Forum Topic

You are getting a bit of a whiz at this Jim. how did you do that?

Nigel Moore ● 7272d

Pork Pies... any update?  I'm getting hungry about the story?

Jim Lawes ● 7272d

Mr Andrews in this instance I must reluctantly agree with you, when you say it is now time for coming clean. I must also agree with you the back door has been well and truly bricked up. But having lived under Nu Labour for some considerable time I believe Pneumatic Drills will be the order of the day?

Anthony Sorbet ● 7275d

AnthonyI agree that Alan is loyal to his colleagues and I have said before that this is a quality I admire in him.However, in this particular situation he has a problem.  If the party didn't know that Vanessa gave false evidence it would be entitled to call her to account, but she is not the type to fall on her sword and take the blame if her colleagues were in on it.  She would be very dangerous if made a scapegoat, especially if she had given the evidence which she did under pressure from others.It is time for coming clean.  This time there is no other way out.

Phil Andrews ● 7275d

SarahI am grateful for your considered observations.  Let me use this opportunity to take a problem solving approach, and let us both see what becomes of it.  When/if a problem solving response is received from those of the opposite side of this debate, you will hopefully be in a stronger position from which to judge wherein the problem truly lies.The problem, from where we in the ICG are standing, is that our friends in the Labour Party like to persistently misrepresent members of the ICG as having a hidden far-right, racist political agenda.  This they do, presumably, because they believe that the circulation of such claims will work to our electoral detriment and, as a consequence, to their own electoral benefit.It is also possible that they believe it will have the effect of demoralising other ICG members, thus causing them to abandon ship.When called to account for their allegations they do not defend them, indeed they admit them to be untrue.  However they sidestep responsibility for them by claiming them to be the work of other, unknown individuals.Having escaped censure on these grounds, they then continue to make the allegations which they had previously admitted to be untrue, presumably in the belief that there are still people in the community who are mug enough to believe them in spite of all the adverse publicity which their dishonourable conduct has invited upon themselves.This is what we are up against.Now whatever Alan Sheerins or others may believe, I actually could not care less if he were to walk around every day of the week sporting a sandwich board reading "Phil Andrews was once a member of the National Front".  My former associations are common knowledge, and that they still haven't sussed this only serves to demonstrate what little contact they have with the wider community.The dispute lies not with any true and accurate reference to my own political history, but to imputations which they make as to the alleged political histories of other ICG members in the full knowledge that such imputations are untrue and inaccurate.  If they had reason to believe that people such as Paul Fisher and Andrew Sibley were secret agents for the National Front they would be prepared to defend their allegations in court.  That they are not prepared to defend them would suggest that they do not believe them to be true.  And if they do not believe them to be true yet continue to peddle them, then this makes them liars.  I can call them fibbers or porkies pie tellers if it sounds nicer, but liars is in essence what they remain.Your comments about you maybe having had reservations about the ICG as a result of "gossip" or tittle-tattle which these people are usually careful enough to inject into the community without leaving a trail which leads back to themselves are interesting.  You yourself have come to understand more about the ICG, and are now "fed up" with the sniping against it ("sniping" is actually an excellent choice of word, because snipers by definition try to stay hidden, and when they are seen and identified they usually end up being shot).  I truly believe this is part of the reason why New Labour was so soundly thrashed in Isleworth ward at the 2002 local elections.  Whilst voters may at first be persuaded to be wary of the ICG as a result of the gossip to which you refer, when first-hand experience of us enables them to learn the truth they tend to round on the gossip-mongers who had sought to mislead them in the first instance.The other aim of the tactic - to demoralise other ICG activists and supporters - clearly has not been achieved.  Indeed the policy has had the opposite effect in that it has hardened many ordinary, essentially non-political people against the gossip-mongers in a way in which no ideological difference of opinion ever could.  So, rather like a Scud missile, the "ICG as a front for the NF" tactic makes rather a lot of noise and can cause a limited amount of damage wherever it happens to land, but fulfils no meaningful strategic objective and in the process will often make its originator a lot of new enemies.That they persist with it in the knowledge that it has limited tactical value and with the passing of time actually becomes counter-productive suggests that their true mission is to sour community relations, concluding that if voters will not have them as their elected representatives then they will leave behind as much misery and fear as they can before they are forced to depart.  A kind of ethical scorched-earth policy, if you like.The matter of Vanessa's false testimony is important not because of her conduct personally, but because from their silence it would appear it has the endorsement of the local New Labour Party generally.  By refusing even to give an undertaking to stop making statements of this kind when they know them to be false, they are condemning her to whatever repercussions the subjects of their slander may consider are necessary to protect their good names and reputations.  To give an undertaking to stop lying, which most normal people would not consider too much to ask, would be a problem solving approach.As things stand the Labour Party are certainly doing Vanessa no favours right now.

Phil Andrews ● 7275d

[i]If I was in his shoes and I had clean hands I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftops.[i/]I don't think thats Mr. Sherrins way, as he always comes to a comrades rescue, when they are in a sticky situation, I find this very noble and generous in spirit of him.However Mrs.Smith has left him with little or no room for posturing this time.

Anthony Sorbet ● 7275d

Jim.  Your posting was very nice, thank you.I was going to say, sweet, but the PC brigade would probably latch on and use that as a distraction.  I had a discussion once with a guy from Sheffield who appeared to have a worry about Southerners taking umbrage over the term Love, or some other local term.  He spent some time on the subject so he was obviously having a problem with it, himself, but it doesn’t faze me.  There are more important things in life to think about.  I am a Southerner, born in Westminster, although I am not sure if that is a boast; but I prefer to think we are laid back over such things.Now are we sitting comfortably?I find this ‘political’ world very strange.  Under guise of ‘democracy’ and ‘open debate’ we constantly have demonstrated very closed minds and arguments with absolutely no want to take on a problem solving approach.  A problem solving approach might actually mean open discussion, and as this is what is lacking, the subject appears to go around and around in circles.I particularly find the emotive language used by some political personages strange.  As an observer, I would say it is used intentionally to inflame and stir and insult and wind up – with the intention not of ‘resolve’ but of  seeking to obtain a response in the same manner.  For example; should I feel the need to reply to Conal’s postings, in the same manner as he is talking to me, I might start with – “Conal, is it the male menopause which is causing you to ambulance chase?”.  I do, after all, like to think well of somebody, and should he be suffering, I would like to be considerate.See what I mean?Phil’s response was as always, detailed and full, and I am sure that his and Paul’s concerns are valid.  I am fed up with the sniping at Phil’s background – a background maketh the man, as far as I am concerned, or at least bits of the man.  I don’t know Phil, just in case anyone starts up the usual – ‘you must be a follower’ accusations.  So if this is a serious issue why not take it on, rather than add it to this (IMHO) stupidly-titled-meant-to-be-an-undermining-dig thread.Paul may have said tongue in cheek – “I am inclined to agree with you Sarah. Regular readers of this forum will know that a bitter court case was fought about a year and a half ago between Mrs Smith and her colleagues and a number of ICG members and this new evidence should not be watered down by being discussed on many threads.”But in essence, I agree with him.I too remember the election and a lot of hoo-ha about The Community Group and its ‘links’ to another group.  I remember regarding the ICG with a negative viewpoint, or at least a wariness which would not have been there, had the seed had not been sown.My wariness could have come from adverse publicity.  It might equally have been that following the admission of such a link, it was enough to cast a doubt and the handling of this information needed more consideration in order for the ICG to sail through it.  IMHO a view might be taken that people are far less trusting of Politicians and information such as this might indicate a back door way of electing people who you would not normally give the time of day to.I do not remember where the seed was sown, just that it had become gossip and discussion amongst people locally.  It may even have been from banner headlines which I didn’t bother to follow through and read.Had I been in the district where the ICG were asking for my vote, it would have influenced my vote.  The only way around this at that time might have been for the ICG to have spoken to me personally, in order defend their intentions.  I know much more about the ICG from this forum.  I equally understand more about the local Labour Group and 101 other groups and subjects.  I think Conals comments say more about him, than about me.  I take it as political speak that he uses the terms grudge, grow up, adult, education,  correcting, personal issues, move on, lecturing, and I am sure there are a few others, all equally as ridiculous.  If I were to single any of these out, it would be the education one.  Life has many experiences, and if I wrote mine into a book for you to read Conal, it would educate you.

Sarah Felstead ● 7275d

Perhaps Mrs Smith has complained about some of Conal Stewarts postings about her and the moderators have decided that as he was not involved with the court case then they should be deleted?I am glad that if this is so then they have not deleted Vanessa`s contentious posting and are allowing those who were affected at the time the opportunity to not be censored (so far)?At the same time it is a shame that any reasonable posting on this subject should be deleted as this case was widely reported in the local media and anyone who took an interest at the time i feel should be allowed to express their opinion on the matter.Perhaps some clarification by the Editor of this site would be welcome?

Paul Fisher ● 7276d

Well, Alan has been on the site since this was posted but he has passed over these questions so I think we have our answer.  If I was in his shoes and I had clean hands I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftops.

Phil Andrews ● 7276d

I'm disappointed that the moderators would appear to be removing many of Conal Stewart's postings on the subject of Vanessa Smith's most recent clanger.Censorship should be used sparingly in my view and if a comment isn't racist, insulting or offensive it should not be removed, whether we agree with it or not.Those who speak with honest belief have nothing to fear from open debate.

Phil Andrews ● 7276d

Great posting Jayne,but i fear we will get the wall of silence for a while on this matter.

Paul Fisher ● 7276d

Mr Sheerins, you supported Vanessa Smith at the court and have defended her behaviour ever since, arguing that she didn't know who published this material and what was on it.  As you can see we now know the truth.  I would like to know - 1. Did you know who published this material before Vanessa Smith's post?2. Did you know that she told lies in court, or did she lie to you and the party too?3. Do you and the party condone or condemn her actions?4. Will any internal disciplinary action be taken against her from bringing the party into disrepute?5. Do you indeed realise that by telling lies she has brought your party into disrepute?6. Will you disassociate yourself from Vanessa Smith's actions?7. Did the Labour legal team advise the Agent to stay away from court because they knew she had published the material?I'm sure that if your party is innocent you will be only too glad to clear these issues up.  No answer will inevitably lead others to the view that your party, and not just Vanessa Smith, are involved up to there necks in it.

Jayne Owen ● 7276d

Blimey!, and there's me off to the Farmers Market to buy a couple of Vanessas' popular homemade pies.......:-)

Nick Jenkins ● 7276d

Nicely put Jim - I'm not thinned skinned and I don't think Sarah is either but this guy takes it personally that anyone could disagree with him and when he can't manage to construct a counter-argument becomes abusive.

Justin Harris ● 7276d

Conal: In my view..some of YOUR "heavy verbal punching" on this Forum during the past few weeks...has been incompatible with what we have been used to during the last year.Maybe your style of communication brings good results for you, maybe others find it a joy to read, maybe you have a successful track record, and I don't wish to dampen your enthusiasm...but your several remarks to Sarah..I felt..were rude and unnecessary. You could have chosen alternative phrases..even some humour.You may disagree with what Sarah says..you may not understand her style of writing,her humour or what she is trying to say...but she needs a little RESPECT. She has contributed to this Forum quite busily during the last 12 months...and lifted it from its inactivity and lack of success.This Forum has seen many verbal boxing matches in past timesand no doubt there will be more. But threatening posters if they don't answer your question is out of order.However..we have to live with each other. What are your endeavours in the field of harmony? And do you ever utter words of knowledge of humour?

Jim Lawes ● 7276d

Sarah - I was on the wrong end of this kind of unpleasant bullying simply because I disagreed with 'Conal' on some arcane point about the Audit Commission. I didn't realise at the time that he has a thing about Hounslow Homes and therefore was angry at anybody who tried to defend them because they had recently received a three star weighting from the Audit Commission. I only saw this in HM Magazine today. He posted a message about me that was so abusive it had to be removed (which I never saw but it must have been pretty fruity given the standards of this forum). Now that I know that praise for Hounslow Homes gets his goat - I don't think that their achievement has been adequately publicised do you?

Justin Harris ● 7276d

Alan Sheerings is strangely silent, but then I don't expect him to add further to the blunder that the lady has made. These two threads were better than a dozen episodes of East Enders. Please don't stop now, anticipating the final outcome is mind blowing.

Anthony Sorbet ● 7276d

Sarah has lots of time to spend on her all day complaining to the forum moderator by all accounts.  Seems she isn't so much a cyber cop as a cyber snitch.

Conal Stewart ● 7276d

Or give up trying to be a cyber cop Sarah?

Anthony Sorbet ● 7276d

Perhaps you should stop bearing grudges Sarah.

Conal Stewart ● 7276d

Per-raps you should go back to bed, Conal.

Sarah Felstead ● 7276d

With all due respect Sarah, it's not polite to tell lies in court.  I consider it even less polite to supress reasonable public discourse on an issue that is in our interests whether I was there or not.  You are so very rude ( and wrong) to suggest otherwise.I can appreciate you have personal issues with me as I corrected you last week on two occassions and it appears that that annoys you.  Just try to be adult enough to move on and stop holding grudges. You can save your lecturing on what it means to be polite when you are adult enough to do that.Cheers.

Conal Stewart ● 7276d

Try being po-lite then.

Sarah Felstead ● 7276d

Not that you have anything to lose by it being discussed openly or fairly?

Conal Stewart ● 7276d

I do not see how this is a breach at all Sarah, the other thread is cluttered and now unreadable, it warrants fair discussion now that there is clear basis that she has lied.  I suggest you have an issue with me Sarah because I corrected you on a few issues last week.  You don't like being corrected much.If you aren't adult enough to deal with your issues with me without it spilling onto other threads then you shouldn't bother contributing to a forum.

Conal Stewart ● 7276d

With respect Sarah this is nonsense.Vanessa is a person who held public office for sixteen years, is Chair of a major political party in Isleworth ward and either aspires to hold public office once again or will preside over a selection process for three others who will be offering themselves up for election. In 2002 she distributed a leaflet containing vile personal allegations about people she didn't even know which she admitted in court were completely untrue, and which could have compromised the personal safety of her victims as well as causing unnecessary fear and anxiety amongst members of ethnic minority communities who were completely innocent in all of this.  Despite having admitted that her allegations were false, she has never had the grace to apologise either to her victims or to those members of the public.She successfully defended her actions in court by telling a District Judge that she did not know where the leafelts came from or who produced them, and that she distributed them without first having read them and without any knowledge as to their contents.  This is a matter of public record.Those of us who were familiar with Vanessa and the party she represents knew at the time she was telling the District Judge a pack of lies, but in the event because the burden of proof fell on us she was given the benefit of the very considerable doubt and the case was lost.Now Vanessa has revealed not only that she did indeed know who produced the leaflets, but that she was present when they were being produced.Conal, Morag and anybody else has a right to know whether the Labour Party, which seeks to represent them and you in office, knew that Vanessa was lying when she gave evidence and whether those, such as Alan Sheerins, who stood by her in court were complicit in her lies or whether they were surprised by her revelations.  If the latter, we all have a right to know whether the Labour Party plans to condemn her actions, attempt to justify them or just remain silent as is its usual policy when it knows it is in the wrong.Despite her ridiculous claims to have said something different to what she actually said in her posting yesterday and which is still there for everybody to see, Vanessa has been caught absolutely bang to rights and she and everybody else knows it.  No matter how much she may want this issue to go away, it will not.  This is not, as she will suggest, because we are spiteful or vindictive, it is because she and people such as Alan Sheerins continue to make the allegations which they admitted in court to be false and show no signs of altering their behaviour.  At the recent general election they pulled a similar stunt by producing a spoof leaflet which was clearly designed to mislead members of the public into believing that it had been published by the Liberal Democrats.  They give an impression that they still do not understand what is wrong with telling people lies.Speaking personally, I have no urge or desire to see Vanessa behind bars but I will, to protect my colleagues' good names, see to it that her faux pas is given the maximum publicity.  I cannot speak for other members of my group who have been the victims of hers and the Labour Party's lies, and how each of them chooses to deal with this will be a matter of personal conscience.An undertaking from the Labour Party to at least stop lying would go some way towards placating them, but knowing the people concerned no such undertaking is likely to be forthcoming.Therefore this remains an issue, and I am frankly surprised and disappointed that you consider it to be none of Conal's business whether those who seek to represent us all in office are honest people or pathological liars.

Phil Andrews ● 7276d

I am inclined to agree with you Sarah.Regular readers of this forum will know that a bitter court case was fought about a year and a half ago between Mrs Smith and her colleagues and a number of ICG members and this new evidence should not be watered down by being discussed on many threads.

Paul Fisher ● 7276d

I think you should have kept the topic within the thread it appears under, or phrased your topic more carefully.Vanessa has clearly said that you weren't there, so adding your thoughts and comments when it is clearly a discussion between a couple of people is inappropriate.  I suggest your posting is in breach of the code of conduct and this thread should be removed.

Sarah Felstead ● 7276d