Forum Topic

AlanHave you seriously concluded from this that your uniquely unpleasant tactics are beginning to pay dividends?  Have you truly convinced yourselves that you need only to continue to circulate stories of the "ICG racists/firebombers" genre in order to recapture the seats lost so spectacularly by your Isleworth candidates in 2002?  If so you may wish to consider the fact that, in spite of the most depraved and amoral campaign (even by local New Labour standards) thus far embarked upon, of which it appears you are so smugly proud, your own percentage share of the vote actually fell in Isleworth too.  That's right Alan, take a look again - the only net gainers (and it was negligible) were the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats!There are several reasons why this should have been so, the most obvious being that the ICG as you know did the vast majority of its campaigning in Syon and Hounslow South, having accurately deduced at a very early stage of the campaign that the drunken doorstep ramblings of certain members of your team were going to do little to improve your prospects.For a view of the wider picture, I suggest you ponder the results in Syon and Hounslow South - where you lost a total of five seats, in Syon by a huge swing - and then visit the LBH website and behold the list of names of the new Executive members.Taking all this into consideration Alan, I think that even you would be compelled to agree that the loss of a few percentage points from our still solid vote in Isleworth was a risk which, tactically, we were absolutely right to take.I can see that, as the man who man who is still (incredibly!) entrusted by his New Labour colleagues with the job of Campaigns Manager, you have a need to present the results of the 2006 local elections as though in some unimaginable way they constituted a victory for the Labour Party.Nonetheless if I were one of the defeated Labour candidates in Syon I would be absolutely seething that your renowned tactical genius directed you to pour nearly all of your party's resources into trying to recover lost seats in an already hopelessly lost neighbouring ward by resort to a campaign based purely on scaremongering and dirty tricks, rather than working to consilidate the seats you had and must have known were under threat.I'm sorry to have to tell you this Alan but as soon as we left the election count in the wee small hours of May 5th and retired to the home of a committee member for champagne and sarnies, we all enjoyed a really good laugh at the expense of you and your election strategy.Somehow, sadly, I rather doubt whether Corinna or Val would have seen the funny side.

Phil Andrews ● 6869d

"It is very difficult to start or maintain any sort of working relationship with you when your posting are constant personal attacks or attacks on the Labour Party. Please email me if you are interested in talking."Dear AlanI have no desire or motivation to personally attack anyone. I don't know you, have never met you and wouldn't even know if you passed me in the street. You have me at a disadvantage because my photograph has been widely publicised in Labour Party newsletters alongside Ann Keen and Larry Whitty so to state that I am attacking the labour party is quite ludicrous. I reiterate for the umpteenth time that MRAG is non political. Our aim is entirely to take Thames Water to task for its disastrous Mogden operation. In that respect I will continue to correct untrue statements made by anyone of any political persuasion. It is unfortunate that some of these untrue statements have been made by Vanessa Smith. I have no idea if she is still involved with the labour party and I don't care.  I (in my capacity as MRAG committee member) have previously invited Alexander Northcote (Cons) and Susan Kramer (Lib Dem) to join Vince Cable (and Ann) to sit around the table with Thames. Thames rejected both because they weren't elected MP's at the time. (we also have Green Party members involved)If you wish to take my postings on this forum as personal attacks on you - thats your hang-up but I can categorically state that it makes me want to vomit (possibly more so than the Mogden stench) when people attack MRAG for its efforts over the years and when some are quick to post meaningless words and are unwilling to take any positive action. You stated  on this forum that it is important  for us to  "remain on the same side on this issue and keep the pressure on the Council and Thames Water to take action". I couldn't agree more and thus my open and honest question to you. "What do you have in mind?" I am happy to join any group that wants to put pressure on Thames Water and the council to take action so lets hear your plan. If indeed you have a plan and are prepared to lead the action - why must I email you privately? Surely you want to involve other people?  I ask again - are you serious about this or is it simply political rhetoric? (i.e. meaningless words designed to impress) My offer remains opens open but if you really are too shy or embarrassed to express yourself or associate with MRAG on this forum, you have all the MRAG contact details on our community website which no doubt you visit regularly.  For the benefit of those who aren't aware of MRAG's achievements to date visit www.mogden.org.uk

Steve Taylor ● 6877d

The original idea was not for a conference centre but for a multi purpose hall. When discussions around Key Site 1 first commenced in the late 1980's local residents were consulted about community benefits that might offset the increased congestion the massive new development will generate.The most popular option was a replacement swimming pool - the Hounslow pool closing in the early 1980's to accommodate the Treaty Centre development. However, it was argued by Council Officers that we could not afford the heavy subsidies that swimming pools require. The second identified priority was a large community hall that would substitute for the loss of Hounslow's town hall in Treaty Road and also provide a venue for weddings and other events that could not be accommodated locally.The old Hounslow Town Centre Panel had cross party membership, and the appointment of the developers for Key Site 1 (in 2000 if I remember correctly) was agreed by a joint panel of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members. The proposal endorsed included provision for a multi purpose community hall to be paid out of the proceeds of the development - up to a value of £2 million. I do not recollect any dissent to this proposal at the time.In autumn 2002, following advice that a community space could be created adjacent to the Civic Centre, I proposed a motion in the Labour Group to locate the community hall at the Civic Centre by way of an extension. Jagdish Sharma seconded this motion and there were few opponents. I believe the deposed leader of the council may have been one of those.Throughout my involvement in the development of the scheme the understanding was that a business plan would be developed to ensure that the new hall would pay its way, and it was repeated on many occasions that there was no intention to subsidise the facility. Our advisers suggested that a hall accommodating around 500-600 for weddings or rather more in a large meeting could be built out of the £2 million capital receipt.After the Labour Group decision a panel was established by the Labour leadership to look at options for a hall. This panel appears not to have been constrained in its work by budgetary considerations, and the size of the hall steadily increased. I understand what is currently being built could accommodate over 1000 for a meal, making it much larger than comparable facilities in the area - hence my description of it as a White Elephant. Architects' fees were wasted in advising this group, last year's Mayor referreed to the scheme as a Banquetting Hall, and the then Labour leadership panicked and decided to rename the project as a conference centre.Anyone who knows the layout of the ground floor where the extension to the Civic Centre is taking place will be aware that the roof level is too low to create a meaningful conference space, so the change of name was merely a ruse to counter the adverse publicity generated by the "banquetting hall".After several years' delay the project given the go-ahead by the previous executive was costed at roughly double the original budget. A business plan does exist. However, this is a confiendential council document and I am not allowed to divulge details in a public forum. Suffice to say, the plan does not envisage the facility breaking even before 2010. The assumptions about income generation are ambitious and involve crediting the books with notional income generated by "hiring out" space to council departments. The space is bigger than required for most sizeable Asian weddings, and is therefore not what local residents were campaigning for.Following Peter Thompson's statement I would suggest that what should be done is provide local residents with a facility of the type promised as a result of earlier public consultation, use surplus space for additional office accommodation at the Civic Centre, and investigate transferring voluntary organisations that could assist visitors to the Civic centre into any remaining space. Several years ago it was indicated that a management agreement for the space with a leading airport hotel was a possibility. Perhaps this should be reconsidered?Apologies for the length.

John Connelly ● 6882d

Well, thats polite Vanessa - as a newcomer to the area you don't really care what I think? I wonder if thats just your personal opinion or the general consensus of the labour party. Newcomers to the area should be warned surely?  No more guesses on why you no longer hold office though. Of course it comes as no shock to hear that there were other issues of importance and I assume you dealt with them diligently as may be expected of an elected and paid Councillor. Those issues may even have been important to me but my contribution to this thread is purely about Mogden and the point I make and will continue to make is that the area stinks. There has been no improvement over the years and it is a proven and conclusive fact that the problem has escalated. It is not negotiable or debatable based on your subjective view, it is simple fact - end of story.  And again I challenge you to produce evidence that you have ever set foot on Mogden or entered into any meaningful dialogue with Thames Water. To state that you  "impressed upon Thames Water that being a good neighbour was more beneficial than annoying everyone across two boroughs" is simply nonsense. You obviously made no impression on them, if indeed you ever spoke to them, because they continue to annoy people across two boroughs day after day after day. I say again that you did NOTHING to improve the situation at MOGDEN and you deliberately became obstructive when residents tried to solicit cross-borough support. Your continued persistence on this thread that the Mogden situation has improved will no doubt also be deemed to be obstructive by many.However, you are entitled to your opinion but in view of the £multi million legal action being taken by residents due to no action being taken by LBH and Thames Water over 30 years, it may perhaps be better if you kept your opinion to yourself. You may be able to sleep at night with the Mogden stench wafting around your house but thousands are affected daily by the Mogden stench and mosquitoes you failed to address. You may be interested to know that more residents have joined the legal action over the last couple of months than the total number of votes received by you and your Isleworth colleagues who were elected so many, many years ago. Makes you think doesn't it?  You may have once been a effective Cllr on many issues - on Mogden no - on other issues, I don't know and don't particularly care (for the purpose of this thread), and I believe many find your continued contributions to various forums quite amusing but as a defeated Cllr I personally don't give a hoot what you think as long as your outbursts don't have a detrimental effect on the community our elected Cllrs are fighting so hard to improve since it was left in such a mess by others. 

Steve Taylor ● 6885d

It may come as a shock to you but there were also other issues that took up time and that were equally as important to someone. We were far from being "tame" and it was at our behest the first legal enforcement action by Hounslow Council was started, it was also Labour Cllrs. who fought tooth and nail against Thames Water selling off land adjacent to Mogden works - where the Bankside development now stands, what a stupid place to build housing, well at least we were proved right on that and it gives no satisfaction to say so. By talking to the RFU we got the free match day CPZ and pressured them and the transport companies into laying on more public transport because of the traffic and parking problems big events caused. The RFU also contributes to some community facilities in this borough and was persuaded that being a good neighbour was more beneficial than annoying everyone across two boroughs, something we also impressed upon Thames Water. As I live well within sniffing distance of Mogden I can say that it has improved vastly over what it was when we first started our dialogue with Thames Water, certainly here the mozzie problem is a lot less.Finally if you think I am sad or desperate enough to keep correspondence for over four years since leaving the council then you really are optimistic. I don't really care what you think - because as you say you are a newcomer so therefore cannot possibly know what went on all those years ago, unless you listen to mischevious, one-sided gossip - I know what we did. Good Luck to you if you think you can push even more - but don't decry other people's efforts when things were a hell of a lot worse than they are now.

Vanessa Smith ● 6886d

Well I rest my case.  If  Vanessa had any clue she may wish to disgracefully bow out now. 'As a resident of nearly thirty years'  she must be ashamed of herself for taking no action and allowing Thames Water to walk all over the good people of Isleworth she once purported to represent. If the smell was in fact so bad, or worse,  many years ago, why wasn't it stopped by these Cllrs and enforcement officers who allegedly attended cosy little meetings with Thames Water?Fact - from Thames Water's CEO.  Odour improvement only started in 2001 after MRAG formed. Fact - as a witness for Hounslow I have studied the history of Mogden dating back to 1936 and have all the facts as per court documents.Fact - No mention in any minutes of meetings between Thames Water, LBH and Cllrs.,  show Vanessa Smith as being in attendance (or offering apologies)Fact - As per Odournet report - Odour since 1998 has increased.Fact - As per Odournet report - some plant in operation at Mogden showed conclusively that odour has increased year on year.Fact - Since the closure of Kew STW, Mogden has taken on more sewage than it could cope with and odour has increased.Fact - In 2005 Odour was recorded off site around Mogden for 298 days ( thats a bit more than Vanessa can recall when she says  "we used to have a revolting pall of smells hanging around sometimes for days some years ago")Fact - From independent Mosquito surveys - mosquito activity increased in around Mogden since 1998.Fact - The RFU has refused to make a stand against Thames Water despite increased levels of odour recorded.Fact - Until the formation of MRAG,  LBH had not made any formal protest to Thames Water about odour or mosquitoes. Fact - Vanessa Smith accused those residents who took a stand against Thames Water as "going off half-cocked"Fact - Mosquito activity increased year on year until Cllr Phil Andrews and MRAG suggested that flushing of gullies be undertaken.Fact - Cllr Ruth Cadbury asked MRAG to suggest that Thames Water contribute to funding of the gully flushing.Fact - MRAG asked Thames Water's director Robin Clarke  to approve the contribution Fact - None of the labour activists who claim to support the group litigation have actually supported the litigation themselves!Fact - Vanessa Smith claims to prefer to work with people and talk to them! - Fact - after 30 years it didn't work. Thames Water had a good laugh at these    people and couldn't believe how easy it was to control them and chose to do nothing to improve the situation for local people.Fact - more carrot than stick? One has to actually attend meetings to offer the carrot. Fact - Odour and mosquito complaints for June 2006 increased more than 700% on reported incidents for June 2005.Fact - Odour and mosquito complaints for July 2006 are set to break all previous records.QUESTION:  Has Vanessa Smith ever set foot on the Mogden site?The more I learn about the history of the area, the more aghast I am that Thames Water has been allowed to get away with murder by a bunch of lame, tame Cllrs. and the more astounded I am that it took a few newcomers to the area to get together with all the assistance and guidance of the only 'listening' Cllr. in the area - namely Mr Phil Andrews. Given that the Council finally recognised the problem for what it is entered into an expensive and costly battle with Thames Water I am contemptuous of all those who still bury their heads and tell me - "it used to be a lot worse than it is now"  Fact - No it didn't - as proved in the courts and as accepted by Ofwat, Defra, both Local Authorities and both local MP's.Fact - if anyone bothered or cared before they would have done something about it. Holding Thames Water fully accountable  would have been a good start!            Its known as  'taking action'  - carrots are nice for bunnies though!Fact - MRAG committee members are neither 'half cocked' nor 'gung ho'Fact - Vanessa Smith & Co achieved NOTHING in improving the disgraceful Mogden situation for local residents.CHALLENGE:  If Vanessa or any other ex Cllrs actually wrote any letters to Thames Water,  LBH, Ofwat or Watervoice - lets see them and the replies on this forum.

Steve Taylor ● 6887d

Dear Adrian,Let me give you a few facts to help you with your balanced assesment of merits.First the myth of "wasting" £4m of public money on the Lampton Park Conference Centre.  This project was negotiated pre-2002 by the then leader John Connelly who then proceeded to undermine and attack it when he was no longer in favour. John negotiated that £2m of monies for community benefit from the Hounslow Town Centre regeneration be allocated for a multi-purpose hall. This was private money from the property developer and it is normal in projects of this size that a substantial sum be invested into community facilities. As this figure was fixed some years ago and did not increase with inflation any additional costs were always going to have to met from other budgets. Without boring our readers, the drains under that part of the civic centre were badly damaged and would have eventually had to have been dug up and replaced at enormous cost. These costs are part of the additional £2m coming from the Council's capital programme. As the civic centre is over 30 years old and has many of the same carpets and chairs to prove it, it was opportune to use the conference centre to offer additional much needed facilities. For example there is a lack of meeting rooms, and the design of the new centre allows the space to be broken into a variety of smaller spaces for use by community groups as well as council use. I remember you threatening the disabled community that you would scrap this facility, much to their displeasure as there are no meeting rooms in the civic centre accessible to a wheelchair user without using a lift.As well as being as being a flexible meeting space, the conference centre was planned to replace the old cafe facility for staff and the public, which is used by hundreds of people on a daily basis, and its social and business use, weddings, parties, conferences etc is only a small part of the usage that was planned. All of this detail and more is in the business plan that I am sure you have read as part of your merit assesment.Sadly I think partisan politics is part of the Conservative/Isleworth Community axis administration's plans to derail a lot of regeneration developments that were championed by the previous administration. We will have to see if you really are prepared to work "in the interests of all residents" or only those that support your political party.

Colin Ellar ● 6891d

Alan,You begin by saying you are "acting in everyone's interests".  Rubbish.  You act in the interest of the Labour Party, and, sadly, in this Borough, it appears that Labour has concerned itself mainly with the people that vote for it.I have not run a campaign "to have Chiswick break away from the rest of the Borough".  Inaccurate.  I merely expressed the views of many of my constituents in the Turnham Green ward that they believe that Chiswick should never have been placed with Hounslow in the first place.  Why is this so incomprehensible to you?  Just look at any map and you will discover that Chiswick is much closer to both Hammersmith and Ealing than Hounslow. There was very little logic employed by the boundary drafting civil servants when they put Chiswick in the same Borough as Bedfont way back in 1964, was there?Under your Labour regime of 35 years standing, Chiswick was treated pretty badly.  Chiswick was very useful for the raising of revenue, but, in comparison with the rest of the Borough, had little money spent on its public services in return.  The Chiswick Child and Family Centre was closed down by Labour, so was our Pensioner's Luncheon Club. Chiswick has never had a public-funded theatre or arts centre and Chiswick was the only part of the Borough to be denied CCTV by the Labour Council. Parling charges are higher in Chiswick, as are council tenant's rents. Chiswick showed its true feelings in May when it put your party in fourth place, behind the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in all of the wards.Under the new council administration we will ensure that ALL parts of the Borough get an equal slice of the cake, and that includes places at the west of the Borough, like Hanworth, that equally feel forgotten.  Cut?  Oh yes, there will be cuts, but not from public services.  That is what the Labour Party did year after year, whilst at the same time crippling ordinary people with massive tax rises.  Do you remember your annual increases in the costs of meals-on-wheels?  The elderly had to fork out directly for Labour's poor fiscal management, didn't they?  No, we shall be looking to make savings not from the front-line services, but from the huge bureaucratic army of policy advisors and paper-pushers that your party recruited to run the Civic Centre.  You mention the Lampton Conference Centre and immediately, and disgracefully, try to imply that I am a racist.  Charming...and so typical of your local party.  If in doubt, try smearing somebody as a racist.  To answer your question: no, Alan, I have no "problem" with Asian weddings, or any other weddings for that matter.  I do, however, think that there were far greater priorities for the Borough in terms of capital spending.  Have you seen the state of Strand-on-the-Green school?  Do you know about the toilets that the kids have to use there?  Have you visited that school down in Heston where the kids have to study in portacabins?  I guess not, otherwise you would not support wasting £4 million of public money on the "conference" centre.  Oh, by the way,  Labour were so good at managing our money that they decided to spend £4 million on this white elephant without even bothering to draw up a business plan.  What this means is, that as soon as the centre is constructed it becomes an immediate drain on the revenue budget.  I wonder what services you were intending to cut to pay for the running of this joint, Alan?  You will just have to wait with baited breath to see how we intend to deal with this situation, but I can promise you that we are not going to allow it become a drain on the public purse.Finally, on the schools question: if the investment by Labour has been so huge, how on earth do you account for the chaos in both Heston and Strand-on-the-Green schools?

Cllr. Adrian Lee ● 6900d

Alan,You begin by saying you are "acting in everyone's interests".  Rubbish.  You act in the interest of the Labour Party, and, sadly, in this Borough, it appears that Labour has concerned itself mainly with the people that vote for it.I have not run a campaign "to have Chiswick break away from the rest of the Borough".  Inaccurate.  I merely expressed the views of many of my constituents in the Turnham Green ward that they believe that Chiswick should never have been placed with Hounslow in the first place.  Why is this so incomprehensible to you?  Just look at any map and you will discover that Chiswick is much closer to both Hammersmith and Ealing than Hounslow. There was very little logic employed by the boundary drafting civil servants when they put Chiswick in the same Borough as Bedfont way back in 1964, was there?Under your Labour regime of 35 years standing, Chiswick was treated pretty badly.  Chiswick was very useful for the raising of revenue, but, in comparison with the rest of the Borough, had little money spent on its public services in return.  The Chiswick Child and Family Centre was closed down by Labour, so was our Pensioner's Luncheon Club. Chiswick has never had a public-funded theatre or arts centre and Chiswick was the only part of the Borough to be denied CCTV by the Labour Council. Parling charges are higher in Chiswick, as are council tenant's rents. Chiswick showed its true feelings in May when it put your party in fourth place, behind the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in all of the wards.Under the new council administration we will ensure that ALL parts of the Borough get an equal slice of the cake, and that includes places at the west of the Borough, like Hanworth, that equally feel forgotten.  Cut?  Oh yes, there will be cuts, but not from public services.  That is what the Labour Party did year after year, whilst at the same time crippling ordinary people with massive tax rises.  Do you remember your annual increases in the costs of meals-on-wheels?  The elderly had to fork out directly for Labour's poor fiscal management, didn't they?  No, we shall be looking to make savings not from the front-line services, but from the huge bureaucratic army of policy advisors and paper-pushers that your party recruited to run the Civic Centre.  You mention the Lampton Conference Centre and immediately, and disgracefully, try to imply that I am a racist.  Charming...and so typical of your local party.  If in doubt, try smearing somebody as a racist.  To answer your question: no, Alan, I have no "problem" with Asian weddings, or any other weddings for that matter.  I do, however, think that there were far greater priorities for the Borough in terms of capital spending.  Have you seen the state of Strand-on-the-Green school?  Do you know about the toilets that the kids have to use there?  Have you visited that school down in Heston where the kids have to study in portacabins?  I guess not, otherwise you would not support wasting £4 million of public money on the "conference" centre.  Oh, by the way,  Labour were so good at managing our money that they decided to spend £4 million on this white elephant without even bothering to draw up a business plan.  What this means is, that as soon as the centre is constructed it becomes an immediate drain on the revenue budget.  I wonder what services you were intending to cut to pay for the running of this joint, Alan?  You will just have to wait with baited breath to see how we intend to deal with this situation, but I can promise you that we are not going to allow it become a drain on the public purse.Finally, on the schools question: if the investment by Labour has been so huge, how on earth do you account for the chaos in both Heston and Strand-on-the-Green schools?

Cllr. Adrian Lee ● 6900d

There are many Labour Councilors that I deeply respect, sadly, Cllr. Sharma has never been one of them. The letter below shows just how arrogant and patronising this person can be.  According to him the opposition parties "failed" in their task in the last fours years.  Yeah, of course they did.  They failed so badly that they turfed the Labour Party out power for the first time in 35 years!The Heston Leisure Centre, as Cllr. Sharma states has been "put on ice".  All major building projects are being looked at afresh by the new administration.  That does not mean that they have been scrapped or terminated. We will assess each on its merits.Cllr. Sharma's threats on the Lampton Conference Centre are predictably contemptable.  His administration wasted £4 million of public money on this project when schools in both Heston and Strand-on-the-Green remain in a disgraceful state.  There was no business plan for this white elephant and, as Cllr. John Connelly to his credit, has pointed out it was never even designed to accommodate "conferences".  He knows very well that it was constructed with only two stated purposes: hosting large Asian weddings and the annual Duke of Edinburgh's Award Ceremony.  Despite the opposition of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents, Cllr. Sharma's party forced the construction through.  Cllr. Sharma can threaten all he likes, it will make no difference to the new administration.  We are determined to work in the interests of all residents of the Borough.Finally, he say that he hopes that we remain true to our promises of openness and transparency.  Let me assure him, he has no need to worry on this count.  Whenever we need an example closed, secretative, poor adminstration in order to avoid the pitfalls, we only have to cast our minds back to the shambles of which he was Deputy Leader until 8 weeks ago.  Let the shipwrecks of others be your sea marks, as the old saying goes.

Cllr. Adrian Lee ● 6902d