Steve Hedley’s statement – Not “Cleared of Domestic Violence” with a Case Still to Answer – Andy Littlechild RMT Rep

Statement from the RMT rep representing Caroline Leneghan in the abuse complaint


  1. Gerald

    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.

    • Andy Littlechild

      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.’

      … 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.

      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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s