Entec report into Mogden odour now available

Please e-mail me at phil@communitygroup.org.uk if you would like a free copy of this 48-page PDF document.

Comment would be superfluous...

Trebuchet or not Trebuchet?

One or two people have commented that since I changed the layout of this blog the enlarged Trebuchet typeface doesn't look quite right for what is supposed to be a medium of serious comment (well, sometimes anyway!).

I am thinking of switching over to Verdana.

This paragraph is an example of the Verdana typeface. I use it on a number of other blogs that I run for sundry different projects which are probably of no interest to readers of this one.

Does anybody have a view on this please?

Elwyn Watkins' statement

Further to the item below, Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins has released the following brief statement:

"This verdict is a historic victory for the people of Oldham East and Saddleworth, a victory for fair play and a victory for clean politics.

"Anyone who knowingly lies to the voters or looks to set constituent against constituent has no place in a democracy.

"I hope this judgment makes it very clear that if you deceive your constituents you should be kicked out of Parliament.”

Ruling could pave the way for a return to honest politics

I don't imagine I'll have to explain to anybody from around these parts the significance of the verdict in the Phil Woolas case heard by two High Court judges:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11699888

Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth (and former party activist in Hounslow), beat his Liberal Democrat rival by 103 votes at the recent general election. The Lib Dem, Elwyn Watkins, claimed that Mr. Woolas had knowingly made false statements about him in his election material that may have had a decisive impact upon the result.

He took legal action against Mr. Woolas under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act and the case was heard before a special elections tribunal, the first of its kind to sit for almost a century.

The Act makes it an offence to publish "any false statement in relation to the candidate's personal character or conduct" in order to prevent their election - unless they believed it was true and had "reasonable grounds" for their belief.

Having considered the evidence, the judges found in favour of Mr. Watkins and a re-run of the contest has been ordered.

I've not yet studied the Act to ascertain whether or not it applies to local elections as well as to general elections. Natural Justice would suggest that it should.

As we know, Labour in Hounslow not only regularly produces material about its opponents during elections that it knows to be untrue, it even openly boasts of the fact.

There are several examples from Isleworth during recent contests to which I can point. The alleged "firebomb attack" on a Labour candidate's house in 2006 followed almost instantly by a leaflet suggesting that the ICG was responsible. A leaflet circulated in 2010 claiming that I owned a holiday home in Portugal when its originators knew at the time that I was in an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) with my creditors which would have made it impossible for me to so. Another leaflet circulated during the same campaign alleging that ICG candidates had held a meeting discussing plans to sell off local authority housing stock. There are countless examples of which these are just a tiny few.

That the circulation of untrue and sometimes malicious allegations about opponents is deliberate local party policy was confirmed in a debate at Borough Council when the Deputy Leader of the then Labour opposition, Councillor Ruth Cadbury, casually dismissed criticisms of dishonest campaigning with the immortal words: "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics".

Anybody who has ever spoken to these people on a personal level will confirm that when confronted about their actions they appear genuinely confused as to what all the fuss is about. They almost all give an impression of regarding dishonest campaigning and vicious personal smears against their opponents as being an integral and quite normal part of the process of political campaigning, and that the end result completely justifies the means. One must assume that such a peculiarly mercenary approach to human engagement is instilled in them by the organisation the service of which would appear to dictate their every deed and emotion.

Away from politics many of them are actually quite decent, trustworthy, friendly, sometimes helpful. I have found myself especially impressed that they always seem to stand their round. And yet when they don the rosette...

For what it is worth, I would like to state publicly that I do not believe local Labour's dishonest campaign methods cost us the seats that we lost in Isleworth and Syon back in May. The political conditions under which that election was fought did for us, and in my considered view we would have lost all six seats even had the Labour campaign been a paragon of honesty and honour. Let me be quite clear about that.

However in another place and in another time it is conceivable that a small reverse could be brought about as a result of local Labour's policy of deliberately smearing and misrepresenting its opponents in the most crude and malicious manner.

I hope the electorate punishes Labour dearly in Oldham East and Saddleworth in a determined expression of righteous anger. If there is any justice the Lib Dem victim of Labour's smears will be selected by his party and elected by the voters. As victory was probably rightfully his in May it would be nice to see the Conservatives stand down and give him a clear run, but I doubt whether they will.

It will also be interesting to see whether Labour have the nerve, not to mention the contempt for the electorate and for the integrity of politics, to field Mr. Woolas once again.

Thames Water's and LBH's faecal attraction

The consultant Entec has been commissioned to hold a public consultation tonight on the odour nuisance created by the activities of Thames Water at the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works in Isleworth.

Although residents suffering the Mogden Pong for the most part reside in Isleworth, Whitton or Twickenham the meeting is being held at the Civic Centre in Hounslow, at least two miles away from most of Mogden's victims.

It begins at 7.00pm - not that most residents will know that, as the start time was accidentally omitted from the mailout that was allegedly delivered to 10,000 households in the area.

Most of the people within the claimed distribution area that MRAG (Mogden Residents' Action Group) have spoken to have not received a newsletter.

Questions sent by MRAG to Entec have not been responded to. We were told yesterday that Entec had taken a "policy decision" not to respond to individual questions. Apparently a question from a residents' group demonstrably representing thousands of households still constitutes an "individual question".

A cynic would suspect that tonight's meeting will be nothing but a stage-managed public relations exercise. A cynic would expect that the inevitably low turnout will lead the organisers to publicly aver that Mogden is not an issue for most residents.

And what, I wonder, would the same cynic make of the fact that Entec and Thames Water have chosen the Civic Centre as a "home" venue, when so much hot air has been expended over many years by successive administrations about the local authority being on the side of the residents?

Collectors wanted for Poppy Day 2010

Once again we approach the time when we remember those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country in two World Wars and subsequent conflicts.

On Sunday 14th November 2010 local people will join the annual Remembrance Day parades in various towns around the borough. In Isleworth the local community pays tribute to its fallen at the War Memorial at the junction of Twickenham Road and South Street.

As in previous years my father has been entrusted with the task of organising the poppy collections in the run up to the main event. Each since he started he has managed to better the previous one in terms of the total amount collected.

However he could always use more volunteers to assist the fund raising effort by giving up a few hours to collect money outside local supermarkets and from local businesses.

If you can spare any time to help between now and November 13th please call Ron Andrews on 020 8892 4260 and leave your name and contact details.

Thank you.

Sorry I'm away for a week, see you in a month

Anybody who has ever been a councillor will tell you that the weeks roll very seamlessly into the months.

So Isleworth councillor Mindu Bains could be forgiven for leaving this rather confusing message for constituents who may have been trying to get hold of her between September 26th and October 26th (although this Out Of Office Auto-Reply came in response to an e-mail sent to her on October 28th).

Maybe they will have had better luck following the link to "Councillor Sue Smpson"? Or does this mean poor old Ed copped all the casework for a whole calendar month (click above image to enlarge)?

In Memory and Honour of Cameron Short - "A true inspiration to us all"

Please donate to Charlton Farm Children's Hospice in Cameron's memory

I have found myself strangely and deeply affected over the last two days by the very sad death of a young man whom I didn't know and never met.

Cameron Short was just ten years old when, in September 2009, doctors discovered a tumour in his brain. Sadly doctors who performed tests on the growth confirmed it was cancerous.

Cameron, or Cam, was treated and operated on at Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, where he lived. He battled on for a whole year and returned to school. In September this year he became a one year survivor. Those who knew him and cared for him were amazed by the courage that he consistently showed, never complaining about his ordeal, no tantrums or tears.

Regrettably it was recently discovered that another tumour had developed and he began undergoing treatment for this.

Cam passed away peacefully and painlessly in his sleep at Charlton Farm Hospice on 20th October 2010, a place where he had spent many happy hours during his last year and in his final days, making friends with the staff who cared diligently for his every need and even helping other children to cope with their illnesses. He appeared in a film helping children to come to terms with radiotherapy and not be daunted by it.

You can see his story at Cam's Place, a lasting tribute to the life and the extraordinary courage of this wonderful boy.

My only connection with Cam was that I attended primary school with his grandmother Sharon. I hope she'll forgive me for saying that was quite a long time ago. It was through Sharon's posts on Facebook that I followed his story, and was devastated when she posted recently that doctors had given his family the news that he had only days to live.

Sharon's brother David posted on Wednesday that Cam's courage had been "a true inspiration to us all". I wouldn't try to put it better myself.

Cameron's friends and family have launched an appeal to raise funds for Charlton Farm Hospice to help them with their work for children suffering with terminal illness. Please give generously in Cam's memory to help other children to enjoy their last days in an atmosphere of love and laughter.

Please click on the button below to make your donation through JustGiving. Your details are safe and secure,the process is simple and Gift Aid will be reclaimed on every eligible donation. Thank you.

The dark soul in our midst that cannot move on

I suggested a couple of days ago that I might try to get hold of the appalling Labour Party leaflet that is (very) slowly doing the rounds in Isleworth right now. However in the absence of half my family I have placed myself under virtual house arrest this week whilst trying to get things done, and so I still don't have a copy to hand. For those who await visual confirmation of this literary masterpiece with baited breath I urge patience. It is coming.

In the meantime I find myself reflecting with some amusement upon the various grumbles and allegations contained therein.

The main thrust of the attack was as follows:

1. When in office ICG councillors received the standard members' allowance, paid for from the local authority's budget. This included a Special Responsibilities Allowance (SRA) for those holding certain offices such as Executive members, Area Committee Chairs and so on.

2. I personally have become exceptionally wealthy as a consequence of having received these allowances, and simultaneously have been forced to enter into an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) with my creditors following personal and business difficulties arising from the recession.

The indignation over ICG councillors receiving members' allowances tells us quite a lot about the mindset of those behind the leaflet. All councillors receive these allowances. The Labour councillors who succeeded us as representatives of Isleworth and Syon wards - and in whose name this leaflet was published - receive them. As Executive members Isleworth councillor Ed Mayne and Syon member Theo Dennison each receive around £22k per annum. Should they remain Executive members for the duration of their terms of office, both will have received more from the taxpayer than any ICG councillor did during the administration of 2006-2010.

Similarly, Isleworth councillor Mindu Bains draws nearly £16k each year when her SRA as Vice Chair of the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee is factored into the equation.

So how then do the authors of the leaflet have the brass neck to complain about the fact that ICG councillors, like all other councillors the length and breadth of the country, received an annual allowance? The answer is simple - in the minds of these people Labour councillors are "real" councillors and are thus entitled to be remunerated for their time and effort, whilst non-Labour councillors are in some way unreasonably occupying seats which rightfully "belong" to them.

Worst of all ICG councillors are not even politicians, not members of any of the exclusive little clubs that by right of birth govern our localities and impose their ideologies and their expertise upon us lesser mortals. ICG councillors are mere residents, upstarts from amid the ranks of the hoi polloi. How dare we gatecrash their little set-up and claim for ourselves anything whatsoever that was really intended for them?

On the subject of my own personal finances and indeed of all aspects of my private life much angst apparently abounds in Local Labour Land. Wild and usually inaccurate speculation about my working arrangements, an unhealthy interest in my children and the educational provision we have made to protect them from the deranged attentions of the kind of scum who disseminate the bilious filth that pervades these leaflets, unashamed lies about properties that I am alleged to own in sundry far-off lands - all of this competes for valuable space on a newsletter that could otherwise have been devoted to the cause of explaining to us what positive things our newly-elected councillors plan to do for their constituents over the three and a half years between now and the next local elections.

Some might consider it odd that newly elected councillors, supported by an administration of their own colour with a clear majority, should have nothing better to offer than bitter, ranting and spluttering attacks upon those they defeated several months ago. Especially when the object of their vitriol has made clear its preference for reverting to a role within the community which does not entail involvement in the electoral fray.

Others might think it even more strange that the individual singled out for particularly personal abuse (moi) is one who has clearly expressed his desire not to stand for election again.

But in actual fact a very clear pattern is emerging wherein the level of abuse and harassment that local Labour tries to mete out stands in directly inverse proportion to the willingness of the ICG to involve itself in electoral politics. This is a point worth reminding ourselves of over and over again when considering the actions of those concerned, and what our response to it ought to be.

A recent very good example arrived in the form of a letter sent to all sixty elected members at the London Borough of Hounslow, the Chief Executive, the Borough Solicitor and the borough's two Members of Parliament. Ostensibly from an Ivybridge-based individual (actually a former member of the ICG whose estate-wide and thoroughly deserved reputation as a fantasist, an incontinent liar and a general loony prevented him from achieving the high office he clearly felt he deserved), the letter brought to the attention of its recipients my personal financial difficulties and, characteristically confusing an IVA with bankruptcy, demanded the "resignation" of a backbench opposition councillor on the grounds that he had apparently somehow been responsible for a non-existent "constitutional breach" on my part.

Nobody who received the letter will have been in any doubt as to its true origins. The reasons for using the Ivybridge Idiot as a patsy were twofold:

Firstly, apart from the well-known fact of my having entered into an IVA the majority of the content was self-evidently libellous, making all manner of allegations. Whilst my critics know I am not litigious, and in any case will for obvious reasons have taken it as read that I could not afford the legal costs usually involved with an action for defamation, its authors will also have known that in the most obvious and clear-cut instances of libel a successful action (on prima facie evidence) can potentially be mounted for as little as £300. There is also the small matter of probably libellous remarks about a current councillor (Peter Thompson) and a former councillor (Jon Hardy) contained in the document. Much better to get a stooge to sign the letter who can be left to take the rap if the smelly stuff hits the fan.

Secondly, and more significantly, the fact of my IVA does not run comfortably alongside the picture they prefer to paint - that of the good-living, property-owning, champagne-swilling man of permanent leisure, shanting it up on the proceeds of my £26k per year (£18k during the last year) as an elected member.

It takes some chutzpah, not to mention a little imagination and creativity, for the same people to run two mutually contradictory smear stories about the same person, at the same time and in the same neighbourhood. It will be interesting to see how long they can keep both balls in the air without the whole thing coming crashing down around them.

In the meantime those of us with constructive work to do in the community will continue to do it, whether our doing so "intimidates" our poor elected members or not.

Britain just became a colder, crueller country - and for nothing

By Johann Hari


Johann Hari is an award-winning journalist who writes twice-weekly for the Independent, one of Britain's leading newspapers, and the Huffington Post. He also writes for a wide range of other international newspapers and magazines. Publication of this article does not necessarily imply endorsement of every comment expressed therein.


Margaret Thatcher is lying sick in a private hospital bed in Belgravia – but her political children have just pushed her agenda further and harder and deeper than she ever dreamed of. When was the last time Britain’s public spending was slashed by more than 20 percent? Not in my mother’s lifetime. Not even in my grandmother’s lifetime. No: it was in 1918, when a Conservative-Liberal coalition said the best response to a global economic crisis was to rapidly pay off this country’s debts. The result? Unemployment soared from 6 percent to 19 percent, and the country’s economy collapsed so severely that they lost all ability to pay their bills and the debt actually rose from 114 percent to 180 percent. “History doesn’t repeat itself,” Mark Twain said, “but it does rhyme.”

George Osborne has just gambled your future on an extreme economic theory that has failed whenever and wherever it has been tried. In the Great Depression, we learned some basic principles. When an economy falters, ordinary people – perfectly sensibly – cut back their spending and try to pay down their debts. This causes a further fall in demand, and makes the economy worse. If the government cuts back at the same time, then there is no demand at all, and the economy goes into freefall. That’s why virtually every country in the world reacted to the Great Crash of 2008 – caused entirely by deregulated bankers – by increasing spending, funded by temporary debt. Better a deficit we repay in the good times than an endless depression. The countries that stimulated hardest, like South Korea, came out of recession first.

David Cameron and George Osborne have ignored all this. They have ignored the warnings of the Financial Times, the newspaper most critical of their strategy. They have dismissed the warnings of Nobel Laureates for Economics like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, whose warnings have consistently been proven right in this crisis. They have refused to learn from the fact that the country they held up as a model for how to deal with a recession – “Look and learn from across the Irish Sea,” Osborne said – has suffered the worst collapse in the developed world. They have instead blindly obeyed the ideological precepts they learned as baby Thatcherites: slash the state, and make the poor pay most.

Osborne galloped through his Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) speech, failing to name almost any of the services that will be slashed or shut down. It’s revealing that he doesn’t want to publicly name them while the nation is watching.

But beneath the statistics, there was a swathe of human tragedies that will now unnecessarily unfold across Britain. PriceWaterhouseCooper – nobody’s idea of a Trotskyite cell – says that a million people will now lose their jobs as a direct result. My father lost his job at the height of the last Tory recession, and had to leave the country to get another one. I remember how that felt. I remember what that did to my family. Now it’s going to happen to a million more families – and probably more after that. For the private sector to get all these people into work, as Osborne claims, there would have to be the most rapid business growth in my lifetime. Does anyone think that will happen?

Osborne has chosen the weakest people to take the worst cuts. The poorest sixteen year olds were given £30 a week to stay on in education, so they could afford to study – until Osborne’s team dismissed it as a “bribe” and shut it down. The most frail old people depend on council services to wash them and feed them – yet Osborne just slashed their budget by 30 percent, which service providers say will mean more pensioners being left to die in their own filth. Every family living on benefits is set to lose an average of £1000 a year – which, as I’ve seen from living in the East End of London, will mean many poor kids across Britain never getting a birthday party, or a trip to the seaside, or a bed of their own, or a winter coat. This isn’t just On Yer Bike, it’s On Yer Own.

The irrationality of this approach is perhaps plainest when you look at housing. We badly need more affordable housing in Britain. Some 4.5 million people are stuck on waiting lists, and the average age of a home buyer is now 37. It’s a cause of constant stress to the real middle class and despair for the poor. By a happy coincidence, house-building is one of the best stimulators of the economy: it employs a lot of people on average wages, who then spend their money quickly in a “multiplier effect.”

Yet Osborne has chosen the opposite. There will be on average one new home built per week in the whole of London and the south-east. That’s one. Indeed, instead of building homes, he’s driving people out of them. By slashing housing benefit, London councils alone say 83,000 people here are going to be forced to leave their homes, with 1.3 million ending up in more debt. Cameron has revealed that his baby daughter sleeps in a cardboard box decorated for her by her big sister. Thanks to him, a lot more people are going to be sleeping in cardboard boxes soon.

It can’t be coincidental that this is being done to us by three men – Cameron, Osborne, and Nick Clegg – who have never worried about a bill in their lives. On a basic level, they do not understand the effects of these decisions on real people. Remember, Cameron said before the election: "The papers keep writing that [my wife, Samantha] comes from a very blue-blooded background", but "she is actually very unconventional. She went to a day school." Osborne lives in a £4m trust fund he did nothing whatsoever to earn, and which is stashed offshore to prevent it being taxed. Clegg actually thought the state pension was £30 a week, a level that would kill pensioners.

These attitudes have real consequences. We’re not in this together. Who isn’t in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: they are being let off left, right and centre. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6 billion – but Osborne simply cancelled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. You try refusing to pay your taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to you as he does to the super-rich.

There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7bn in bonuses – much of it our money – to reward themselves for failure. That’s the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about “fairness.”

Britain just became colder and crueler country. And for what? To pantingly follow a disproven ideology over a cliff. On the eve of the general election, Cameron told us: "There'll be no cuts to frontline services," "we're not talking about swingeing cuts,” and “all cuts will be fair.” Is it possible to call him anything but a liar and an ideologue today?

You can enjoy a long rest, Baroness Thatcher – your successors have embarked on a Mephedrone-charged imitation that exceeds your most fantastical dreams.

While the cat's away...

My son Joe and I have recently returned from a brief weekend stay at Gurnard Pines, on the Isle of Wight. I am a little envious of Caroline and my daughter Rosie who will still be there until Friday afternoon.

I've mislaid the mobile phone cable again so I'll post up a few photos if and when I manage to locate it.

While I was away I received a message from one of our Worton members advising me of what would appear to be a spectacularly appalling Labour leaflet, even by the standard of its authors, which has evidently been distributed on part of the Worton estate (they appear to lack either the manpower or the stamina to be able to circulate all 500 doors on the estate in one day as we frequently do).

I don't have a hard copy to hand, but by all accounts it consists solely or at least mainly of a bilious attack on the ICG in spite of the fact that we no longer have any councillors and have stated publicly that we would prefer henceforth to pursue our community objectives in a non-political way and outside of the electoral process. For those inclined to wonder why this statement of intent would appear to have especially irked them, a clue lies in the word "community" - it can reasonably be deduced that the scum element remains in control of the party in Isleworth at the time of writing.

When I take physical possession of the item I'll scan it and post it up. Presumably its originators will snigger that we will have given them free publicity, whilst the grown-ups amongst my readership will have the opportunity to behold precisely what it is we are dealing with today in local Labour.

For now, for me, it is on to more pressing things, such as the need to earn a living. So with the promise of more soon, I will away.