It is quite incredible that I now find myself wasting an hour responding to the distortions of Phil's recent posts when I could be doing more productive things.Okay, here goes ...PHIL SAYS: "Neil, I assume I don't need to tell you that Robin's increasingly bizarre allegations are complete and utter rubbish."MY REPLY: Well, at least they're only "utter rubbish", unlike some of your own remarks which were once described by your Tory colleague Councillor Peter Carey as "malicious, mischievous and utter rubbish".PHIL SAYS: "However to her credit she (Vanessa Smith) did not go as far as I recall blame the ICG".MY REPLY: Neither did I. I merely pointed out that the ICG's opponents had been on the receiving end of these activities. That is a statement of fact. Nor did I mention Vanessa (or anyone else's name, for that matter) yet you seem to believe that I am referring to her. Fwiw, my various comments relate to three different individuals and their experiences. Like I say, maybe it's just "bad luck".PHIL SAYS: "The legendary "firebomb" incident ... was frankly the most pathetic and amateurish attempt at a smear that the ICG has ever encountered."MY REPLY: Are you trying to insinuate here that Sue Sampson started the fire herself, and if so, was she arrested for doing so?PHIL SAYS: "... Ann Keen arrived at the scene "before the fire brigade" (in the words of a police officer)."MY REPLY: In the words of which police officer? How can this be verified? Or is it yet another untruth, like your claim that I tried to destabilise Al Ayoby as Chair of the URA?PHIL SAYS: "Neither the police nor the fire brigade subsequently recorded the incident as arson, and no ICG member was ever questioned."MY REPLY: And tell me, what action did the police take against the Labour Party member who you claim assaulted your father at the polling station that same week? What leads were followed or arrests made to deal with this disgraceful act?PHIL SAYS: "... and similarly the unsolicited unsavoury mail allegedly received by him (Robin) comes as news after all these years."MY REPLY: I like the word "alleged". Since, by inference, I'm obviously supposed to have made it all up, I'm just a little confused as to why I didn't allege something more extreme than being called "bird brain" and getting charities' and other brochures. As to whether I think it was someone from the ICG that arranged all of this junk for me, I have no way of knowing. I'd give it a 50:50 chance, I suppose. I'm aware that the ICG has allies in the west of the borough who have made plain they dislike my anti racist views and I certainly do not hold you personally responsible if it was their work.PHIL SAYS: "However Robin's clear inference, without a jot of evidence to support his case, was that this scummy conduct was the work of the ICG."MY REPLY: Once again, I did not accuse the ICG but I did point out that the activities described were directed at those who just happen to be their opponents. The fact that the said activities stopped dead as soon as the elections were over is, once again, a simple statement of fact. And by the way, as far as "not providing a jot of evidence is concerned", perhaps you will now tell us what "evidence" there was when you insinuated, in numerous press articles during the mid-1990s, that Isleworth's three Labour councillors were involved in an alleged "hate campaign" against local companies that had bought advertising space in the ICG's newsletter?PHIL SAYS: "It may come as a surprise to you (referring here to Vanessa) but I actually have a certain amount of respect for the work that you did as a local councillor."MY REPLY: You have demonised Vanessa in the most appalling way, both throughout her time as a councillor and since (and even once compared her - unfavourably - with Harold Shipman).PHIL SAYS: "... The alleged attack on the property of a Labour candidate hours before the press deadlines on the week of the 2006 local election was nothing but a sick publicity stunt, and a pretty crappy one at that."MY REPLY: Well let's take a look at how you responded to that incident "in the heat of the moment", shall we? You posted a comment on this forum at 22:07 on 03/05/06 which began: "Owing to the seriousness of this alleged incident I am breaking my own self-imposed ban to post a few comments." You then went on to say that "if this was genuinely an attack on Ms Sampson then I and all my ICG colleagues completely, unreservedly condemn it" before then immediately contradicting yourself and attacking the Labour Party for staging the event in order to "make headline news in the election-day Chronicle". Not only was it not covered in the election day Chronicle - because it occurred too late to be featured in the paper (although it was subsequently, and as a genuine and serious news story), you chose not to wait one moment to investigate the facts before making your accusations. So your initial reaction was knee-jerk and nothing has changed. And, further more, your posting of 3rd May 2006 was roundly condemned by neutral contributors to this forum.Throughout his two postings, Phil condemns me for allegedly making inferences and suggestions about the involvement of the ICG and its supporters. In fact, I genuinely do not know what the full truth is. But he should bear in mind a comment he once made to Dave Hughes, that "It is one thing knowing something and another being able to provide evidence to back it up." My feelings exactly. Mind you, Phil does not always wait for proof before making allegations. He claimed I had posted on this website under a false name (I did not) and he made the same allegation against his former Labour opponent Chris Boucher, who said "I am now heartily sick of being villified by members who post on this forum, accusing me of being names which they do not recognise, and decide that it must be Chris Boucher ... I was promised an apology from Phil Andrews if that person was not me - I am still waiting." In much the same way, when an ICG mouthpiece wrote to the paper in 1996 accusing the ANL of "fixing cars" (thus endorsing erroneous claims made by the BNP) no apology was forthcoming.For the record, this is not the first time that Phil Andrews has vehemently denied that an organisation he is involved in has had no involvement in anti-social behaviour. In an exchange with Isleworth Labour councillor Pete Smith in 1986, he stated "I am not convinced that Cllr Smith actually believes that the Isleworth NF is responsible for attacks upon members of the Asian community ... the NF is totally opposed to racial violence ... in the event of any member of our organisation being found to be responsible for such activities, he/she would face a disciplinary hearing and would in all probability be expelled from the party." Yet Phil has subsequently stated that his former party DID indulge in violent unlawful acts - and that he witnessed this. And no, I am not trying to draw a comparison between the NF and the ICG: I am, however, questioning how much we can truly rely on Phil's sincerity about these matters.Perhaps part of the ICG's problem is its role model. As well as spending fourteen years as an active member of far right organisations (pretty well half of his adult life), Phil was, during this time, convicted of assaulting a police officer AND I believe - on another occasion - was fined £25 by Hounslow Police for his public behaviour while under the influence of drink. On a recent posting on the W4 website, Phil remarked that he would have liked it if one of Ann Keen's supporters had picked a fight with him at the election night count.But to end with, let us at least hope that Phil's recent remarks (to the effect that the harrassment endured by the ICG's opponents was "scummy conduct") is sincere. That at least shows some promise that whoever was responsible, he and his organisation in no way condone it.
Robin Taylor ● 6102d