My KCC Election Manifesto & Video

Saturday, 25 February 2017

Breaking! Ramsgate Labour Candidates RipOff Charity Donations To Fund Campaign

Would you take donations intended for  charitable purposes, sell them, and then use the cash to finance your political  career? Of course not!  Most people know that doing something like this is morally wrong and deplorable. It would be like walking into a pub, or corner shop, distracting the staff and pinching the charity collection box. An act which would sicken most people and provoke anger and outrage against the lowlife scum who did it.
But as improbable as it might seem, this is what  Ramsgate Labour Party’s Kent County Council candidates, Karen Constantine, Raushan Ara and their election agent, Kaz Peet, tried to do, until they were caught red-handed by a national newspaper.  Here’s the full story – sorry but its long and complicated

The Donation.
In September 2016, London based charity, Food for All, (charity no. 1077897) announced on its Facebook page that it had received a donation of £250,000 worth of expensive handmade Lush cosmetics via an organisation called the Kindness Offensive (TKO). Food for All works with homeless, vulnerable, and deprived people and says it provides 900 free hot meals a day, six days a week to people who are homeless or are in conditions of need”.   When I spoke to David Goodfellow from TKO , he told me that when Food for All collected the Lush products it was made clear to the charity that these products were for the use of their service users and should not be used for resale or raffles. 

The manufacturer of the cosmetics donated to the Kindness Offensive (TKO) and then to Food for All, was Lush. Lush is a highly respected, ethical, company, well known for donating to charities and campaigning groups. Lush attaches stringent conditions to its product donations. Its website says that donated products can only be used for the benefit of “service users (clients/ patients) of homeless shelters, hospices, women's refuges, children's groups, overseas aid etc. We prefer to direct our products to the above vulnerable groups, and we do not give products to other charitable groups, including schools and religious groups ------ Please note that these products cannot be used for fundraising (such as raffle prizes), gifts or handouts for supporters, or be sold”.

Ramsgate Labour Party “syphons off” Lush. On 7th February 2017 at a warehouse in London, Ramsgate Labour Party officials, KCC election candidate Karen Constantine and her agent Kaz Peet, met Jennie Matthias, the manager of Matchless Gifts, a London based charity shop operated by Food for All. Also present at the meeting was Food for All trustee Peter O’Grady.  The purpose of the meeting was to hand over a large consignment of Lush cosmetics to Constantine and Peet  to be sold and raffled to raise funds for Ramsgate Labour Party’s  campaign to get Constantine and Ara’s elected to Kent County in May 2017. This was the second lot of Lush products handed over to an official of Ramsgate Labour Party in less than a week. Labour Party election agent and press and public relations officer, Kaz  Peet, had already received Lush products from Matthias and posted about it on her Facebook page on 4th February. 
 
These are the self-same Lush cosmetics donated to Food for All by TKO which should only have been used for the benefit of their service users and most certainly not for the benefit Ramsgate Labour Party’s campaign to have Constantine and Raushan Ara elected to Kent County Council. 

In a short video filmed in the warehouse shop manager Matthias can be heard saying “We were fortunate enough to have been given thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds worth of Lush and within that what we do is to give out to charities and good causes and one of the good causes, and one of the good causes which I stand for, happens to be the Labour Party”.
 
 
Matthias’ comments are clearly at odds with the terms and conditions on which the Lush products were donated to Food for All by TKO. By any stretch of the imagination Constantine, Peet and the Ramsgate Labour Party are not poor, destitute or homeless and they should never have been given products which were explicitly destined for the use of vulnerable people.  In my conversation with David Goodfellow (TKO) he told me that he was “livid” with Food for All for abusing the terms and conditions on which the products were donated to them. He said that  TKO would no longer make donations to Food for All, and that their actions brought  into disrepute the amazing work by so many other organisations and the reputation of Lush who had been fantastically generous.   

Lush For Labour” Sale.
The syphoned off Lush products were stuffed into Constantine’s car. Several pictures of her car full to the gunnels with Lush products were published by Constantine and Peet Facebook Page on 7th February with the capitations

·        Coming back to Ramsgate with a boot full of delicious Lush products - kindly donated by Food for All to the Labour Party KCC Campaign - to replace UKIP in Ramsgate with Karen Constantine and Raushan Ara in order to Build a  Fairer Future. We will be putting together some fantastic  raffle prizes with this lot!”

·        Support for the Labour Party KCC Campaign from Food For All and Jennie Matthias”.

·        Bringing home the fund raising booty”.  

Within a day of the Lush cosmetics arriving in Ramsgate, Constantine advertised on Facebook that a “Lush for Labour" sale will take place on 18th February at 2.00pm! At The Churchill Tavern”. All Lush goodies will be heavily discounted!!!”.   Her daughter posted on Facebook saying “Going to be selling a whole range of Lush products, hugely discounted, at The Churchill Tavern at 2pm on February 18th. All proceeds go towards the local Labour party campaign! So you'll smell angelic for a splendid cause”. A copy of an  e-mail given to me by a concerned member of the Ramsgate Labour Party dated 12th February alerts all party members to the fundraising sale of Lush products at the Churchill Tavern on 18th February and advises members that there will be “a fantastic raffle featuring a divine "Lush" products basket worth £500!!!” at an election training event of 18th March.

On 18 February the sale of the Lush cosmetics took place as planned.  A short video posted on Facebook shows lots of people in attendance. Pictures posted on line show vast quantities of Lush product on sale.  At the end of the afternoon Constantine posted an announcement on Facebook saying “we raised over £500”. Comments on the video suggest that half of the Lush products were left over which I assume will be sold off and raffled at a later date, or given away to Labour Party election campaign volunteers.  In a post on Facebook Jennie Matthias says “I am so happy that you were able to raise what you did and hopefully more in the not too distant future, PLEASE can you make sure that ALL your volunteers get something for themselves also as it very much in keeping with what we do, much LOVE to you all from our team and especially me Jennie Matthias xx” 

 
 

So there you have it, donations of expensive handmade Lush cosmetics which both Lush and TKO explicitly required to be passed on to homeless and deprived people, were knowingly “syphoned off” from a registered charity by Constantine, Peet, Matthias and O’Grady with the clear intention of being  sold and raffled to raise funds for Ramsgate Labour Party's Kent County Council election campaign to get Constantine and Raushan Ara elected to Kent County Council. 

Morally & Ethically Indefensible.  
Constantine and Peet must have known that Food for All was a Charity. In fact they were photographed standing with O’Grady and Matthias, next to a Food for All Van which had the organisation’s charity number emblazoned across it. Like the overwhelming majority of the population, they must have also known that it’s morally and ethically indefensible to take goods  from a charity, which had been donated with the express purpose of helping homeless and deprived people, and then selling  these products to raise funds for their own election campaign.   Most people would regard these actions as being heartless, uncaring, and insensitive. These are certainly  not the actions that most people would expect our countenance from aspiring Kent County Councillors.

The fact that Constantine, Ara and Peet are members of the Labour Party makes their apparent lack of ethical judgement appear to be even worse. The Labour Party was founded over a century ago to fight for a better life for the poor, the marginalised and the homeless. Yet here we have 3 senior and active party members who seem  to believe that it’s perfectly acceptable to deprive vulnerable people of charitable donations and to use these donations to fund and promote their own political careers. Surely their  actions cannot be anything other than diametrically opposed to the underlying philosophy and principles of the Labour Party?  
 
Thankfully, it would appear that Labour Party do not share Constantine, Ara and Peet’s less than scrupulous approach to fundraising. The Labour Party Rule Book for 2016 requires election candidates and elected representatives to “uphold the highest standards of probity and integrity in public life”.  I hardly think that using charitable donations intended for the poor and  deprived to fund your own political career qualifies as upholding "the highest standards of probity and integrity" . Something which I hope will be taken into account when, and if,  the Labour Party launch a full investigation into what many people believe, were the  shameful actions of these  party members.

Finally, Constantine claims to be a magistrate. According to a conversation I had with a member of staff from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, magistrates must adhere to the Judicial Code of Conduct which, amongst other things, requires judges and magistrates to act with probity and integrity both in court and as part of their everyday life. I think that most people would agree that syphoning off charitable donations destined for homeless and deprived people in order to raise money for your election campaign, falls massively short of the standards of conduct expected from a member of the English judiciary and is likely to been seen as  bringing the magistracy into disrepute. 

Regulations & Law. 
It’s not just ethics and morals which are at issue here, but also Charity and Election laws which may have been broken by Constantine, Ara, Peet, Matthias and O’Grady.  Let’s begin with charity regulations. The Charities Commission, which is responsible for regulating England and Wales’ 167,000 registered charities recently published a guidance document “Charities, Elections and Referendums” which says that
 
·        Charities must not support or oppose a political party or candidate. Charities must  not donate funds to political parties

  • Charities should be especially wary of associating or becoming associated in the minds of the public, with a particular candidate or political party.

·        Charities must never support particular candidates even if those candidates belong to a range of political parties.

·        Charities must not assist candidates with their election campaigns, financially or otherwise

By handing over charitable donations to help Ramsgate Labour Party fund its campaign to get Constantine and Aras elected to KCC, Food for All has almost certainly broken Charity law. I’ve alerted the Charities Commission to what I have uncovered and I assume it will launch an investigation which could lead to Food for All being struck off the Charity Register and deservedly so!  
 
It’s also possible that Constantine, Ara and Peet may have acted in breach of election law as well. The Electoral Commission’s publication Local Elections in England May 2017: Guidance for Candidates and Agents sets out the rules for managing an election, including fund raising. It begins by warning that “the election agent has the main responsibility for complying with these rules”, but that “candidates also need to be fully aware of the rules, and ensure that their agent is following them”. So at the time of becoming an election agent, or an election candidate, the onus is on you to familiarise yourself with, and understand, all the regulations and rules governing the election. Ignorance of these rules is no defence if you make mistakes.  
 
The guidance on accepting donations says “If you take donations that you can’t legally accept, you may commit a criminal offence and we may apply to the courts for it to be forfeited”.  By donations the Electoral Commission means “money, goods or services which are given: towards your candidate spending and have a value of over £50. Some examples of donations include: a gift of money or other property”. The guidance adds “When you receive any donation of more than £50, you must immediately make sure that you know who the donor is and that the donation is from a permissible source”.

Well from the comments posted on Facebook by Constantine and Peet it’s evident that they knew that the Lush products had come from Food for All and that they knew that Food for All is a charity. So what does the Electoral Commission say about accepting donations from a charity?  Here’s what they say “charities are not usually allowed to make political donations under charity law”. So it would seem that the donation of Lush products to Constantine and Ara’s campaign was not a permissible donation and that the donation should, in accordance with Electoral Commission guidance,  be returned to the donor (Food for All) within 30 days. This might be a bit a tricky as half of the donated cosmetics were sold on 18th February. I assume that when impermissible donations are sold to raise cash then the cash raised by the sale of these products must also be handed back to the donor,Food for All. 
 
I’m amazed why Constantine and Peet  failed to realise that by taking and selling a donation from a charity, they might be breaking election law.  Peet is the Labour Party Election agnet for South Thanet and almost certainly must have had specialist  training on managing elections and election fundraising. Peet also stood as a Labour candidate in the Northwood by-election in 2016 and must again have had some training on election law.  Constantine is already a Thanet District Councillor and has fought 2 election campaigns in Thanet. She also claims to have studied at  Harvard Law School in the USA.  Surely  through their training, studying  and election campaigning  they must have gained a detailed understanding of election law  and realised what they were  doing was unethical, unlawful and wrong?

I’m also astonished why no-one else in the Ramsgate  Labour Party appears to have spotted  what is,  at the very least,  highly questionable,  and at worst,  potentially illegal , fundraising practices employed by Constantine, Ara and Peet. In fact very experienced and senior Labour figures actually backed them. Former Thanet and Kent County Councillor, David Green posted “well done you” on Constantine’s Facebook page in response to her Lush fundraising efforts. Ramsgate Labour Party Treasurer Graham Redwood posted jokingly on Constantine’s Facebook page about her Lush escapades “Now all we need is someone with a bathtub that fits 970 and we can have a mass CLP bubble bath!” I’m also surprised that Labour Party election agent for Thanet North, Keith Veness, “loved” one of Peet’s Facebook posts about the donation and sale of the Lush products. Veness is a very experienced election manager  and was Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s election agent for many years.  I can’t understand why, through his use of the Facebook love tag, he appears  to have endorsed actions which he surely must have known to have been highly questionable, if not illegal. 
 
This apparent neglect of election regulations by Constantine, Ara and Peet and they failure of the Ramsgate Labour to scrutinize and check upon their actions,  is a very serious matter which threatens to undermine public confidence in the conduct of democratic elections. Rather than brush this extremely important matter under the table and pretend it didn’t happen the Labour Party must launch an immediate investigation into what happened and why.

This is especially important because Constantine has been one of the most vociferous critics of Ramsgate MP, Craig MacKinlay’s alleged election expenses malpractices and has made many public comments about UKIP’s alleged lack of electoral honesty. Yet here we have someone who appears, on the basis of the evidence I have set out in my article, to have been  be acting in a similar manner to those she has publically criticised. Hopefully there will be no whitewash or cover up by the Labour Party. Our democracy must be open, transparent and fair and the Labour Party along with all other political parties, must ensure that it's candidates and agents play be the rules.

The Cover Up.
Unbeknown to Constantine, Ara and Peet the national press was taking an interest in their “syphoning  off” of  charitable donations and the subsequent unethical  and possibly unlawful “Lush for Labour” sale to raise funds for their KCC election campaign. I understand that a journalist from a national paper made contact with Constantine and Peet during the afternoon of Monday 20th  February asking  questions about what they had been up to with the Lush cosmetics. Within an hour of the journalist’s calls election agent  Peet had posted on her Facebook page “Happy to announce that Saturday’s sale of Lush products was so super successful that we are able to give a nice donation to not 1, not 2, but 3 local charities”. 

Apparently  worried by the trouble she might be  in and presumably anxious to get herself Constantine and Ara off the hook, she announced that some, or all, of the cash raised from the sale of the Lush products was destined to go to 3 local charities - the Salvation Army, Oasis and the Thanet Volunteer Bureau, instead of going, as originally intended and advertised, to Ramsgate Labour Party’s campaign to get Constantine and Ara’s elected to  KCC. They hoped that this rapid change in destination for  the Lush sale cash,  plus storm Doris and the Stoke and Copeland by-election results would spike the newspaper story. They  were right. The national newspaper never published. 
 
But in some ways this manoeuvre has made things much worse and may have backfired on Constantine, Ara and Peet.  Labour Party members and many others who bought the Lush products did so on the clear and well-publicised understanding that all the proceeds from the sale were going “to the Labour Party KCC Campaign - to replace UKIP in Ramsgate with Karen Constantine and Raushan Ara. However, apart from Peet’s Facebook post on 20 February, there appear to have been no other posts on social media from any of the trio giving a plausible explanation as to why it was suddenly decided to pass on the proceeds of the Lush  to local charities instead.  No doubt many of those people who thought they supporting a worthy cause are now wondering what happened to their money and why.
 
The truth is that Constantine, Ara, and Peet were caught red-handed by the national press engaging in what was an unethical, and possibly unlawful, election fundraising activity. Instead of being open and honest to all concerned and admitting that the national press had caught them out, they appear instead to have tried to the spike the newspaper story,  save their reputations and hopefully protect their political careers by giving the misleading impressions that it was they who had suddenly decided to pass the Lush sale cash to local charities, rather than the intervention of the national press.

My belief that this is the case is supported by the fact  that Constantine issued, via her union the GMB, a statement to thejournalist on 21 February which says that I fully apologise for not knowing the election funding laws regarding charities. Once the law was made clear to me and I realised there was a mistake I took immediate steps to ensure monies raised - £415 were donated to local charities. I am sorry that this happened and unreservedly apologise. This will not happen again”
 
To the best of my knowledge this statement has not been published on social media or anywhere else, which indicates to me that this was a “statement of last resort” by Constantine intended to limit damage to her reputation if the national newspaper had published the article, but to be kept under wraps and never allowed to see the light of day if the article wasn’t published.   

MY THOUGHTS
Democratic elections are a very precious civil right and those people presenting themselves as candidates and election agents should never seek to gain advantage by cheating and manipulating the system. Anyone caught doing so should be punished by the courts and/ or disciplined by their political party. 

What I have discovered and written about here is straight from the horse’s mouth and based upon pictures, comments and Facebook posts published by Karen Constantine, Kaz Peet, Jennie Matthias and others. The actions of these individuals have in my opinion been reprehensible and unethical. Had it  not been for the intervention of the of national press  Constantine, Ara and Peet would, I believe, have continued to fund Ramsgate Labour Party’s KCC election campaign by  selling off charitable donations intended for the use of vulnerable people. 

Constantine’s apology is hollow and meaningless. She has not said sorry to the hundreds of vulnerable people who, through her actions, have been deprived of products destined for them. Nor has she apologised to the many people who purchased the Lush products in good faith believing that the fundraising sale was legitimate and their money would go to the Ramsgate Labour Party KCC election campaign. Last but not least she has not apologised to  Lush for damaging their reputation by suggesting via her “Lush for Labour” slogan, used  presumably without the company's permission, that it supports the Labour Party. 
 
The Labour Party rule book says that its election candidates and elected councillors,  MPs & MEPs should “uphold the highest standards of probity and integrity in public life”.  I don’t think Constantine, Ara and Peet come anywhere close to meeting this standard. I believe that the Labour Party should suspend the trio and immediately launch a full investigation into their activities. If it was anything to do with me I would recommend that they all  be expelled from the party, or disallowed from  standing  as Labour candidates because I don’t believe that people who attempt to syphon off charitable donations to  fund their own political careers are  fit to occupy public office. 
 

 

19 comments:

  1. Ian...yet again you look out for the truth and integrity in the'powers that be'. I know first hand that Peet is made of bad stock. Its nice to see Karma unfold. You restore my faith in humanity every time. I thank you for that.
    I dont gamble however, I would put 50p on Peet being the instigator. I am biased of course but I have had a few run in's with this female.
    None of this suprises me, local Labour has had MANY dodgy goings on over the years.
    Keep up the good work ian x

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not believe for one moment that Raushan Ara would have knowingly supported the misuse of donated items, intended for homeless and vulnerable service users.

    She puts so much of her own time and her own money into helping homeless and vulnerable members of our local community .... she often opens up the doors of her restaurant to those in need, so they can enjoy a free meal, while they relax and have an enjoyable time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who? Certainly not the homeless and down and out's, A collection of quite well heeled locals having a discounted scoff up of Curry is NOT giving to the needy.

      Delete
    2. Raushan DOES give generously to the genuinely needy and homeless, and has been particularly supportive and giving to the Winter Shelter project in Thanet over the 2016/17 winter months.

      Delete
    3. 09:28 yes but 14:39 said she feeds the homeless at her restaurant? Surely councilors rather than donating their own funds - no matter how worthwhile - should be using TDC funds otherwise why are they councilors? £100k TDC salaries seems excessive for example.

      Delete
    4. Raushan is a candidate. She is not a Councillor.

      Delete
    5. Yes 08:31 should she stand down? Karen is a TDC councilor and GMB trade unionist so must have known the election rules. And the election agent Kaz?

      Delete
  3. HAVE YOU REPORTED THIS TO THE CHARITY COMMISSION ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well said Ian and dodgy that Karen is already a jp and TDC councillor. Surely a kcc councillor too is excessive. She's done nothing anyway

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lush for Labour is an outrageous abuse of the charity

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seems like Mr Driver has prosecuted and tried these public servants already !! Selling the items to raise funds for local charities is common sense !! The homeless and hungry have no need of posh toiletries above food and warmth !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite clearly you need to take off your rose coloured glasses and read the whole of the article...these two had no intention whatsoever of giving this money to charity, and that was the case, before they got caught out!!!

      Delete
    2. The only reason they gave the money to local charities is because they were caught out. They fully intended to use the sale of charity donated goods to fund their political campaign.

      Food banks give away toiletries because they know the homeless and hungry need toiletries. Lush are very clear that their donated goods are not to be sold but to be given away to those in need.

      Delete
  7. "Selling the items to raise funds for local charities is common sense !!" Yes it would have been had that been the original intention, but it wasn't was it? Lets fund the KCC campaign instead.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:56 they should resign - the charity items were sold to fund Labour which is illegal. the items should have been raffled/donated by the previous charity. Are you a Labour supporter trying to put a positive gloss on this?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Disgusting they did this - and who was the charity person who gave them the products to sell?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Posh Toiletries. You stuck up prick. It's one of the few "luxuries" the homeless can enjoy that can't be stolen from them. A hot shower or just a nice wash and brush up is so important. There but for the grace of God go you or I Debbie. Think about that next time you vote Labour and support these monstrous politicians who are on every gravy train going and know full well the devious and immoral deeds they've carried out. Maybe like you they have contempt for those less fortunate than themselves. For your information Lush are well known by anyone who has ever worked with the homeless and we know their contractual agreement but just to be sure every contribution comes with the same terms and conditions. I believe these women owe several thousands of pounds to either Lush or the local homeless.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Posh Toiletries. How condescending. It's one of the few "luxuries" the homeless can enjoy that can't be stolen from them. A hot shower or just a nice wash and brush up is so important. There but for the grace of God go you or I Debbie. Think about that next time you vote Labour and support these monstrous politicians who are on every gravy train going and know full well the devious and immoral deeds they've carried out. Maybe like you they have contempt for those less fortunate than themselves. For your information Lush are well known by anyone who has ever worked with the homeless and we know their contractual agreement but just to be sure every contribution comes with the same terms and conditions. I believe these women owe several thousands of pounds to either Lush or the local homeless.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Expect election organsier (TDC)and Kent Polcie to do stuff all.

    ReplyDelete