Forum Topic

Some answers from Alan Sheerins please

The message below was posted on this site earlier this morning, then vanished mysteriously.  Because of the recent farcical events on this forum I have taken it upon myself to print new messages, where I am able to do so before they disappear again.Underneath this message are a serious of questions for Alan Sheerins, the Labour Party Chair and spokesperson.Dear Alan (Sheerins)Would you be so kind as to clarify the following?;1. Is the e-mail which appears to have been reproduced verbatim genuine?If so, I would like answers to the following further questions:2. You say you "agree" with Mr. Barry's sentiments.  Is it then your own view that Simon Anderson, Paul Fisher, Andrew Sibley, Sarah Felstead, Jim Lawes, Justin and myself should be excluded from using this forum, and if so on what grounds?3. You say that on the ICG's forum users do not post under their own names.  Could you please give some examples (this site can be viewed at www.icgforum.org.uk - users please visit at make up your own minds)?4. You say that "On the IVYTAG website one of our activists who is gay, has had this fact made obvious".  Could you please point out where?In any event, is the gentleman to which you refer not the Chair of Outwest (www.outwest.org.uk), formerly the Hounslow Lesbian and Gay Group, which as well as hosting a website on which his name and contact details are openly displayed frequently publishes leaflets and issues statements to newspapers on which his name and details are also published?  Would you agree that these are not the actions of a man who wishes his sexuality to remain a secret?5. You say that IVYTAG has published his photograph.  Could you confirm that the photograph was taken directly from "Housing News", a newspaper which is distributed free of charge (i.e. at the taxpayer's expense) to all local authority tenants in the borough, and was in fact a "plug" by the same organisation (Managing Director Chris Langstaff) for a man who is your prospective council candidate for Isleworth?  Does his photograph not appear on the Outwest website?  Will you not be publishing his photograph during his election campaign? 6. Would you not agree that the imputation contained in your e-mail is that the ICG is homophobic, and is in some way targeting your candidate on account of his sexuality?  If so, could you provide substantive examples?  Or would I be more correct in saying that you have sought desperately to turn this man's sexuality into an issue with the ICG and have failed miserably because for the ICG - which has many gay members and supporters, particularly on Ivybridge - it is simply not an issue? Some answers, preferably this side of the election, would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you in anticipation of your fullest co-operation.PS Mods - I shall be taking a hard copy of this posting as soon as it is uploaded.

Phil Andrews ● 7131d47 Comments

Sorry realized what I did I posted my message under a diffrent thread this is what I wanted to ask...I tried to get my Fundraisers into the H&M and they Refused as did Hounslow Homes for the Hounslow Homes News.I also was told We could not put in a piece about ivytag having a website and forum for local residents.If the H&M is to inform Residents on Local issues etc why are we refused to place pieces in it I mean the Hounslow Homes News says if you have a story for them to contact them but they never print it unless it involves 1 of there groups, Labour or themselves...WHY?

Simon Anderson ● 7105d

Did my last message get Deleated???

Simon Anderson ● 7105d

Jim/PaulI asked this question at Borough Council and was told that no refund had been applied for.  As the Labour Party has withheld 50% of its bill then, whether it was indeed by accident or design, it is now an established and admitted fact that the taxpayer subsidised the distribution of the Labour Party material.

Phil Andrews ● 7106d

I would hazard a guess Jim and say it was not pursued as it was only Council Taxpayers cash anyway.

Paul Fisher ● 7106d

Thanks for your reply.You gave a clear explanation of the financial arithmetic of the matter...HM magazine etc.Without wishing to prolong the issue though...I wondered whether HM magazine or its publisher received a partial refund  as its "exclusive/sole item" grade of service from Regal Distributors was abused.

Jim Lawes ● 7106d

Again thank you Matt for shedding some light on this matter which your Vice-Chair (Campaigns) has been dodging for his own reasons!!.

Paul Fisher ● 7106d

Thank you very much indeed for this Matt.  In this spirit of openness, which you bring like a breath of fresh air to your party's dealings in this locality, I would be grateful if you would be able to clear up the following for me:1. Why has Alan Sheerins, as Chair of the local party, not been able/willing to produce this statement for the benefit of the many who have asked questions on this forum, and of the many more elsewhere in the borough who will have been concerned?2. Why were the Labour Group leadership unable to give this account of events when I raised the matter at Borough Council?  After all they had, thanks to their manipulation of the meetings to prevent discussion of it at the first two attempts, several months' notice of my question in which to prepare an answer.3. Why did Alan Sheerins claim on this forum that Labour only paid 50% of the bill due to the co-delivery cock-up rather than admitting, as you very decently have, that payment was withheld only because some of the leaflets were not delivered?4. Is your party aware that disputed claims, as well as settled claims, need to be entered onto a return of expenses under election law?The purpose of my letter to the Chief Executive is to ensure that there is no repetition of this incident.  As you correctly imply in your last paragraph, there is nothing for Labour to fear from this if this was all an innocent mistake.

Phil Andrews ● 7106d

Don't worry, Sarah, happy to help where possible. First, we have an official statement...During the GLA election in 2004 a Labour Party leaflet was mistakenly delivered along with copies of HM Magazine by a distribution company . The issue was investigated by  the Borough Solicitor (an independent civil servant) who established that there was no arrangement between the Labour Party and the HM Magazine for co-delivery of theirleaflets. This was confirmed by the distribution company. The Labour Party paid 50% of the cost of the leaflet delivery to the distribution company at the time of ordering. However they failed to deliver the leaflet in some of the areas agreed. The Labour Party refused to make further payments. The issue has not yet been settled between the Labour Party and the distributors. Because of the dispute the initial 50%  payment was not reported to the London Region of the Labour Party who were responsible for making the election expenses return.  Consequently this payment was missed from the election expenses return.  We have since tightened our procedures to help ensure that election expense returns are as accurate as possible.No furthur statement will be made on this matter".I'll briefly ignore that last bit. This was cock-up rather than conspiracy, and for what it's worth I agree with the content of Phil's proposed letter to the Chief Executive.

Matt Harmer ● 7106d

"Sarah's comments seem inconsistent with her own campaign to get the paving slabs matter sorted out."JimYou said it before I could.  Sarah's campaign is admirable and long may she continue with it.  If ever she needs my help with it she only needs to ask.  However, it is not the only issue in Hounslow and I confess to being a tad disappointed by her comments here.  Like we say so often, if a topic doesn't interest you, just pass it by!I do not accept that the apparent misappropriation of public funds by the ruling political group, possibly with the collusion of employees of the council, is not an issue which would be of interest to the wider community beyond the "shadowy world" which I allegedly inhabit.  Some will understand that, far from being part of such a world, what we are actually doing is to try to open up the process and expose the shadowy world in which New Labour seems to thrive to the light of day.  That is the sole purpose of our very existence.  That is why the ICG was formed in the first place.  Unlike the parties of the established "opposition", we do not have a political ideology of our own.To imply that we and they are in some way the same and that our attempts to throw some light on their subterranean activities is part of some kind of two-way political parry and thrust, between two parties each as unscrupulous and devious as each other in the quest for political advantage, is grotesque.To imply that the ongoing battle between New Labour and the ICG is some kind of political quarrel between two conflicting ideologies is to miss the point completely.Our successful intervention in an election - such as in Isleworth in 2002 and hopefully beyond Isleworth next year - should not be viewed as a change of political direction but rather should be likened to an exorcism.  There should be no dark corners or shadowy worlds in the local political process, and we are determined that there will not be.I maintain that the apparent misuse of public funds by the ruling group on the council for electoral gain is a matter of public concern throughout the borough, certainly at least as much so as the pavements in Sarah's street.We should all post on those issues which interest us, and leave others to discuss those which don't.  This forum would be a dull place indeed if it was left to one or other of us to decide what visitors should read on the basis of our own personal preferences.

Phil Andrews ● 7110d

Well said Paul and Phil.Sarah's comments seem inconsistent with her own campaign to get the paving slabs matter sorted out.Alan entered into a discussion on this Forum about the HM magazine matter and his answers and contributions were both important and revealing.  We were not discussing vague policy matters. We were trying to tally up specific financial data which we were unable to do.Presumably it would have been a Labour Party Committee/ Membership information matter..that perhaps would have been in the knowledge of Matt.So Sarah..on this..I disagree with you.  We are dealing with perhaps an abuse of local authority services..for which you and I are paying. This Forum is an appropriate medium..or should be ..for getting some answers.

Jim Lawes ● 7110d

"I do not pretend to understand why Alan Sheerins has not answered you but continued in the same vein.  It seems that it is a shadowy world politicians occupy as tax payers money is poured down the drain with little accountability and is certainly not something that an ordinary person would want to venture into."But Sarah,some ordinary people have decided to make a stand and do something to change the way our hard earned money is frittered away by those who we were once expected to respect but keep our noses out.This is the real reason why established organisations such as Alans local Labour Party spend so much time attacking these ordinary people because of the threat to their private decision making club which excludes all but those prepared to follow their doctrine.Why is it that even in this day and age,we are conditioned to allow local polititions to carry on regardless however much we moan and complain about them because we believe we are not or never could be part of that exclusive club which has a sign on the door saying closed to the likes of you and me.In Isleworth the ordinary people have gatecrashed the private party and with each revelation about what we have put up with for years from Hounslow Council,the numbers taking an active interest in local affairs increases year on year which surely must be healthy for local communitys and not a threat as Alan and his pals would have us all believe?

Paul Fisher ● 7110d

I think I am a little tired of how this all takes a political slant.  At the risk of boring you all to tears as I repeat myself there is a distinct pattern where a political person does or says something and then fires the guns at somebody else saying that they in fact said it or did it.Your comment Phil "I would respectfully ask though Sarah that you don't, consciously or subconsciously, seek to trivialise or marginalise an issue which is of major public concern".  This is your subject, or rather is a subject which I am not involved, so I would not do such thing.  I would however voice the opinion that by tackling this in this manner you are doing just that.  The situation as you have described it is very very serious and should have been dealt with formally and quickly in order to resolve the issue as I think you are suggesting that there has been a criminal act.  Jumping on people every now and again when the forum goes quiet or somebody wishes to stir things up is not the answer.Bringing Matt into the equation when you already have a list of key players would only be suitable if you are making a formal approach to him to help sort this out, in which case you would surely be doing this away from the forum not creating a situation whereby you are repeating episodes of a soap opera.I do not pretend to understand why Alan Sheerins has not answered you but continued in the same vein.  It seems that it is a shadowy world politicians occupy as tax payers money is poured down the drain with little accountability and is certainly not something that an ordinary person would want to venture into.

Sarah Felstead ● 7110d

SarahFor my part I'm not seriously trying to draw Matt into anything, just asking whether or not he could throw any light onto this issue from his unusual perspective as a new, and subsequently unblemished spokesperson for his political party.  To my knowledge nobody is suggesting for one second that Matt had any involvement with the incident under discussion.I would respectfully ask though Sarah that you don't, consciously or subconsciously, seek to trivialise or marginalise an issue which is of major public concern (i.e. the apparent misappropriation of public funds) which was shamefully suppressed by the local news media, presumably under political pressure of some kind, and effectively ignored by the senior management at the the local authority.Most of us are already familiar with the various postal vote scams which New Labour seems to be introducing with increasing regularity into our political process.  I'm sure I am not the only person who is concerned that the local elections next May should be conducted properly and without Council Tax payers' money being misused to give an improper and unlawful advantage to any one political party.

Phil Andrews ● 7111d

...that you don't seriously draw Matt into this by asking him to join in something which is well established and with a group of key players?Matt has drawn up a list of working issues, in a short time so is pretty occupied as it is ... ...!  ;-)

Sarah Felstead ● 7111d

SimonWhat practical suggestions did he make for getting everybody working together when you had the first meeting?

Phil Andrews ● 7111d

Not surprised he hasnt replied he hasnt replied to me either concerning another meeting to Discuss the ways in getting all the Groups working together on Ivybridge as like he promised.

Simon Anderson ● 7111d

JimAny answers which Matt could give us would of course be helpful, although please don't forget that I still have a copy of New Labour's expense returns for that election, which make no mention whatsoever of any payments to (or payments withheld from) Regal Distribution.If Alan Sheerins is telling us the truth about Labour's contract with Regal, his party would have been required under electoral law to have included all details in these returns.So, it is a demonstrable and indisputable fact that either:1. New Labour did have a contract with Regal, and has therefore committed a criminal offence by failing to declare it, or2. New Labour did not have a contract with Regal, in which case the expense returns are correct and Alan Sheerins has told us a pack of lies.Users will recall that when asked for clarification Alan pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and after a period of time certain occasional users of this forum intervened in the debate to insist that we stop asking questions.I have asked the London Borough of Hounslow for precise details of HM Magazine's delivery schedule during the run-up to next year's local elections, and will be seeking a categorical assurance from the Chief Executive that when it is distributed to households within the borough it will not be accompanied by Labour Party election material.  Anything short of such an assurance will be extensively publicised, and if the local news media embargoes the whole issue as it did on the last occasion we have the means to publicise it ourselves.  I would imagine that opposition political parties outside of the ICG's area of operation would make use of any information which I could, and will, provide.

Phil Andrews ● 7111d

"Alan's varying figures,from what I recollect, did not reconcile..suggesting a financial cover-up."A very big understatement in my opinion Jim!

Paul Fisher ● 7111d

Matt is being even more helpful and active these days in helping Forum posters with their queries...and for that we are  very grateful.Direct line to Board members at West Middx Hospital, hot lines to Ann Keen's office perhaps, major access to key people at the Civic Centre etc etc etc.Could Matt clear up one cloudy issue for me..about which I am not able to enjoy closure?  It's the financial statement to do with the Hounslow Magazine/Labour Party leaflets issue.What was or wasn't paid to the Leaflet Disributors..and what expenditure figure was shown in the local Labour Party accounts. Did Hounslow Council receive a rebate?Alan's varying figures,from what I recollect, did not reconcile..suggesting a financial cover-up.

Jim Lawes ● 7111d

I guess Mr Sheerins must be on holiday as he would have answered the questions by now!!

Paul Fisher ● 7111d

Okay - thanks for clarifying - was beginning to think my brain had frostbite!

Sarah Felstead ● 7119d

Sorry Sarah - I can see how it wouldn't make sense out of context. When I said the team were doing a lousy job, it was a reference to Matt's earlier post in which he takes up my point that as a propaganda tool for the Labour party, BrentfordTW8.com isn't very effective. It was meant as a compliment!

Vikesh Sodha ● 7119d

SarahYou need to have been following recent events and postings very closely to have made any sense of it.  I have (I think!) and it seemed a reasonable comment to me.

Phil Andrews ● 7119d

Oh goodness - I read that several times and just could not understand it - should I understand it, or not bother, chaps?

Sarah Felstead ● 7119d

Matt and Seema - thanks for the background info. Please carry on doing the lousy job that you have been doing so far (in the sense of promoting party political interests). It is refreshing to see people just getting on with doing something good locally without seeing it as a means to do down someone they disagree with.

Justin Harris ● 7119d

Hi Matt - hope all is going well with you.  Sarah

Sarah Felstead ● 7120d

That's good to hear.Thanks very much indeed for all your efforts. I help moderate another forum on a technical site and you always get the occasional moron coming along being awkward. They are so thick they don't realise it takes you a second to delete what it took them at least a minute to write. Still it is a real pain at times. Bear in mind some ISPs are quite helpful in dealing with this sort of behaviour. I've managed to get people's accounts closed down and lost them their broadband connection and got some individuals to cough up for costs. If people are doing this sort of thing from their work PC it is usually a sackable offence. Your log files will have all the details. If you need any pointers I'd be delighted to help.

Andy Jones ● 7120d

Hi Sarah - talking to people at NeighbourNet Towers, the problem seems to have simply been the overwhelming number of posts from people who don't exist, or who do exist but aren't following the Code of Conduct, or who...well, you know what I mean. As another poster pointed out, innocent messages can get deleted if they follow on from a post that needs to be taken off.What I can promise you is that no thread has ever been removed because someone didn't like the politics of the person posting the message. It is true that the original founder of the TW8 site, Seema Malhotra, and myself are both Labour Party members and activists. But it was not set up to be, and has never been used as, a Party mouthpiece - indeed, as Justin Harris points out, if that's what we set out to do then we made a pretty lousy job of it!

Matt Harmer ● 7120d

"Isn't it the case that the Brentford Chiswick and Isleworth Labour are sponsors of this website"If that's true it is pretty good of them to provide us with a useful local resource. You'd never guess from the news coverage which often focuses on things that they probably wouldn't like discussed. There are two or three items on the front page currently that don't really put them in a favourable light and there is a complete absence of party propaganda. As for this forum about half the messages seem to be from political opponents of theirs slagging them off and it would appear, despite what some might say that you are perfectly at liberty to call Tony Blair whatever you like. It seems a strange way to spend the dues of the party faithful but we owe them a thank you for funding this site if what you say is correct.PS I seemed to have annoyed Alan Barry. If he really is the official voice of the Labour party and I am about to be thrown off can he take into account the nice things I said above and let me stay?

Justin Harris ● 7120d

Come back Matt!  ;-)  Pleeeeeeeeeese!

Sarah Felstead ● 7120d

Jim,I am inclined to agree with you when you say that something odd is going on on this forum. It seems that since Mat Harmer has left things have got a little out of hand. I go back to my original point about using your real name when posting on this forum. I have never posted on this forum under an assumed name. Instead I try to put my point across in a reasonable way without any underhand back stabbing that seems to be the norm for some people.

Andrew Sibley ● 7120d

Why is it people from labour never return your messages?First Ann ignores me now Alan ignores me after I asked when our next meeting will be..At least if you leave a message for Cllr Andrews he gets back to you and he helps.All these story's of late in the papers lately concerning the Labour party and what they are doing for our community...firstly these things were first started by Cllr Andrews and secondly anyone knows that the 267 is rubbish and residents would sign a petition to improve it what ever party or whom ever collects it so for Labour to say its there idea thats rubbish.As to Ivybridge crossing again a petition was submitted years ago to Hounslow Homes by Cllr Andrews but it was rejected as soon as IVYTAG start to resurrect it again labour SAY they got one and gave it to Mr Langstaff of Hounslow homes and he agreed top it staright away smells fishy that does.I wonder if Labour could come up withere own ideas instead of copying others or piching others ideas. I really cant wait till next elections when Phil gets in and makes changes as we all know he will give all residents a fair ride and not lie to them.

Simon Anderson ● 7121d

Andrew:Yes that was an odd exchange between those two gentleman..and I don't feel too comfortable about it either.Note that there hasn't been any explanation! Typical?Something is not quite right. We'll find out one day..but maybe that is what Cllr Phil Andrews is trying to explain to everyone! I must listen to him more carefully. I can understand almost every one of his utterings..yet the writings of Alan Sherrins and Ann Keen's staff leave me puzzled.Have you tried to read Mrs Ann Keen's website? Its a joke isn't it?  So many errors! I've even asked Hugh Telford to sort it out ..but he hasn't succeeded yet.I'll be launching some messages on that subject soon..provided the plug is not pulled first!  By the way,I've had the audacity to post some 15-20 messages on the Forums today..over a range of subjects...just to add a few more Topics or angles on things.  Will I get hauled before Brentford's local Kangeroo Court?  Chiswick people seem happy with me...I even get a good few e-mail thanks you's about some postings.  But here at Brentford something's not quite right. I'm perhaps on the banned list because I ask for some honest answers sometimes.Anyway Andrew....don't let Brentford get you down!

Jim Lawes ● 7121d

Jim,The code of conduct on this forum states that people should only use their real name when posting. As we have never heard of Alan Barry until recently don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that he agrees with everything Alan Sheerins has to say and that Alan Sheerins agrees with him on those people that should be banned from using this forum?

Andrew Sibley ● 7121d

www.b4u.co.ukCheck Alan Barry?Never seen that name around before during my 60+ years in the Borough....and all he wants on arrival on this site/Forum...is for certain posters to be bumped off.If indeed he has some link with Mr Alan Sherrins..can that be confirmed...to enable us to know where we stand.

Jim Lawes ● 7122d

PhilMaybe you can start answering peoples questions in the Times Letter page.They have been asking why is it the Local Cllr's doing nothing for Isleworth and Leaving it all to Labour??I mean I wrote a letter last week about the Crossing for Ivybridge that Labour is intended to take the credit for and I was attacked by a Resident telling me to ask the local Cllr what they are doing?Its not like you to let people like this get away with saying things that are incorrect how about supporting those who have been supporting you (like me?)Simon

Simon Anderson ● 7122d

JimThe call for us to be banned came from one Alan Barry ("new to the area"!), not Alan Sheerins.However, Alan Sheerins has evidently sent Mr. Barry an e-mail offering his support for his position, in other words agreeing that posters who are in any way critical of New Labour should be banned from using the forum.I have asked Mr. Sheerins to clarify his position, but thus far he has as usual declined to comment.  Doubtless certain "non-political" individuals will be on here in due course demanding that I stop asking so that Alan S. can come out of hiding and return to the forum with his own questions, to which the same individuals will then demand answers from us.If you look back through the various postings of recent weeks a clear pattern emerges.  To give credit where it is due, New Labour has actually played it all rather cleverly with the co-ordinated use of "officials", posters using pseudonymns and "non-politicals".  We can learn from them - if we ever feel desperate enough to stoop to the same level.

Phil Andrews ● 7122d

Isn't it the case that the Brentford Chiswick and Isleworth Labour PARTY are sponsors of this website..which is owned by Neighbourhood Net?If Mr Alan Sherrins is indeed Chairman of the local Labour Party..and he has clout.. perhaps the claimed utterances that several of us should be banned from this forum..should be clarified.Am I posting in contravention of a ban?

Jim Lawes ● 7122d

Isn't it the case that the Brentford Chiswick and Isleworth Labour are sponsors of this website..which is owned by Neighbourhood Net?If Mr Alan Sherrins is indeed Chairman of the local Labour Party..and he has clout.. perhaps the claimed utterances that several of us should be banned from this forum..should be clarified.Am I posting in contravention of a ban?

Jim Lawes ● 7122d

"flogging a dead horse"I fear you could be right Nick as Alan Sheerins seems to have attended the same school of communications as Mr and Mrs Keen.But Cllr Andrews has raised some very importent issues which need to be addressed and answered and the delay in doing so will only add to the mis-trust many people already feel for the Local Labour Party in general.

Paul Fisher ● 7124d

....the expression, "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind!

Nick Jenkins ● 7124d

Phil Andrews ● 7124d

Phil Andrews ● 7125d

A newcomer reading this messageboard for the first time could be forgiven for believing this news to be pure fantasy as surely a man in Alan Sheerins position as Chairman of the local Labour Party would not stoop this low in desperation to regain the Isleworth Ward?Unfortunately this is true and I`m afraid to say not the first time his party have resorted in their own unique way of trying to attach the ICG to radical views to both discredit us in the eyes of all decent people but also on a more sinister note his party are delibrately attempting to create fear within certain sections of our community.Not content distributing leaflets in 2001 implying that our ethnic minoritys should be beware which an ex Isleworth Labour Party Cllr admitted of knowing the content long after she denied it in the resulting court case,it seems that he has learnt nothing from that fiasco and has decided he will imply we are now homophobic.We may not be complete angels at times but this is as low as you can get and reinforces my views more then ever that this Labour Council is rotton to the core.

Paul Fisher ● 7130d

Possibly because we hold alternative views to those of New Labour and we know what they do to people who openly disagree them. Just ask Mr.Wolfegang.

Andrew Sibley ● 7130d

2. You say you "agree" with Mr. Barry's sentiments.  Is it then your own view that Simon Anderson, Paul Fisher, Andrew Sibley, Sarah Felstead, Jim Lawes, Justin and myself should be excluded from using this forum, and if so on what grounds?I say!  I missed this - why should we be banned - could somebody explain?

Sarah Felstead ● 7130d

Well said Phil can i add a question please seeing as I am hair Of the group he accuses "IVYTAG"What was the reason behind his meeting with me the other night if he wants to get the groups working together and said th past is the past why bring up the past to attack IVYTAG the group he said he was going to try to help (non Politically) which he has gone back on his word.Thanks Phil and a great write up!!

Simon Anderson ● 7131d

Sorry, for whatever reason the image is not showing.  The message to which my posting refers (reproduced with original errors) read as follows:Topic:  Now will you do something???Posted by: Alan BarryDate/Time:  10/11/05  11:18:00I received the following e-mail from Alan Sheerins, who I don't know but he says he's Chair of the Local Labour Party.  If any of this is true its a disgrace.  Will you now do as I asked and remove these people from this forum forthwith???"Dear AlanI agree with yur sentiments on the Brentford Forum.  I am Chair of the Local Labour Party, i rarely post on this site, as i get abused when i do.  There are some even worse comments on the IVYTAG website and on the ICG's own website.  On those sites peope do not even post under their own names.  On the IVYTAG website one of our activists who is gay, has had this fact made obviuos.  Thay have publsihed his photograph (a form of intimidation).  All of these people are associate with Phil Andrews and the comunity group.Alan Sheerinsalan@coophomes.coop"

Phil Andrews ● 7131d