had a chance to do much more than look at the contents page , but my immediate thoughts are that it seems to differentiate between those living in poverty and those not living in poverty.
It makes absolute sense that those living in poverty will have less income to spend on any sort of drugs. However, without having dived into the report I'm still not convinced that this supports the assertion that most drug use is "middle class". That assumes that everyone not living in poverty is either middle or upper class. Is that now the case? Are there no working class people not living in poverty?
It's interesting that the data is so different to the report The Guardian presented just five years ago. Another warning that we need to treat all data with great care.