Steve Hedley: not “cleared of domestic violence” with a case still to answer - Andy Littlechild

Senior assistant general secretary of the RMT union, Steve Hedley.

Steve Hedley was not cleared of domestic violence and still has a case to answer according to the RMT rep representing his former partner in her complaint of physical, emotional and verbal abuse.

I’m writing the following statement as the RMT rep representing Caroline Leneghan in relation to her complaint of physical, emotional and verbal abuse by Steve Hedley RMT Assistant General Secretary. I’ve just returned from a week away on holiday to discover the initial stage of the unions investigation completed, with an unsatisfactory outcome of no further action (investigation) to take place, and a statement from Steve Hedley that I believe as Caroline’s rep to be misleading. My statement below is solely based on this statement, all my comments are relating to its contents.

To date I have refrained from involvement in the large amount of internet content in relation to her case; and have kept my role as her rep between those who were involved within the RMT. Apart from that I have only disclosed my involvement to the 2 RMT “officials” whom I directly report to in order to be accountable, maintaining strict confidentiality around the whole issue in all respects.

My intention here is to set the record straight following Steve Hedley’s recent statement and other similar internet posts from other people/groups which are inaccurate, and to put forward the facts so people are in possession of them.

I’m not a member of political group seeking to make politically motivated (or any other) attacks on Steve Hedley or the RMT; I’m Caroline Leneghan’s RMT rep.

Verbal, Cyber and Threats of violence

Firstly, in light of his statement; I’d like to make it clear that neither Caroline nor myself or any other of her friends have at anytime known to her took part in abuse or threats of violence etc. to Steve Hedley or any members of his family. If anyone has done that I condemn it completely.

Caroline Leneghan’s Allegations & Evidence

You can read Caroline’s allegations in her opening post above, and view the photos of her injuries.

In his statement, Steve Hedley rightly says that Caroline Leneghan’s complaint was submitted a year after the event (with the implication that this makes it less worthy of belief?!).

In fact this is a fairly common occurrence with women reporting domestic abuse, for reasons that are well documented and understood: misplaced loyalty, the belief the abuser will change, fear of retaliation or not being believed, and along with even telling others at the time that facial injuries are “an accident” to protect an abuser are symptoms in themselves of being a victim of domestic violence.

Steve Hedley claims that Caroline’s allegations are unfounded and her photographic evidence “dubious”, and due to this “no further action” was the outcome of the police investigation.

This is somewhat misleading; the police officer dealing with her complaint stated in writing to her:

“….there is a high chance of conviction if this matter was to be taken to Court.

We would be able to say that your account remains that you were assaulted and that we have no reason to suspect you made the matter up.

In the same vein we would say Steve was not exonerated. It was simply that the matter was not capable of proof at Court. Both yourself and Steve accept the injuries you received were as a result of an incident between the two of you. You claim to have been assaulted and Steve claimed self defence as a result of you attacking him. In the absence of any witnesses or background history we couldn’t prove the matter either way. This coupled with the injuries you received being of a CPS charging standard of common assault meant that we have only 6 months from the incident to bring the matter before a Court. This had lapsed prior to initial report”.

So the reality is that far from her “claims being unfounded and her evidence dubious” as put forward in Steve Hedley’s statement, Caroline’s allegations to the police weren’t taken any further due to the CPS’ procedural limits on timescales for cases to go to court.

Previously during the RMT enquiry I had to challenge the exact same misrepresentation of the police investigation that Steve Hedley put forward.
*(I have documented evidence to support this).

RMT’s “Exhaustive Investigation”

Similarly; Steve Hedley’s statement puts forward that the RMT following an “exhaustive investigation” said he had “no case to answer”. Again, you can read for yourself in her opening post above the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by RMT, and there are 2 facts that need to also be explained here:

1. The RMT procedure for complaints is adhoc, (i.e. not a written down), but broadly equated to the General Secretary instructing the Senior Assistant General Secretary to conduct “an enquiry” into Caroline’s complaint against Steve Hedley (2nd Assistant General Secretary). Upon concluding his enquiry; the Senior AGS presented his enquiry report to the General Secretary for him to decide whether or not to submit it to the RMT Council of Executives for a full investigation to be undertaken. The General Secretaries decision was NOT to submit Caroline’s complaint to the RMT Executive Council, and no full investigation was undertaken.

2. The reason given to Caroline by the General Secretary for not instructing the Executive Council to undertake a full investigation was that her RMT membership did not cover the date/time the incident took place, and also due to a lack of corroborating evidence (which I believe may be alluding to no witnesses being willing to come forward?).

However, the General Secretary stated that “both you and Steve Hedley agree an incident took place”.

In closing; the General Secretary advised that “I will not be taking any further action on this matter”.

At no point was the dropping of Caroline’s complaint by the General Secretary stated as because Steve Hedley “had no case to answer” as claimed by him in his statement!
*(I have documented evidence to support this).

Threatening Texts from Caroline Leneghan

Caroline texted Steve around the general time of their relationship break up, though I’m not aware of their content apart from the one text read to us during the enquiry. While the texts may be of a particularly emotional nature, I would put it that texts sent by people during a break up generally are of an emotional nature and that it is unremarkable in its obviousness.

In relation to this same text referred by Steve Hedley in his statement where Caroline states “you’re going down Steve” or something similar; this had another meaning than that implied by Steve of “I’m going to get you”!. As Caroline explained at the time, the context was “you will be found out” / “you will not get away with it” (i.e. beating her up).

Caroline Leneghan and me as her rep were not read any other texts that I remember(?), and Caroline refutes sending “hundreds of threatening texts” in the manner claimed by Steve Hedley.

Caroline Leneghan’s “Mental Health Problems”

Caroline like many people (national average is 25% of the population suffer from a mental health issue during their lives) has suffered with mental health issues; in her youth she self-harmed, and today copes with depression. She is not a violent person and has no history of violence towards anyone (a history of self-harm (superficial cutting as teenager) is the exact opposite of outward violence.

The implication in the way Steve Hedley has put forward “mental health issues” so prominently seems to be aimed at saying that people with common mental health issues are violent and have a tendency towards violence; this serves to demonise, stigmatise and stereotype people with mental health difficulties, in particular for women for who this stereotype is more problematic.

Some of the factual details above of Caroline Leneghan’s mental health history were disclosed to Steve by her when they were happier, as couples do sharing and being intimate together. Using this evidence of Caroline’s mental health along with allegations of assault by Caroline Leneghan on himself that she totally refutes, is an irresponsible and gross misrepresentation of the experience of people that suffer with mental health issues such as depression.

Caroline’s complaint was a straight forward matter of her being assaulted by Steve Hedley, which he either did or didn’t do; her mental health has nothing to do with the complaint that she raised.

However, it seems the case that Steve Hedley believes it important to repeatedly portray Caroline as a “mental case”; which similarly I have had to previously challenge during the initial RMT enquiry.
*(I have documented evidence to support this).

Appeal to the RMT Executive Council

Despite his misleading claims in his statement that he had been cleared by both the police and the RMT of domestic violence, there is still also a case remaining for Steve Hedley answer.

Caroline Leneghan has submitted her request for an appeal against the decision of the RMT GS.

She was advised by reply that her request for an appeal will go before the RMT Executive Council.

Posted By

libcom
Apr 9 2013 15:13

Share


  • Despite his misleading claims in his statement that he had been cleared by both the police and the RMT of domestic violence, there is still also a case remaining for Steve Hedley answer.

    Andy Littlechild

Attached files

Comments

Gerald.Massey
Apr 14 2013 23:43

Steve Hedley Cleared and no case to answer – a refutation of a witch hunt.

A statement has been published by Andy Littlechild, an RMT member which claims to be setting the record straight following an RMT investigation into allegations of domestic abuse by RMT Assistant General Secretary Steve Hedley. An allegation to which Steve Hedley is innocent and has not been found guilty by the Police or the RMT.

Far from setting the record straight Andy’s statement seeks to present the actual clearing of Steve Hedley as the opposite by deliberately distorting the facts.

Andy claims he is ‘not a member of a political group seeking to make politically motivated (or any other) attacks on Steve Hedley or the RMT’ – but Andy’s association with the anarchist Solidarity Federation is well known. If he was not seeking to assist what is now seen by many in the RMT and elsewhere as a witch-hunt, then he would not have circulated such a document far and wide. Instead he would have respected the RMT procedures.

Andy has been the RMT rep representing Caroline Leneghan during the union’s investigation. In his statement he denies that Caroline or her friends sent abusive emails or threatened violence. Yet contrary to Andy’s statement the RMT investigation was provided with several abusive emails from Caroline not only to Steve Hedley but also to his girlfriend. Additionally the RMT were provided with several texts which were abusive and threatening. As regards violence – an officer of a sister union has been threatened with violence by an associate of Caroline’s after Steve Hedley had attended a benefit for striking cleaners.

On the substantive issue Andy’s cites from an email he claims to be from the Police, but he excludes from his statement: "The police would not be able to say whether we believe or not. We are bound by evidential rules of whether we can prove matters beyond reasonable doubt. .We also need to explain to the Cps that there is a high chance of conviction if this matter was to be taken to court.’

Instead Andy begins his quote at

“….there is a high chance of conviction if this matter was to be taken to Court.”

This is the kind of editing to be expected from the gutter press – completely distorting what was actually stated. The intention being to mislead people as to the actual outcome of the Police investigation. Andy also claims that the case was dropped due to Crown Prosecution Service procedural limits; this is not true. The case was reviewed by a senior police officer and not even given to the CpS.

Andy misrepresents the actual outcome of the RMT investigation, stating that: ‘At no point was the dropping of Caroline’s complaint by the General Secretary stated as because Steve Hedley “had no case to answer” as claimed by him in his statement!’

This is simply untrue – Bob Crow wrote to Steve Hedley at the conclusion of investigation on 27th March stating: ‘Having studied the investigation in depth, I can advise that there is no case to answer by yourself and I will not be taking any further action on this matter.’

Andy questions the motives for Caroline’s mental health issues having been raised at all. It would be morally wrong to condemn an innocent person for presenting evidence of their innocence out of concern for the sensitivities of their accuser.
In his statement Andy again engages in misrepresentation – he claims that Caroline suffers from depression, when the matter raised in the investigation was the fact she suffers from ‘borderline personality disorder’. Andy claims that Caroline has no history of violence or self-harm - but again evidence was presented in the investigation to the contrary, including some awful acts. This is not about stigmatising people; it is about setting out the truth of a situation and actual real life difficulties that can arise from such a condition. It has in fact been the remorseless effort of certain individuals and groups to conduct a show trial by internet that has set about demonising and stigmatising.

The statement by Andy is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in an effort to portray an innocent person as guilty when neither the Police nor the RMT have found that to be the case.

Rob Ray
Apr 15 2013 11:28

Think you mis-spelled your login there "Gerald" - Steve's got two Es in it. Unless you were there as a) his advocate or b) were one of the investigating officers (in which case damn man you might want to rethink doing this, as honestly it makes you sound biased as fuck).*

If you weren't there of course then this is all second-hand shit, no?

==
* Someone who believes Caroline being mean to someone who doesn't = her having problems with violence? Are you high?

flaneur
Apr 15 2013 12:08
Gerald.Massey wrote:

The statement by Andy is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in an effort to portray an innocent person as guilty when neither the Police nor the RMT have found that to be the case.

You've got to be some special kind of arsehole to use that as a defence in a domestic abuse case or very naive.

Caiman del Barrio
Apr 15 2013 17:57

Full solidarity to Caroline Leneghan. I'm hopeful that the RMT will actually act on this, otherwise I think people are gonna have to start re-considering their relationships with them.

As for Hedley, he shouldn't be welcome anywhere near anyone. Nasty piece of work.

Khawaga
Apr 15 2013 18:12

Gerald Massey: proud proponent of rape culture, and an apologist for rape, bullying and domestic violence. Fuck off cretin.

georgestapleton
Apr 15 2013 20:20
Gerald.Massey wrote:
Andy claims that Caroline has no history of violence or self-harm - but again evidence was presented in the investigation to the contrary, including some awful acts. This is not about stigmatising people; it is about setting out the truth...

What Andy actually wrote a few inches above this:

Quote:
...in her youth she self-harmed, and today copes with depression. She is not a violent person and has no history of violence towards anyone (a history of self-harm (superficial cutting as teenager) is the exact opposite of outward violence.

If you are going to be a lying prick, do it better.

Rob Ray
Apr 15 2013 22:01

Dear sir or madam,

I Gerald Massey would like to lend my full support to Mr Hedley. A poet of some renown, I have alas been dead these past 105 years, but this merely places me in a perfect position to verify the truth of what he says. I was with him, as it were, in spirit.

As in the classic 1969 television serial Randall and Hopkirk (deceased), Mr Hedley and I have shared many adventures together and I have found him to be an altogether lovely chap, albeit with the temper of a hippo roused from slumber in the midst of the noonday sun.

Regards,

Gerald Massey (deceased)

Andy Littlechild
Apr 20 2013 13:21

I have only just seen the comment from Gerald Massey, but think it needs correcting.

As said in my original statement; I wrote it to set the record straight, but it seems I’m going to have to do it again. I hope this will be the last time, but have feeling it won’t be!

Everything I’m writing is addressing Gerald’s comments.

My statement was written in good faith in light of information Caroline and I have.

I’m a associate (member) of the Solidarity Federation which is neither a secret nor relevant.
The Solidarity Federation has no agenda against Steve Hedley or RMT.
I have no agenda to attack Steve Hedley, which similarly unluckily for Gerald’s deluded fantasy is known by anyone in the RMT who knows me; and is the reason I was suggested to Caroline as an RMT rep who would be seen as credible.

There is no witch hunt against Steve involving Caroline Leneghan or myself. There is a belief that a witch hunt against him does exist in the union; which again is why it was suggested that I represent her, owing to the common view in RMT that I would not get involved in anything like that, but get on with the job of representing Caroline.

Again, I’m Caroline Leneghan’s RMT rep.

I circulated my statement in my judgement approximately to the same degree as Steve Hedley’s statement; the statement I was refuting.
(I will circulate this statement likewise, wherever Gerald has put his).

The reason I did so was because Steve Hedley had put out in the public domain an inaccurate statement about my member and her case.
RMT could/should have addressed this but failed to.

For Gerald to suggest that I alone should have respected the RMT union procedures is preposterous. My action was proportionate, and is how RMT reps act to defend those they are representing. I don’t know what union Gerald is a member or rep of, but I wouldn’t want him in my corner!

Again; I do not know of any emails/texts or anything else sent to Steve Hedley or any of his friends or family that are abusive or threatening. That’s it.

Again; Caroline and I were only read one text during her enquiry meeting, the text quoted in my original statement.

I’m sorry if this is inconvenient for Gerald, but there it is.
(As a point of illustration, Caroline Leneghan and me were even refused a copy of the notes taken by RMT of her Caroline’s interview).

If it is the case that some/an “associate of Caroline’s” has been abusive or threatening, they need to stop it.

In relation to the advice on Caroline’s case to her from the Police and exactly as stated by Gerald: I did begin my quote:

“….there is a high chance of conviction if this matter was to be taken to Court.”

The prefix of “…. denotes text is missing. I added this prefix to demonstrate this was so. The portion I removed was of a personal nature to Caroline, and also added nothing nor took anything away from the letter, which very clearly throughout contradicts the claims by Steve Hedley that the Police said Caroline’s allegations were “unfounded”.

At no point in my statement did I write that Caroline’s case was given to the CPS. This is a direct fabrication by Gerald.
Similarly; if you read the letter of advice from the Police to Caroline it clearly says that the case could not be taken forward due to CPS time limits on cases of criminal assault.

The alleged statement from Bob Crow to Steve Hedley :

‘Having studied the investigation in depth, I can advise that there is no case to answer by yourself and I will not be taking any further action on this matter.’

…..is news to me.

Where did Gerald get that from if Caroline Leneghan and me haven’t even seen it.

If it is real that means two different outcomes were sent out by the General Secretary, to Caroline Leneghan and Steve Hedley respectively?!
This is a matter for the General Secretary to address.

Unfortunately for Gerald, and as I said in my original statement; I have (and have quoted) from both the union and police documents in mine and Caroline’s possession.

The lengthy, false and misleading disclosure of Caroline Leneghan’s mental health is dealt with in her and my original statements. It was totally unnecessary for Steve Hedley’s defence and no longer a matter for discussion.

Conclusion
My original statement was based on the facts I presented and have had to re-go over here again.

Gerald’s statement is truly a mixture of misrepresentation, distortion and ignorance, and he owes both Caroline and me both an apology

As a union rep it is my belief and practise that you fight for the person you’re representing with what youve got; that’s how I’ve always conducted myself as an RMT rep, and will continue to do so.

Any so called “rep” who can’t or doesn’t do that should resign from the post as they are unfit for it

Arbeiten
Apr 27 2014 02:57

Only just got round to seeing this. Would like to register my disgust with the abhorrent word games this Massey character is playing. Deliberate and utterly bankrupt attempt at muddying the waters. The fact that terms like 'gutter press' are being thrown around is galling. I got a lot of respect for your average RMT activist and am very upset that someone would go through this sort of trouble to write such an inflammatory response. It's amazing how 'the left' are all 'dont trust the police' until a police 'investigation' finds 'no wrong doing' in a case a little but closer to home. Really quite astonishing.

Full solidarity to Caroline and thank you Andy for writing this up.

Fibcom
Nov 16 2014 00:05

It seems that there is evidence now in the public domain that suggests Libcom AKA The Solidarity Federation and AWL have been at the very least manipulating a very difficult situation for political reasons, either that or both of these groups are heavily infiltrated by the state. For the minute the jury is out. All relevant background information can be found here https://saferspaces.exposed/

Fibcom
Nov 16 2014 00:35

We believe the time has come for Andy Littlechild to answer for his behavior in this matter, it has now been widely recognition that at the very least he distorted the truth. One example when he stated that the RMT did not say that Steve Hedley had 'No case to answer' This examination of the investigation by the RMT, includes a letter from Bob Crow to Steve Hedley saying that after the investigation it was found that he had NO CASE TO ANSWER https://saferspaces.exposed/2014/10/14/part2/

Fleur
Nov 16 2014 00:29

Ah, I see the rape apologists/Assange groupies are back. Do you have nothing better to do on a Saturday night?

Chilli Sauce
Nov 16 2014 00:33

"fibcom"? Is that the best you can do?

At least "libcop" has a ring to it.

Fibcom
Nov 16 2014 01:01

Anna, I am trying to understand were rape is involved in this case? Or Assange for that matter.

Chilli Sauce
Nov 16 2014 00:57
Quote:
Libcom AKA The Solidarity Federation and AWL

Well justified snarkiness aside, this is just an incredible statement.

Fleur
Nov 16 2014 01:30

So you're not involved with Solidarity Collective?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2014/10/518446.html

Quote:
In future posts, we plan to look at the attacks on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, the 'Comrade Delta' affair and the ongoing attacks on members of the SWP.

And why do you think I'm called Anna?

commieprincess
Nov 16 2014 10:58

Who is this fucking idiotic frogspawn excuse for a person?

Steven.
Nov 16 2014 13:06
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Libcom AKA The Solidarity Federation and AWL

Well justified snarkiness aside, this is just an incredible statement.