• I WAS baffled by the so-called evidence Martin Plaut provided (Labour selection was fair, December 30) to support his assertions.

He quotes the Labour whips as giving evidence, yet we know that the chief of these has been recently outed and forced to resign for using a fictitious Twitter account to slag off councillors and praise himself.

Evidence is said to be provided by branch secretaries. Is this made public? Certainly, as a Labour Party branch member in Gospel Oak, my views were never sought.

Mr Plaut is “sorry” for the fact that party members’ and constituents’ views were “upset”. Yet these are the very people who had first-hand knowledge of the performance of their councillors and many will have voted for them.

He also states that his “albeit minor (unspecified) role” in the process supported his view that it was “fair”. Hearsay evidence?

He claims that there was independent scrutiny of decisions and evidence. Who are these independent persons and who appointed them?

My advice to Mr Plaut and his mates (the new version of Tony’s cronies?) is, “when you are in a hole stop digging” and stick to the Camden Labour Party principle of “never complain, never explain”.

His “evidence” will have only added fuel to the views of those who have serious doubts about the “fairness” of the process.

MICK FARRANT, NW5