"Phil Andrews blows his fuse because I bring up the issue of his far right background. But at least I stick to the facts: not from me will you ever hear any erroneous references to the alleged race of the police officer he was convicted of assaulting. But I get no thanks for sticking to the truth - just abuse for bringing up a serious and legitimate issue in the first place."Telling the truth counts for nothing in a borough which is dominated by politicians whose arts are those of smear and innuendo followed by a cheap and hollow (temporary) victory at the ballot box. And they now wonder why some of us intend giving them a taste of their own medicine."RobinI'm sorry mate, but only in your wildest dreams do I "blow a fuse" as a result of your constant bellyaching about events of two decades ago. It is, after all, only you and a tiny handful of others who remain possessed of the weird notion that this acts as some kind of impediment to the ICG's progress. Me, I look at the election results for 1998, 2002 and 2006 and chuckle about your dogged persistence with such an obviously counter-productive electoral strategy. If the disharmony caused in my community as a consequence of your attempting to stoke up racial tensions which do not otherwise exist means as little to you now as it did on those occasions, then by all means try it again next year.And then, apparently, I'm supposed to be grateful that you don't venture into the realms of pure invention like your mate the liar Dan Filson (post-1991 meeting with Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons) and the "anti-racists" of Searchlight (conviction for racist assault on a black policeman). Well yes, maybe you do, almost uniquely amongst your kind, have the wit to recognise that my past is appalling enough without having to embellish and that to do so jeopardises the credibility of that which remains. I must take it from your comments then that you are not the coward who posted the following gems on the Guido Fawkes site yesterday under the cloak of anonymity, and look forward to your condemnation of the same:"It gets worse. The leading community group convicted thug is moaning about what may or may have not happened to his aged Father, despite admitting several attacks on blacks by himself. I really do pump purple p**s on this racist thug (convicted, bang to rights) pig. Over to you Fill (my coffers with allowances) Andrews.""I am glad that you agree with the comments about the convicted community group thug. Beat up a black guy, it doesn’t matter if he has a son.""I think you’ll also find the same Phil Andrews was a bodyguard for Oswald Mosley in the early 1960’s. There is a photograph somewhere of him on the plinth at a public rally in Trafalgar Square doing a nazi salute while Mosley is speaking."Sir O must have been taking a real chance facing all those hostile demonstrators under the protection of a guy in nappies!But it is your complaint that "the truth counts for nothing" which reveals you at your chutzpahing best. Somebody famous once said that whilst politicians are wedded to the truth, like many married couples they sometimes live apart. Nowhere was this more true than in Hounslow where the Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor Ruth Cadbury, declared during a debate on a motion to censure her Group for untruthful campaigning during a by-election contest: "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics."It is noteworthy that the same "it's politics" justification was given by you to excuse the Labour Party's dishonest claim on the eve of the Euro elections that the BNP could only be defeated by voting Labour, a claim which quite likely resulted in the BNP capturing two Euro seats by the very slenderest of margins as the Greens and the UKIP just failed to muster enough votes to keep them out. It is a shame that your much-vaunted anti-racism and opposition to fascists did not extend to you offering us an apology on behalf of your party for this most catastrophic outcome to your party's unashamed strategy of lying to the electorate.Of course Ruth's comment as described above is sadly no longer available on webcast, however for our benefit she and her colleagues kindly repeated their performance during a similar debate at Borough Council on 23rd June this year when a motion was tabled deploring a recent claim on one of Ann Keen's leaflets circulated in her ward that the council had nearly £200m of PFI money "sitting in the bank" unused. Nobody during the debate attempted to defend the comment, which was quite simply an outright lie (the money doesn't come on stream until 2011), and yet no apology was forthcoming although a sense of confusion as to why they were being criticised was evident all across the Labour benches. But users of this forum shouldn't take my word for it, the whole debate is available on webcast at the link below - enter approximately 58 minutes into the debate. Take a look and listen for yourself:http://www.hounslow.ukcouncil.net/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=27251&t=0&m=rmx&l=en_GBRobin, you are the spokesperson on this forum for a local party which openly avers that lying to potential voters is mere "politics" and is thus some way an acceptable mode of political engagement. And yet, when the occasion demands, you insist that your observations and comments must be believed and you become indignant when they are not. The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and the moral thereof is obviously completely lost on you guys.I am, as I always have been, happy to debate my personal political history with anybody who is prepared to consider the facts objectively rather than consistently looking for non-existent "links" with which to make a case that doesn't exist against other people, and invoking ever less tenable arguments (or in the case of your friend from Hammersmith outright fabrications) to sustain a wishful view of continued far-right activity. One simply cannot debate such matters intelligently with someone who is always looking for an angle in pursuit of perceived party political advantage.What I am reluctant to do is to volunteer honest information which is then twisted, and in some cases lied about, in order to score a political point.As I've said before Robin, you need to decide whether your anti-racism is important enough to you to stand alone as a point of principle, or whether it is secondary to your tribal allegiance to the political party which you represent. At present your willingness to spin and twist undermines the reputation you would otherwise deserve as a fine chronicler of far-right history in this borough.
Phil Andrews ● 6177d
