Forum Topic

It looks like our friends in TW7 have been keeping an eye on goings on in Brentford:http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?forumID=64755&subForumID=174610&action=viewTopic&commentID=6421615&topicPage=0QUOTE:"I'm sorry but I've just had another look at TW8 and there is a thread entitled "Frog Watch". Yes, one woman who has lived in Brentford for 40(yes 40) years has never seen a frog in the street where she lives but in the last week she has seen....wait for it.............2.I wonder if she has ever seen a 267 bus running on time there, or if she knows when the road works on the bridge at the lock will be finished, or more importantly will Brentford win the F.A. Cup next season?Phil AndrewsOld FaithfulPosts: 348Date: 1 day agoViews: 11 Quote | ReplyRE: Brentford TW8 ForumInteresting...does anybody know what species of frog it was?I had originally planned to continue posting on TW8 once the election campaign was over, but I think it would be better to let it die a natural death.  Let Danno and Corky have it to themselves, in the absence of any other contributors they can argue with each other.  That's presuming they are actually two different people.__________________"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed" - Steve Biko.Andy SibleyOld FaithfulPosts: 116Date: 10 hr, 30 min. agoViews: 5 Quote | ReplyFrog Watch UpdateBreaking news. Two more frogs spotted in someones front garden in Brentford. At this rate we'll have a plague on our hands before we know it."END QUOTE

James de Vivenot ● 7050d

Andrew, by your very participation you prove there isn't a ban but it doesn't change the fact that Cllr Andrews is urging people not to use the site.You may or may not be right about Mr. Mardough but the correct course of action is to complain. It is clear that some of your political opponents have been misusing this forum but action seems to have been taken against them. As I said previously it seems unjustifiable to boycott this forum where this sort of thing is against the rules when it is allowable in your own forum.As Cllr. Andrews is denying himself a right of reply directly it is probably only fair to point out that he believes that my initial post was untruthful and I've copied his comments below. People can read the comments on IsleworthTW7.com and decide whether they think there is a 'dirty tricks' campaign or if Cllr. Andrews is being unnecessarily paranoid. Cllr. Andrews wrote: "Anybody who should have any doubts that a dirty-tricks campaign of sorts is being conducted should read the thread entitled "Isleworth TW7" on www.brentfordtw8.com in its entirety, with particular reference to the question of the ICG's preparedness to release the IsleworthTW7.com domain, and then consider the posting below, from one of the chief culprits (I have reproduced his heading), in the light of what I actually wrote above."Any criticism of anything posted by these people is deemed to be "paranoid", because they are "impartial" rather than being active players in the political arena.  Hence they are able to make political and personal attacks and, increasingly, to misrepresent the views of our organisation whilst hiding behind a defence of "neutrality" which evidently exempts them from any form of challenge or rebuttal."It is impossible to conduct reasoned debate with anybody on these terms, and given the increased intensity and regularity of the attacks I have taken the personal decision to withdraw from the forum as a precaution until after May 4th.  I have clearly not called for a boycott, but in my absence the author of the posting presumably feels unhindered by the constraints of truthful reporting."To any who wish to continue using TW8 over the coming weeks, I would continue to advise doing so with the utmost caution."

Justin Harris ● 7066d

If in doubt - insult - where have I heard that before?As far as the pavements go - well it is YOUR council tax going down the pan.  And your Councillors on the committee which is faced with the reckless destruction of Council property and there being no methods of re-claiming the money to reimburse the public purse.So, when you ask for a slab to be replaced or work to be done to improve an area – in Brentford – or Chiswick - and are told there is no money - why is that?The Council - our council - does not have a method of monitoring developer’s works and instructing them of ways to work to protect community property - that is as much your business as it is mine.I was told by a Cllr that there is a £1,000,000 slush fund (excuse me but I have added the 'slush fund' bit to the title of the fund as I don't know the actual title of the fund) put to one side to pay out to claimants who fall on the pavements.Apparently the Fortress prefer to place this money to one side rather than put measures into play to maintain the streets - I suppose the suggestion is that the £1,000.000 is cheaper than the insurance because they go on the proviso that people don't claim.Well, we are up to three elderly ladies having fallen over - and one of those died - so that is quite a rate, don't you think?  I have just been approached by the son of one of them to ask about my M-I-L as his Mother has had several operations on her knees after her fall.  Luckily she survived the operations.  When I say LUCKILY I do aim that at the family and for the family, and not luckily for the drain a death might be on the fund – I mean isn’t there a fixed rate for a broken knee cap and ditto a death?  How many elderly ladies can the Borough afford to lose before they have to cut more funding to HM magazine? Your Council are allowing dangerous working practises to develop around here, and by the time they reach your street, the developers will be able to claim that everyone else is doing it, so why pick on them?

Sarah Felstead ● 7071d

PaulI had said that I would withdraw from "your" forum, but it is unfair to expect me to do so whilst you continue to reply to my postings in a way which calls for some kind of response.As I said in my previous posting, there has never been a conscious decision taken by ICG members to respond en masse to a particular comment.  I think the difficulty lies in the fact that, unlike the political parties, our members don't have clearly defined portfolios or an imposed discipline which would result in a particular comment being addressed by a particular member.  We are by definition a collection of individuals and, within reason, we would not seek to restrain any individual from expressing his/her opinion.  I also believe we are more open about our allegiances, which results in ICG posters being more easily identifiable.I am at a loss to understand why you continue to misrepresent my position over ownership of the TW7 domain.  You are an intelligent person, and I have made my position clear enough.  The domain name was available, it was not the property of the Labour Party by birthright and it is the ICG's to do with what we wish.  HOWEVER, I have already stated that I would ask the committee to release it for the purposes of establishing a dedicated TW7 forum and the only "condition" I would place on this would be that such a forum would be of a similar nature to this one, as opposed to a political operation from which people were excluded on political grounds.  Something like this forum could have become, but in the event didn't.  Which part of this is it that yourself and Dan consider to be unreasonable behaviour, and for what reason?  Do you not want to see a TW7 forum which is available for everybody to use, irrespective of political opinion or allegiance?I think you are being mischievous by suggesting that I am putting up roadblocks to the establishment of a site such as this in TW7, when it must surely be obvious to you that I am doing precisely the opposite.

Phil Andrews ● 7081d

PaulI think this is an extremely unfair interpretation of what I have said and what I have done.We purchased the TW7 domain once it had become clear that the Labour Party had taken ownership of this one.  Far from fearing expansion of a site such as this one into Isleworth, increasing public awareness and, even more importantly, participation is the very raison d'etre of the ICG. It is what we are about, indeed it is effectively all we are about.If you read my posting objectively you will see that we purchased the domain as a precaution, and anybody with an ounce of knowledge about the way in which the Labour Party has conducted itself in Isleworth over a period of nearly three decades will appreciate why.  Everything which these people have ever been involved in has had to be subject to their rigid control, with dissenting voices or indeed contrary opinions of any kind excluded.  Take a look into the history of the residents' and tenants' movement in Isleworth and you will see instantly what I mean.  Organisations which they succeed in dominating become closed shops.  Those which they don't they seek to penetrate by degree or, where they can't even do this, they use their control of Hounslow Homes and the housing associations, and where possible the lure of free money, in order to try to get a foot in the door.  We "ordinary people" cannot be left to our own devices.Under the circumstances, was it really that unreasonable of us to fear that this forum would end up going the same way?  Was there any historical evidence whatsoever to suggest that it wouldn't?  Because there was an awful lot to suggest that it would.As I said in my posting, in the event Matt has run a clean operation and I would welcome something similar in Isleworth, even if it was run by political "opponents".  What concerns us is not who operates it, but how it is operated.  What I would not be prepared to do would be to give up ownership of the domain for something of a more political nature, from which the wider community is excluded.  If that is "my conditions being met" then so be it.I have always seen the ICG as being more bullied than bullying.  Maybe it is something of a back-handed complement that we should now be considered so large and powerful that people such as yourself have come to see us as the aggressor.  But it is not a role which I would want for our organisation and I will take your comments on board.  ICG members use this forum freely, we do not co-ordinate our postings and there is certainly no conscious "tactic", as you put it, being employed.  If debate sometimes seems one-sided, it is often because the other "side" fails to respond to questions or avoids awkward issues.  Is this our fault too?I repeat, I would be very happy indeed to discuss releasing the TW7 domain for a project of this kind.  I said this in my first posting, and have been misquoted by two people.  Maybe you are trying to bully me?

Phil Andrews ● 7082d

Ruth, I have to take issue with you when you say the Chiswick forum is consumer dominated which you presumably mean as a criticism. Yes people regular ask for help in finding good local services but the difference is they are far more likely to get a response unlike here where the isn't really the critical mass of posters to guarantee feedback before the post disappears.As you say there was a time there when Isleworth politics seemed to unduly dominate the Chiswick board. The problem in Brentford is that a dissenting voice is immediately hit with a barrage of hostile responses and accustations of being a Labour party stooge. I've been on the wrong end of it myself and it is a huge disincentive to participate. In Chiswick there is broad enough participation to ensure that you can't bully people who disagree with you simply by using weight of numbers. It became impossible to continue with the kind of tactics used on this board and now I think the ICG use the Chiswick board responsibly in a way which informs but doesn't browbeat.It would be nice if the Brentford site followed the same process and looking at the number of participants it does seem to be broadening slowly. As a Chiswick resident I would say that a successful site of this nature is an absolute boon to a community. In the last couple of days a couple have been reunited with their lost dog and a woman has had her stolen handbag returned to her. Among Ruth's dreaded consumer orientation their is a great deal of increased community cohesion as a result of the site's existence. In this regard I think Cllr. Andrews is doing a huge disservice to his constituents by buying up the domain that might be used to launch a site there and blocking any Isleworth site until conditions he sets are met. It is almost as if he fears the expansion of this kind of site into 'his' area.All I can say to you Brentford residents is that you only get out of these sites what you put into them and the best way to improve them is to participate.

Justin Harris ● 7082d