It was with some consternation that I read articles in two national newspapers last week criticising the Labour Party for selecting candidates for the 2015 general election who, in the words of the articles, had been forced out in 2010 over expenses.

In particular they targeted Mr Dismore over his home switching, which they said cost the taxpayer some £65,000. The articles suggested he claimed £34,000 for his second home, a flat in West London, which according to the article housed his girlfriend’s homeopathy surgery and that he then flipped his designated second home saying “the West London flat had become his main residence”, and claimed another £31,000.

But as with so many of these newspaper articles, the reporters are quick to condemn but slow to present the evidence, quick to cast suspicion but slow to put the case into any context. It is cheap journalism which should not be tolerated.

As I recall, Mr Dismore put up a robust defence at the time and explained the rationale behind what he had done. And I believe that was accepted. No mention of this in the articles.

I know how difficult this will be for Mr Dismore – how difficult it will be for him to defend himself against half-reported slurs on his character – how the more he defends himself the more publicity he gives to the original accusations.

It is not fair that the likes of Mr Dismore, or any public figure for that matter, should have to suffer in this way. Newspaper readers should challenge what they are being told and insist on the truth rather than the story, insist on fact rather than spin.

It is not right that readers should be asked to simply accept what they are told by our newspapers, so often fact and truth give way in favour of a good story or a cheap headline, so often newspapers act as judge and jury presenting just enough evidence to support the case they are trying to prove, but without the balance and without the analysis, which is so important in good journalism.

Of course, if Mr Dismore is guilty of the reprehensible behaviour being attributed to him in the tabloids then he should stand up and face the music. But I for one am yet to be convinced of the veracity of the case being made against him. And I for one look for fairness from our journalists rather than vexatious attacks. Or am I expecting too much?

Cllr Hugh Rayner

Mayor of Barnet