Forum Topic

An Apology and a reply to A Atkinson

I note your response to my posting in which I referred, incorrectly, to your performance in a Hounslow Council election. I accept that this did not occur and that you have never stood for the Council, and am happy to unreservedly apologise for any upset caused. I will, in future, check out "information" received from others in order to ensure that I do not make false statements again.In your posting you objected to me describing the content you produce as "bile and vomit". I do not accept this. Below are a few postings of yours, drawn at random, that demonstrate that this description is perfectly reasonable:-1) To George Anthony Burrell on 9th June 2003"Grow up you twat.........stop trying to be such a pratt, and go and give John Murphy a cuddle."2) To "Mr Ewew" (Your text)on 15th June 2008"Mr Ewew,Was you born an utter prick or did you have to work at it?"3) To Jamie Halliday on 15th July 2008"What bloody planet are you on.....Zog?"This is the language of a cyber bully, and your whimperings when others reply in kind underlines your bully boy approach.You repeatedly invite posters critical of your adverse remarks, usually levelled at ethnic minorities, to prove you are a racist. However, you know how to structure your remarks in order to avoid being identified as an overt racist. If you crossed the line your activities as a police volunteer would be terminated. For what it's worth, in a reply to Phil Andrews on 2nd March 2003 you stated:"There is an excuse for me. I'm an ingnorant (sic), narrow-minded, blinkered and prejudiced individual."Straight from the horse's mouth!In your response to me you choose to repeat the accusation that I was lying when I accused you of standing for the council. I have already acknowledged that I was in the wrong. I offer for readers' consideration 2 Atkinson lies posted on this site recently:-On the 17th July 2008 you said the following in a lengthy posting about planning in Hounslow"The nod and the wink culture was prevalent with this committee many years ago, especially the Central ward, one of its members on this planning committee built a structure without planning permission, and as I recall uprooted two trees in a conservation area in the process...........(H)e was never kicked off the committee."THIS IS LIE NUMBER 1You continue"a structure approx. 20ftx12ftx10ft.........ended up in the hands of a government inspector who upheld the enforcement.........but guess what, it's still there courtesy of fellow Labour councillors."LIE NUMBER 2In the first case the structure was built in Cranford. The member responsible was removed from the Planning Committee (of which he had been Vice-Chair), the structure was taken down and replacement trees planted. In the second case, the owner of the property, The Asian Food Centre on Staines Road, was able to prove the canopy had existed for more than 4 years and it was therefore immune from enforcement. I advised Mr Atkinson of this in an e-mail dated 12th December 2007, so there is no excuse for repeating the lie.Incidentally, wasn't it Joseph Goebbels who stated "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it"? History suggests that he, too, was an ignorant, narrow-minded, blinkered and prejudiced individual.

John Connelly ● 6632d23 Comments

John, not taking sides at all here but are you sure your comments in respect of 'Lie 2' are entirely correct ?.As I recall it, and it's going back several years so I openly acknowledge I could be wrong, the canopy in question was the subject of an enforcement notice against which an appeal was lodged but that appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld, and hence couldn't have been immune from enforcement action (once an enforcement notice is served, unless that notice is quashed on appeal the breach of planning control that is the subject of the notice cannot ever be immune, as the clock stops the day the notice is served).  I thought after that appeal had been dismissed a slightly revised application was submitted and that application was approved by the Area Committee.  Some of the changes were made to the structure to comply with that planning permission but not all of them, but ultimately it was considered by Officers, having regard to the UDP and all other material planning considerations (particularly the amended application that had been granted permission), that it wasn't expedient to take any further action.As I stress I could be wholly wrong, so I'll apologise in advance if my recollections are incorrect.

Adam Beamish ● 6632d

"I will, in future, check out "information" received from others in order to ensure that I do not make false statements again." That will be a first! I think you must have a think about the company you keep, or the information they pass on to you could see you in court facing a libel action.  and just to illustrate my alleged racist remarks, tell me, do you recall, that I accompanied a Palestinian refugee to the Civic Centre, because he had been evicted from his bed sit owned by TVHA. He had been on his bed naked after getting out of the bath, ( he shared the flat with three others.) A woman housing officer from TVHA let herself in for some reason best known to her. Ali protested that she should have knocked, and given him a chance to get dressed, it was alleged that she said that she didn't have to, and swore at her, for this he was literally evicted on to the street, I took him to my home and he explained that he was under the care of  mental health unit, because he alleged that he was beaten and tortured by the Israelis.I phoned the homeless persons unit, to see if I could get some temporary accommodation for him, they said that he was known to them, and that he was barred from their office, because on one occasion he had wrecked it in a fit of temper. I then called at the Civic Centre where I met with you and Ali in your office. I said that we could not allow a man with his history to walk the streets, and to your credit (which after all should have been handled by his ward councillor) you helped by suggesting that I deal with the HPU on his behalf, which I gladly did. I kept in touch with him, until eventually, after further acts of violence to the landlord, he was moved into his own flat. I have since heard that he has moved on to Manchester. An act on my part as an overt racist Mr Connolly?One more example of my overt racism. A neighbour who happened to be an Asian lady, who occupied a house with just her an 2 small children aged 8 and ten. she herself was without hearing or speech, and was being verbally abused, by two teenage boys who lived on the estate, they had allegedly daubded her front door with graffiti and made a nuisance of themselves by mimicking her! Her Asian neighbour knew that I worked at the police station, came to see me and asked what he could do. I spoke to the Inspector about this, and he sent two officers down later, to warn these two scrotes, who then left the woman alone after this warning.......another example of my overt racism? I know that, with your distorted view of racism you will find this hard to believe, but I will gladly give you names should you wish. It is very easy councillor, to pin labels on anyone, but being a typical politician you speak about "overt racism", and never give examples of the in PC mantra of "overt or a tad racist" because I discuss terrorism, asylum, and immigration and  posts on other subjects, that you want to sweep under the carpet. But Councillor you will not stop me from posting anything I want, as long as it conforms to the rules of this and other Forums. Have you contacted the police commander with this misinformation yet?As I have often said, that as a public official,you owe it to your followers, to notify the police, as I have the highest level of security vetting, also the CRE at the very least.......it's your duty to.I have also helped the SNT's to set up NHW schemes in Heston and Cranford in which I gave advice on what they could do to protect themselves viz residential security, lock fitting service for the vulnerable and elderly residents, which in the main were mainly Asian.....strange that, I thought that an overt racist would have avoided that scenario, after all I didn't live there did I, and it was usually late in the evening when the meetings were finished! Its a wonder I wasn't lynched!

Account suspended ● 6631d

I will respond to the other part headed Lie 1 and Lie 2. later, but meanwhile, I offer my apologies to the forum for the lengthy reply, but I have to respond to these "lapses of memory", that Cllr Connolly suffers  with!Adam Beamish, has got it partly right but this illegal building was referred to the government Inspector on appeal, which was refused, with the Inspector suggesting and asking why it was submitted to him under Planning regs. when it clearly breached the Highways Act. A petition got up by a number of reidents who protested thaat this structure would impede pedestrians, particularly the elderly, partially sighted, and mothers with prams or pushchairs, notwithstanding the cars and delivery vans parked outside. But nevertheless permission was eventually granted, despite the canopy not being covered by the 4 year rule, as I recall the only part which was, was the RSJ upright stanchions.  Should it, be on record Adam?  Strange as it may seem, 2 at least who signed the petition raising objections happened to be Asian, strange that don't you think JC?It begs the question why a similar structure built out onto the pavement on the Southside corner of Wellington Road, who thought that sauce for the goose etc, was issued with an enforcement order for it's removal, and if you go by there you will see that it has gone, after lengthy, costly, and drawn out appeals to retain it! Was that a fair decision JC, considering the other building was granted retrospective planning permission, and this wasn't.....why? Do you think that he imagined as I and others did, that a precedent had been set. Can't wait to hear your explanation!

Account suspended ● 6631d

Adam,The enforcement team brought 3 enforcement notices to a single meeting of the Hounslow Central area committee where it was agreed to take action. The 3 were:1) Asian Food Centre, Staines Road2) Goldies, Staines Road/Wellinton Road South corner3) I think, Maya Food on the corner of Staines Road and Munster Avenue.All 3 appealed against enforcement. In 2) and 3) the decisions were upheld and the structures removed. In the case of the Asian Food Centre the Inspector upheld part, requiring the removal of the side and front panels, but accepted the evidence provided that the canopy and metal framework had been in place long enough to escape enforcement.Following this, the owner asked for a meeting with local members (myself included) and the planners and requested that he be allowed to enclose the structure. Members supported this on grounds of security, and planning permission for a new structure was granted.I conveyed this information to Mr Atkinson last December by e-mail, but he continues to rant about skullduggery on the area committee in relation to the cases. As I am sure you will remember the £150,000 fine the new administration highly publicised was the outcome of an enforcement decision taken by the Hounslow Area Committee under the previous administration.Incidentally, I am still awaiting Mr Atkinson's defence of the false allegations against Central ward members (Lie 1).

John Connelly ● 6631d

"Incidentally, wasn't it Joseph Goebbels who stated "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it"? History suggests that he, too, was an ignorant, narrow-minded, blinkered and prejudiced individual."Yes it certainly was him, and adopted as a philosophy by you and your cohorts, masquerading as Socialist members of New Labour, for 35  years, and now, who like you are no longer running the Borough of Hounslow...........get over it JC!

Account suspended ● 6631d

A Pulic official, JC stated on this forum that our sovereign Queen was "A German Bint, with a Greek stud as a husband. He sets himself up as a guardian of morals and decency, complains about "vile and vomit" to others, and yet considers this insult to the Queen to be perfectly acceptable. Do you also remember referring to me as "Atkinscum",  what a disgrace you are to the office you hold.

Account suspended ● 6631d

John,Thanks for that clarification, I stand corrected.  It probably should also be added to your helpful clarification that in the case of the canopies at (2) and (3) these were actually removed by way of direct action from the Council, as a more efficient alternative to prosecution.You are entirely correct that the fine you mention (which I believe remains the highest ever awarded in respect of a breach of planning control within London) resulted from an enforcement action agreed by Central Area Committee under the previous administration.Thanks.

Adam Beamish ● 6631d

4.0 An application was made to infill the existing canopy posts and roof by new see -»•through grille metal roller shutters to the front and sliding clear glazed doors to theflanks instead of the existing solid plywood wall and sliding metal roller shutters. Thiswas refused in November 2000 for the following reason:-1 The proposed alterations to the existing canopy would, by reason of the size,appearance and position, constitute an obtrusive feature detrimental to the visual amenities of the shopping parade and the street scene generally. It would therefore be contrary to policies ENV. 1.1 (All New Development) and S.4.2 (Shop Front Design) of the adopted UDP and policies ENV.B.1.1 (All New Development) and S.4.2 (Shop Front Design) of the Review Deposit UDP.One day it is detrimental to the street scene, and hey! presto the next day it doesn't!!!

Account suspended ● 6631d

John/Andy,Just been reading through the relevant Officer report to committee from July 2003 to refresh my memory.Personally think you've got this one wrong Andy - 2.5 years had elapsed since the previous refusal and the Officers addresses changes over that period in Section 8.5 of her report.  And Officers recommended approval also.

Adam Beamish ● 6631d

And on the subject of planning having just endured that BBC1 reality documentary planning can I say that the Officer from Barking & Dagenham is a disgrace to the profession - openly encouraging a complainant to set foot within private property to confront the owner and seemingly considering it appropriate to turn up on someone's doorstep to discuss their concerns whilst having a bluetooth headset on.  If he had ever worked for me he'd have been in trouble !

Adam Beamish ● 6631d

"Incidentally, wasn't it Joseph Goebbels who stated "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it"? History suggests that he, too, was an ignorant, narrow-minded, blinkered and prejudiced individual"John, whilst there is little doubt in my mind that Goebbels was evil and psychologically damaged, history doesn't suggest at all that he was an ignorant, narrow-minded, blinkered and prejudiced individual. I would be interest to know which historian suggested as such. From what I have read, he was highly intelligent and well educated and prejudice was actually beneath his intellect in the grand scheme.  However, superior intelligence doesn't make one good and ignorance doesn't make one bad. Interesting though how many thousands of politicians around the world have become students of Goebbels'  "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it" A quick google will show you:  "Goebbels earned a Ph.D. in Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 18th century romantic drama; he then went on to work as a journalistGoebbels compensated for his physical frailty with intellectual accomplishments. He originally intended to train as a priest, but after growing distant from his Catholic faith he studied literature and philosophy at universities in Bonn, Würzburg, Freiburg im Breisgau and Heidelberg, where he wrote his doctoral thesis on the 18th century romantic novelist Wilhelm von Schütz. His two most influential teachers, Friedrich Gundolf and his doctoral supervisor at Heidelberg, Max Freiherr von Waldberg, were Jews. His intelligence and political astuteness were generally acknowledged even by his enemies.After completing his doctorate in 1921, Goebbels worked as a journalist and tried for several years to become a published author. He wrote a semi-autobiographical novel, Michael, two verse plays, and quantities of romantic poetry. In these works, he revealed the psychological damage his physical limitations had caused." Interestingly - a google on the other Joseph reveals: "Stalin took part in streetfighting as a child; he was not afraid to challenge opponents who were much stronger than he, and he was severely beaten on numerous occasions. He became an atheist in his first year. He insisted his peers call him "Koba", after the Robin Hood-like protagonist of the novel The Patricide by Alexander Kazbegi; he would continue to use this pseudonym as a revolutionary. In August 1898, he joined the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, an organisation from which the Bolsheviks would later form.Shortly before the final exams, the Seminary abruptly raised school fees. Unable to pay, Stalin quit the seminary in 1899 and missed his exams, for which he was officially expelled. 20 of his fellow-classmates were expelled for revolutionary activities in 1899, and 40 more were expelled in 1901. Shortly after leaving school, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin and decided to become a revolutionary."John, continually posting threads alluding to Andrew Atkinson as being racist (and now cunningly throwing in the name 'Goebbels' )  will no doubt cause many ignorant people to believe you but most of us will not be impressed or suckered in.  One wonders how you would feel if Mr Atkinson started throwing in the name "Stalin"  when  referring issues or events to yourself? 

Steve Taylor ● 6630d

"Interesting though how many thousands of politicians around the world have become students of Goebbels'  'if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it'"SteveThere are certainly quite a few in Hounslow politics, and one or two of them post over here on this forum.  But then again as we were told at Borough Council not so long ago, "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics."  In other words, telling a lie is perfectly acceptable just so long as (a) it is told for the purpose of advancing a political cause, and (b) somebody somewhere will believe it.

Phil Andrews ● 6630d

"You call it dishonesty, we call it politics."  ...and everyone else calls it an impenetrable mess.:-(

Sarah Felstead ● 6630d

Steve thank you for your post. This man JC sees everything that is discussed on here and elsewhere as racist. Everyone is disgusted with this continuous harping on about it. No he certainly would not like to be called Stalin, but he is always ready with the abuse, especially to royalty, consider this from one of his contributions."As a fed up subject of a monarchy headed by an old bint of German descent partnered by her Greek stud, I long for the opportunity to achieve the status of people who live in countries where everyone is equal and they are all citizens, and where things like an established church and discrimination against people who follow the "wrong" religion?What sort of democracy is he in favour of, but don't expect it to be here with his socialist comrades in Westminster!

Account suspended ● 6629d

LIE NUMBER 2"In the first case the structure was built in Cranford. The member responsible was removed from the Planning Committee (of which he had been Vice-Chair), the structure was taken down and replacement trees planted."Yes in my haste, I forgot that the building was in fact in Cranford. The information I have is that he was refused retrospective planning permission for The building as it stood. However it was allegedly reported that if he replanted the 2 trees to replace the originals, and modifications to the building, to comply with the regulations for it, notwithstanding that it was in a conservation area. These are the people suggesting now that the planning department is "Institutionally racist", a nice convenient word that is bandied about, when individuals can't get their own way.You also questioned;"The nod and the wink culture was prevalent with this committee many years ago, especially the Central ward"Then perhaps you might take a second look at the independent planning consultants report. (Nicola Spinks) Isn't it as a result of this that councillors now have to explain their reasons for overturning officers decisions, which haappened quite often, so councillor don't tell me it didn't happen.....I and others saw and heard what went on...........end of!

Account suspended ● 6628d

"Personally think you've got this one wrong Andy - 2.5 years had elapsed since the previous refusal and the Officers addresses changes over that period in Section 8.5 of her report.  And Officers recommended approval also."Adam I bow to your superior experience and knowledge. However the point I was trying to make, is that this structure was allowed, even after no planning application, in the first place, then retrospective planning application, refusal, appeals, enforcement action etc etc.No one will ever convince me that this structure does not detract from the general street scene, and the vans/cars parked there do not cause traffic problems. I know that the 4 year rule is not something that planners are enamoured with, however it sends out the wrong message by allowing it because of "security"......Institutional racism? Finally I well remember the Councils legal representative, pulling his hair out at some of decisions that were being made/attempted, corrupt maybe not, but dodgy IMHO. So JC, you haven't got anything to be proud of, or reasons to sling mud at anyone. Thank god, that this administration has started to clean up the mess you and others left behind.

Account suspended ● 6627d

Something isn't quite right with with planning - I don't walk around here because of the likelihood of tripping on a slab so on a rare walk around the maisonettes off Gillette corner today, I came around a corner into Redesdale Gardens and almost fell over in shock....This is at the end of a garden which for years would have been traditional planting and established trees - this now overlooks the private garden in Redesdale and into the road behind changing the street scene behind completely!  I spoke to a neighbour in the street and she said that it has been allowed because the owners have said it is going to be used as a store room.

Sarah Felstead ● 6627d

"In other words, telling a lie is perfectly acceptable just so long as (a) it is told for the purpose of advancing a political cause, and (b) somebody somewhere will believe it." Cllr AndrewsUummh an expert in this me thinks, and before you try and throw mud back, Cllr I'm not a Tory Rent Boy Andrews..I am not trying pursuade anyone or advance any cause..

Dave Hughes ● 6625d

Oh no, he's back!

Phil Andrews ● 6625d

"Oh no, he's back!"Yes Phil, him and JC have an open invitation to visit the Kremlin. Just to keep in touch with their comrades!

Account suspended ● 6625d

Except in Dave's case it's Kremlin with a capital "C".  In fact I can think of another word with a capital C.....no, on second thoughts I won't go there.

Phil Andrews ● 6625d

Phil - glad to see you are reading the forum. Could you check yr hounslow.gov  emails as I have raised several questions regarding the next ADAS report, who from Council is attending tonights meeting etc etc. Issues also regarding the Press Release.  Sorry to butt in on this forum but we need some answers.RgdsSteve

Steve Taylor ● 6625d

Will take a look now, many thanks.

Phil Andrews ● 6625d