Forum Topic

Isleworth Public Hall (well well well)

Who would have guessed it eh that the latest Labour leaflet is again telling porkies and Theo Dennison even accused the ICG of scaremongering at the Hustings the other eveningA group bidding to run a popular public hall say they are still awaiting crucial information from Hounslow Council, despite an election leaflet suggesting it is a done deal.The council agreed in principle earlier this year to hand over management of Isleworth Public Hall to a consortium of not-for-profit groups.The plan was to hand them a five-year lease beginning in April this year, which the council estimated would save £425,000 over the course of the contract.An 'Isleworth Matters' leaflet recently published by the ruling Labour group proclaimed the consortium had won a contract.But members of the consortium say no deal has been signed and they are still awaiting information from the council, including details of running costs, which they claim they need before putting together a final bid.Christine Diwell, of the Friends of Isleworth Public Hall, one of four groups in the consortium, said: "We haven't won any contract and according to the council the procurement process is still ongoing."We're setting up a social enterprise which could run the hall we've asked the council for a lot of information which it has so far been unable to provide."The hall, in South Street, Isleworth, is currently run by the council's leisure contractor Fusion Lifestyle.Should the consortium win the contract, it could pave the way for similar voluntary groups to take control of other public halls across the borough.A council spokesman said: "The council has been working very closely with the Isleworth Public Hall Consortium to help them through the whole process. We are hoping to enable them to finalise their application very shortly."http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/public-hall-takeover-still-not-6992973

Paul Fisher ● 4310d49 Comments

"If you want intelligent debate use intelligent people to advance your party's viewpoint rather than the inane personal attacks routinely indulged in by Robin Taylor".That is so funny, Phil.Now shall I remind you of some of the personal attacks you have been routinely indulging in against those who have had the temerity to disagree with you? I posted a fuller (though far from complete) list on the UKIP thread yesterday, but here's a brief taster...Unbalanced, parasite, moron, repulsive arse, lying scumbag, disturbed, gutless creep, lunatic, low and treacherous, dickhead, demented, etc.Yet you demand that others use "intelligent people" to advance "intelligent debate"? Can you honestly not see just a slight element of double standards on your part..? Some would say that you use abusive language because you cannot tolerate dissent and are unable to control your temper."...a man who has already been banned from this forum for posting under multiple false identities."You haven't got the faintest idea if or why Robin was banned. As Dan Evans pointed out to you eight years ago on this very forum, you always question the bona fides of those who have the temerity not to support you.And what of your own penchant for posting under false names? During the 2010 local election campaign you used "James Dash" as your alias. He appeared the moment your name disappeared. A month later he vanished and you were suddenly back posting under your own name. What additional name(s) are you planning on using this time?"How pleased I am to be standing outside of this incestuous charade and offer a fresh and genuine alternative to the whole squalid thing."No wonder Conservative Councillor Barbara Reid once berated the ICG for its "jaw-drawing hypocrisy". The alterative you once offered may have seemed fresh at one time but it's now looking decidedly stale.

Terry Watson ● 4305d

1. The ICG are not constructive In office, we arranged or co-arranged : a. The Rainbow Project in which over £4 million was released from Housing's excessive reserves for spending specifically on community groups and residents' associations. b. £419k in Section 106 funding for the Worton Estate from Worton Green building. c. Residents group action against Thames Water d. Funding for Bridgelink cafe now closed by Laboure. £300k for the repair of the St John's Community Centre rooff. Free 30 min parking around Brentford and Isleworthg. Establishment of Hounslow against Racial Harassment as an active campaigning body h. Spending on community safety at LBH increased by 300% 2. What we're now proposing a. A new action against Thames Water in liaison with the MRAG group b. Opposition to building on green spaces like the Labour-supported development on Brabazon Rd Green c. Restoration of Area Planning Committees and the general strengthening of area committeesd. Increase in local conservation areas led by local residents who want to see this in their local areae. Local referenda on major planning issues like Brentford High Streetf. Further release of S106 sums for environmental improvements g. Mini-roundabout at Worton Rd/Twickenham Rd junctionh. Clampdown on absentee politicians with low attendance records like Jason Ellar i. Flexible roamer parking scheme to allow LBH residents who live some distance from stations to park in low-demand spaces in CPZs - Osterley is full of these after the likes of Ron Bartholomew caved into demands from Osterley residents from a CPZ to stop the hoi polloi parking outside their housesh. Rethink of the Brentford High St development including the conversion of St James' church to replace the Watermans', conversion of the Wilson and Kyle building into warehouse type flats, and more greenery along the frontage, plus keeping the flats to the same height as Brentford Dock. Even out of office we've managed to rally support for buildings like the St John's Community Centre which is now to double up as the Hounslow Education Centre. As for being in coalition with the Tories, that was a practical solution to the problem of historic animosity between Labour and the ICG which you seem keen on perpetuating. What about the shameful instance where the national Labour Party abstained on the retrospective vote to stop people on workfare getting paid, thus giving the Tories a much easier ride than they should have had? No coalition there, just a bunch of bollockless cowards who hadn't got the courage to oppose the government.

Ian Speed ● 4308d

It always makes me chuckle when the ICG levels charges of dishonesty at its opponents. To give just one of many examples of the ICG's own deceit I invite readers to take a look at the following post which Phil Andrews posted on this forum last September. In particular, please look at the passage which I have highlighted in block letters...Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:New Life in Brentford. Posted by: Phil Andrews Date/Time: 01/09/13 14:20:00 VanessaYou may recall that a couple of months ago you made a rather strange post on CW4 stating, as though it were a matter of undisputed fact, that I had had a meeting with a particular named individual from UKIP.It was actually a complete fabrication.  At that time I had not set eyes on said individual since the election count in 2010.  But it wasn't your fabrication, was it?  THIS TOTALLY GROUNDLESS ALLEGATION HAD IN ACTUAL FACT APPEARED ON ROBIN'S "CHISWICK CHAT" SITE THAT VERY MORNING.I recall that when I read your post I didn't think you had made it.  It just didn't "feel", to me, like one of your posts.  But when you continued with the dialogue I had to accept that either you had indeed made the post, or that you had at least been happy for it to have been made in your name.Whoever made the post, I think it is a great shame that you and certain others insist upon giving time of day to this destructive and, in my opinion, rather disturbed individual.  It must surely have occurred to you that his relentless insistence upon trying to manipulate the debate in an area in which he ought to have no interest has the potential to cause a whole lot of trouble, and that the likely victims of his interference will not be me or others around me but rather those whose corner he professes to be fighting.^^^ Remember Phil's words - that Vanessa's allegation had been posted on Robin's Chiswick Chat site "that very morning". Now take a look at the chronology of the following two posts, beginning with Vanessa's post on the CW4 forum...  Topic: Re: New bedfellows Posted by: Vanessa Smith Date/Time: 12/06/13 10:33:00 I wonder when Phil Andrews is going to come clean and tell us that he has already requested a meeting with newly defected to UKIP Councillor Rebecca Stewart?And now look at the date of the post made on Robin's Chiswick Chat forum. You will see that it was not posted "that very morning" at all - it was a full two days later...Re: Middlesex Anti Racist Actionby Captain Darling » Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:08 am ANDREWS SEEKS UKIP DEALFormer National Front member Phil Andrews has requested a meeting with Hounslow's UKIP councillors. Andrews has already signalled his intention to stand as an 'independent' in next May's Hounslow borough council elections and is looking to persuade UKIP to give him and his colleagues a clear run against Labour in Isleworth Ward.^^^ What we see here is an example of Phil Andrews deliberately shading the truth so as to misrepresent a political opponent. Now for all I know there may have been collaboration between Robin and Vanessa on this matter (or alternatively they may have heard about Phil's approach to UKIP separately but possibly from the same source) but that is not the point. The point is that Phil tried to substantiate his conspiracy theory by knowingly using false evidence and by doing so gave himself a cue to go on a rant about how one of his political opponents is "disturbed" (which is how he has always characterised his critics).It wouldn't really matter if this was the only time he had done it, but sadly this type of manipulation has been a consistent feature of his political career for the last 37 years.

Terry Watson ● 4309d

In brief, IPH has been operating under Fusion but managed by the community-run Friends of Isleworth Public Hall for many years.  The Hall, I should add, is not owned by LBH as such, the Council is simply the Trustee and holds it on behalf of the community.Last year LBH decided unilaterally without any prior consultation that the Hall would be put out to tender, the reason being it was apparently losing money although the local authority refused to share the precise details of how much it was said to be losing either with the Friends or with potential bidders, despite the fact that the latter had been asked to draw up a financial plan for the future management of the Hall to be submitted with their bids (in spite of the fact that this essential financial information was withheld from the Friends and from bidders, Labour in their Isleworth leaflet were somehow able to announce that the amount in question was £85k per annum).The documentation accompanying the tendering process was couched in terms which made it clear that a private company was what the local authority had in mind.  For instance bidders were asked for their company registration number, amongst other things.However as is its wont LBH through its customary ineptitude managed to frighten off anybody who may possibly have seen the Hall for its income potential and were thus left with two bids, one from a local C of E school and one from the community organised around the Friends.  The Labour ward councillors were working heavily behind the scenes to try to ensure that the school won through, through various means such as letters to local newspapers send through third parties and all the usual moody that Isleworth people have become used to from these people.For whatever reason the school pulled out, but not before Councillor Curran had managed to sneak onto the Forward Plan notice of his intention to (again unilaterally) grant the school a 125-year lease over part of the land occupied by the Hall.Having tried, and failed, to prise the Hall from the Friends, the Labour councillors and candidates, faced with the fact of it now looking like it will go to the Friends by default, proudly announced in their leaflet that thanks to them the Hall had been "saved for the community".  This kind of outrageous and completely unprincipled behaviour is something we have become used to over many years from the Labour Party in Isleworth ward.  I can't believe a man of Theo's integrity would have enjoyed having to defend this kind of trashy conduct but such, I guess, is the price of a party allegiance.Or do you believe that The Isleworth Society, as well as the ICG, are just scaremongering?

Phil Andrews ● 4310d