Forum Topic

Welcome back Alan, now about this perjury business (a.k.a. The Return of the Prodigal Son)

I see that Alan Sheerins has resurfaced (under one of the "Brentford Carnival" threads) after weeks of hiding away following the admission on this forum by his (still) fellow Labour Party officer Vanessa Smith to having lied when giving evidence to Brentford County Court at the Malicious Falsehood hearing which took place late in 2003.Not wishing to deflect attention from a worthy topic, I thought I would start a new thread in the hope that we might at last be able to obtain the official party view on Vanessa's actions.Some questions for you then, Alan, before you disappear into the night again:1. Were you aware at the time of the court hearing (which you attended) that the evidence which your colleague gave was false and, if so, did you make any effort to discourage her from her course of action?2. Now that Vanessa's perjury is a matter of established fact, do you condone or condemn her actions?3. Does the Labour Party itself condone or condemn Vanessa's actions and, if the latter, what action if any will it be taking in respect of the office which she continues to hold within the party?4. Given that Vanessa admitted in court that the accusations levelled in her leaflet against at least six members of the ICG were untrue, and given that in spite of this it now transpires that she was present when the false accusations were being compiled for distribution, would you not agree that these six people at least are now entitled to an apology from the Labour Party for the allegations which were circulated against them in the knowledge that they were false?5. Oh to hell with it Al, what we both know I'm getting at is this - was the Labour Party itself up to its knees, its knackers or its neck in this wilful assassination of rival candidates' characters and in the "nothing to do with us, guv!" lies with which you subsequently managed to hoodwink a District Judge?6. On the face of it, in the light of all the new evidence do you still disagree with my observations that said District Judge was "naive" in accepting the protestations by Vanessa and her colleagues that they had "no idea who was responsible for producing the leaflet"?7. Seeing that Labour's recent admission already enjoys wide circulation in Isleworth (despite it having received the "silent treatment" from the local press to which we are now accustomed) and will continue to do so, will you have the bare-faced cheek to ever set foot here again whilst sporting your party's now soiled and discredited red rosette?8. Finally, as you have now been well and truly caught out and many of the victims of your smears are now agitating for legal action to be taken in respect of Vanessa's admission of perjury, have either Vanessa or yourself the wit to understand that now might be a good time for trying to find a sensible way to put all this behind us for once and for all rather than pig-headedly, and stupidly, ignoring the whole thing in the somewhat unlikely hope that it will all just go away?If I don't receive an answer to my questions beforehand Alan, let me take this opportunity to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year.

Phil Andrews ● 7246d17 Comments

The following message to Vanessa Smith and the local Labour Party was sent by Caroline Andrews, Pat Cole, Paul Fisher, Cheryl Ann-Khan, Brenda Muston and Fred Muston to the Brentford, Chiswick & Isleworth Times last week.  Regrettably, the paper declined to publish it.  Therefore we have reproduced it below, and it will also appear shortly on the ICG website at www.communitygroup.org.uk.The above are the six ICG officers against whom the Labour Party ADMITTED the accusations contained in their election leaflet were groundless.Those concerned should take note that this letter will be the last attempt by the victims of the allegations to reach a sensible compromise with the local Labour Party on this matter before further action is embarked upon.  They should be clear that if they wish this matter to go away, their continued silence is not an option:"Dear Editor "Some time ago your newspaper gave widespread coverage to a claim for malicious falsehood made by the undersigned against four prominent local members of the Labour Party through Brentford County Court. "The claim was in respect of a leaflet circulated by the four in which we were each accused of having a secret agenda to persecute members of ethnic minority groups, and which held that only by voting Labour could the potential victims of our foul intentions protect their interests. "Having declined to avail themselves of several opportunities to withdraw the allegations, we as a last resort issued claims for malicious falsehood against them.  "We were aware at the time that malicious falsehood was far more difficult to prove than libel, but not having the benefit of a vast party machine behind us we were compelled to work within our means to clear our names.  In particular we needed to establish not only that the allegations against us were false, but that the defendants knew they were false and circulated them maliciously. "As some of your readers will be aware the defendants freely admitted that the allegations made against the undersigned were false, but protested that the leaflet had been produced by persons unknown and that they had distributed it in complete ignorance of its contents.  Although most reasonable people would consider such a claim to be laughable, the onus was on us to prove that this was not the case.  Obviously we couldn't, and so we were unable to prove malice and the case fell. "With undue haste the Labour Party issued a statement to the local press gloating about having been 'vindicated' in their circulation of the leaflet.  There was no sense of embarrassment or shame at having circulated vile accusations against people they did not know which they had admitted were groundless. "This was some time ago.  However, one of the Labour Party members in question, former councillor Vanessa Smith, recently gave the following response to a question on a local internet forum about the role of her election agent in the production of the leaflet: "'I was present, as were quite a few other people, when the then Agent was actually putting the thing together on the desktop, she could not have been that 'surprised' as she typed it up as well!' "Obviously this is completely the opposite of what she had told the court, under oath, where she had insisted that she had had no idea who had produced the leaflet and knew nothing of its contents when she had circulated it around Isleworth.  This is a matter of public record.  Typically, calls for an explanation from both herself and her party, on behalf of which she continues to hold office, have met with a stony silence. "It goes without saying that we are now seeking legal advice in respect of Mrs. Smith's admission that she, and possibly others, gave false evidence during the hearing.  We would, however, be grateful for a statement of Mrs. Smith's position and that of the Labour Party itself before proceeding. "What concerns us in particular is not the actions of Mrs. Smith, deplorable though they have been, but whether or not her party and its local officers approved of or even colluded with her when she misled the District Judge, and whether they are happy to continue to support her and to reward her with public office following her admission without even asking her for an explanation. "We are not vindictive people.  We gave Mrs. Smith and her colleagues ample opportunity to retract the allegations made against us before proceeding with our claim.  Only they can explain the difficulty which they still apparently have in distancing themselves from accusations which they admit were false and which they claimed in court they did not make and knew nothing about.  After everything we have been put through, we would still settle for an apology were the Labour Party big enough to give it. "Whatever view some others might take, the undersigned believe that honesty is still an important commodity in local politics and that the electorate is entitled to an explanation from the Labour Party for what, in the absence of such, would appear to be a deliberate and organised deception perpetrated at their expense. "We still desire to resolve this matter amicably for once and for all, but we will not wait forever for the Labour Party to do the decent thing.  It will be reasonable for us to presume from its further silence that it and its local officers consider wilful character assassination and perjury to be legitimate means of political engagement, and will consider our response accordingly. "Yours sincerely Caroline AndrewsPat ColePaul FisherCheryl-Ann KhanBrenda MustonCouncillor Fred Muston The Community Group (ICG)."

Phil Andrews ● 7230d

JimOn a personal level I don't have a problem with Alan (indeed I owe him a pint), nor for that matter with Vanessa.  My difficulty is that on a political level, they are the local representatives of an organisation which appears to take the view that wilful character assassination, misrepresentation and dishonesty are legitimate means through which to engage those whom they consider to be their political opponents.  That is what differentiates them from the ICG, which believes that whatever our differences certain standards must be maintained when debating the issues.I dislike unpleasantness of any kind.  I much prefer reasoned debate because I am confident that I can defend my thoughts and actions intelligently without having to resort to such methods.  However, I would ask you to put yourself into the position of the ICG organisers and candidates who have been the victims of this revolting campaign of vilification which we have been discussing.Just imagine for a moment that I had circulated a leaflet to your immediate neighbours informing them that you wished them harm and intended to persecute them.  I then protest that I had distributed the leaflet without any knowledge of what was written on it, freely admit that the accusations contained in it were untrue but refuse nevertheless to apologise for circulating said allegations nor indeed even to disassociate myself from them.Having managed to hoodwink a District Judge into accepting my version of events, I then run to the local press to boast that I have "won" a case against you and that the allegations made against you (which I had admitted in court to be untrue) have thus been vindicated.Then you discover that I have lied about my involvement with the leaflet, and that I had indeed known that the leaflet contained allegations against you which I knew to be groundless when I had distributed it around your neighbourhood.  Yet still I refuse to comment, far less to acknowledge that I have actually done anything wrong.  The organisation which I represent stands by me, implying by its silence its approval of my actions.  I maintain my position of authority within the organisation, and continue to be its official spokesperson in a community which I once represented and may aspire to do so again.On a scale of one to ten, how highly would you rate the integrity of such an organisation and the people who are currently running it?

Phil Andrews ● 7237d