DanLike the proverbial curate's egg, your posting IMHO is good in parts but distinctly off in others.I would wholeheartedly agree that use of the courts should ordinarily be avoided by people who operate in the political arena. The individuals involved in the malicious falsehood case did indeed take action as individuals, not as the ICG. However I am sure that any reasonable person would agree that the circulation of leaflets making accusations of the kind which these contained was not an ordinary political act committed by ordinary people, especially when one considers that the purveyors of this filth freely admitted their allegations to be completely false - yet flatly refused to apologise for or disasscoiate themselves from them all the same.Maybe I am old-fashioned or naive, but I still happen to believe that honesty and openness are qualities which voters are entitled to expect in those who seek their support, and that when an organisation quite clearly conducts itself over a prolonged period of time in a way which is manifestly dishonest and underhand, then voters have a right to know. Once said voters are in possession of such knowledge, they are then able to make an informed decision. As you rightly say, many will continue to vote Labour regardless. Their choice, but they should be allowed to do so from a position of knowledge, not one of ignorance.It is, with respect, grotesquely wide of the mark to suggest that Vanessa Smith has been bullied out of public debate on this forum. Indeed, bullying Vanessa out of doing anything she pleases is something which is well beyond my capablilities.Vanessa made an extraordinarily candid posting, one which I imagine she must deeply regret, in which she admitted to having lied under oath in a court of law when giving evidence in respect of the mal-fal case referred to above. When asked for clarification both her and her party colleagues simply clammed up, as they did over the matter of Ann Keen's expenses. These matters could have been dealt with months ago and put to bed for once and for all, allowing us to get on with debating more constructive issues. They continue to be raised only because those whose explanations we are entitled to expect refuse to discuss them.As a politician, Vanessa has to expect her actions to be held up to scrutiny. And - much more importantly - as she is still an office holder within the local Labour hierarchy, her party must also expect to be asked why it continues to give its uncritical support to somebody who has committed such a obviously (to everybody else) dishonest act.Vanessa, Alan Sheerins or any other spokespeople for the Labour Party are free to post on this forum at any time they choose. They have excluded themselves in preference to addressing important questions relating to their public conduct. Are you seriously suggesting Dan that we should stop asking them such questions just so that they can come back to the forum and try to engage others whilst reserving for themselves the right to ignore any questions about their own activities which they might consider inconvenient?If they have nothing to hide they should come back and engage us in constructive debate. If they do have something to hide then the public whose support they seek has a right to try to get to the bottom of it. Political debate is only "suppressed" when those who engage in it avoid the issues. When somebody asks me a question they are entitled to an answer. I am not so arrogant as to presume the right to pick and choose which issues I will debate and which I will ignore all questions on. Why then should others assume for themselves such a right? You say that Labour members visit the forum to "try to raise issues". Should we only discuss their issues, whilst allowing them the exclusive right to plead the Fifth Amendment over those raised by others?Like you Dan I dislike political point-scoring as a substitute for honest debate. I would far rather discuss the issues openly and on their individual merits. However when one organisation is so clearly operating outside of normally accepted bounds of decency I will not keep quiet and let it pass just because it happens to be inconvenient for them, or because it deprives a few of the entertainment which their postings would sometimes provide.Dan, I believe that if you were to really think these issues through to their logical conclusions then you would largely agree with me. It is not "point-scoring" to draw the voting public's attention to the fact when they are being cheated and lied to. There can be no justification at all for brushing matters of this kind under the carpet.These important matters which have been raised can be discussed and dealt with for once and for all, or they can be ignored. But ignoring them will not make them go away. The reaction to our revelations during the recent by-election campaign in Osterley & Spring Grove, which in my opinion was a major contributing factor towards Labour's heavy defeat, would seem to contradict your apparent belief that the voters are unconcerned about them.If they are not addressed before then, we will see next year what the voters of Isleworth and other wards think about them too.
Phil Andrews ● 7257d