Forum Topic

DL: "Richard, you're not exactly an exemplar of tact and grace let alone humility."RC: Whatever you say.DL: "The mere fact you started this thread says it all, really."RC: How does starting this thread demonstrate a lack of tact, grace, humility etc"?For information, I started this thread because it concerned a local councillor, standing for re-election shortly in a local ward, who has had cause to be admonished for her behaviour while on Council business. I had thought that this was the sort of thing such a forum is for. DL: "Pardon me for asking, and I haven't read nor do I know about the details, but when precisely is the last time any Labour councillor or member of cabinet apologized?"RC: I don't know. But when they do misbehave, they too should be required to apologise, regardless of party affiliation.DL: "I'm not sure why apologies have been weaponized but here you are doing so. Again, that says plenty more about you and the state of affairs then it ever would about whomever."RC: I "weaponized" [sic] the apology not in order to discredit Cllr. Biddolph, but in order to rebut the argument of several posters on this forum that "she had done nothing wrong". This could hardly be the case when to her credit, she acknowledged by her apology that she had.DL: "I believe most of us were raised to believe an apology was a demonstration of good character, not bad. Of proper grit and resilience. Not side stepping responsibility for ones actions as we've seen repeatedly from any number of Labour representatives."RC: I hold no brief for Labour reps on either LBH or LBE, nor have I ever defended them when they too have erred. In fact, I've not ever voted for any of them - though some people seem to assume that just because I have now criticised someone on the Right, I must therefore be a card-carrying Socialist etc. (I'm not, btw)DL: "At the moment I'm dealing with Hanif Khan for his refusal to accept responsibility for damage to our personal property during cycleway construction. Not one whiff of apology from him nor his representatives."RC: Yes, we know, you already mentioned it a number of times elsewhere, so you really don't need to clog up this thread with it.DL: "By your math the absence of apology makes him good. Quite the opposite."RC: That is your "math" (reasoning, actually) and no, I don't subscribe to it. In fact, it would help the discourse somewhat if you didn't try to put words into my mouth, or ascribe to me views that I don't hold, thank you very much.DL: "Friendly suggestion, wipe the spittle from the corners of your mouth."RC: Grow up.

Richard Cathcart ● 1631d

Sorry to have extend this non story but can we get some perspective here? Firstly, the Chiswick Calendar give this non- story of greater importance that the fact that a Russian citizen with a Chiswick address is being sanctioned by the British government and the fact that there may be 15 Councillors in Hounslow from the same Place of Worship after the next election.  For nearly two years, people in Chiswick have found their roads blocked, have had an unwanted and extremely dangerous cycle lane foisted on them without consent, and when they tried to protest – they found they couldn’t march or demonstrate because of the pandemic.  They couldn’t even attend Council meetings in person and just had to stare in disbelief at their computer screens at the nonsense the Council was spouting. If they wrote to their MP Ruth Cadbury, they didn’t get a reply and, in any case, she was fully partisan and supportive of the cycling lobby from day one, unlike her counterpart Rupa Huq in Ealing who has always been prepared to listen to all sides.  That’s called “doing your job”.  If residents wrote to the likes of Hanif Khan or Guy Lambert, they either got no replies or just told “we are listening” they were absolutely unprepared to change or adjust their policies.  So, when finally these perfectly reasonable and much put upon residents and local traders were finally allowed by the relaxation of lockdown rules to go on a small demonstration – they planned to go to Hounslow House to ask the Councillors to hear about their experiences, it soon became fairly clear, that there was more than one door to the Hounslow HQ and it was worth covering them. I should think very few of them were even on Facebook. Nobody needed to alert this very peaceful, sincere, good-natured law-abiding group of office workers, traders, builders, cleaners, doctors, lawyers, pensioners, teachers, public servants, and other residents who were trying to make their voices heard and put their very reasonable case across in a democratic session.  It is just normal common sense that any large group in that situation who had travelled a long way, would check more than one entrance to be able to make their case.  That is what actually happened. What is out of order is that more Councillors did not come and engage with the group voluntarily and hear their grievances. The request for a Call In was in fact accepted after a long intense debate. But if you were misguided enough only to read the Chiswick Calendar you might be led to think that this was a howling violent mob, ready to do harm rather than simply trying to further the process of democratic engagement.  It is extremely sad and highly unacceptable that in Hounslow, this peaceful and long overdue exercise of democracy is being attacked and misrepresented in print by none other than our local MP.  That surely is a real and serious abuse.

Susan Engel ● 1631d

Michael, I avoid Facebook as far as possible partly because there are some very unpleasant people and I accept that among the many people that have joined the OneChiswick Facebook group there may be a few.However, your contention appears to be that someone who wasn't bothered enough to go to a demonstration would nevertheless feel so strongly about the issue that on learning about the access information for Hounslow House on Facebook they would travel for over an hour to abuse or assault a councillor. Surely on reflection you must recognise this is extremely unlikely. The chances of it happening are infinitesimal and probably less than the unlikely prospect of some mentally unstable person believing the false narrative that a female councillor wilfully compromised the security of her colleagues and taking action into their own hands.As you have to acknowledge, I hold no brief for Cllr Biddolph and have suggested people in the Gunnersbury ward should consider voting for Hanif Khan as the most effective way to get transport policy changed in the borough.Despite this for some time now, along with many others, I have been concerned with the way that Cllr Biddolph has been targeted in a very personally pernicious way by a small group of people. This sustained animosity does not manifest itself most clearly on this forum but elsewhere on social media.For every headbanger on the OneChiswick Facebook group there are equally unpleasant people on the opposite side of the debate. People talking about a 'circle of hate' seem oblivious to the fact that they may be completing that circle.As it stands this is a middle class dispute between middle class people who are never going to follow through on their rather unpleasant rhetoric. As far as I am aware there have been no physical confrontations or even face to face verbal altercations between anyone on each side of the debate. The worst example I have heard of is from a woman whose business was targeted with bogus negative comments a few years back which she later learnt were made by someone who disagreed with her view about the closure of Church Street in Isleworth. The perpetrator knew enough about covering his tracks to avoid prosecution.I don't include you among this kind of person. You generally are polite and make well argued points on the issue which from time to time make me reconsider my views. When you do resort to a bit of name-calling I take it as a sign that you have no counter argument and it is born out of frustration rather than enmity.However, by effectively endorsing this campaign against Cllr Biddolph you do yourself great discredit. You must know that the notion that she leaked security information and put other councillors at risk is total nonsense and yet another attempt to personally target a person who for some has come to personify opposition to Cycleway 9. The people promoting these attacks appear to have lost all sense of proportion and now seem to believe denigrating Cllr Biddolph is more important than making the case for the traffic measures recently implemented in the borough. They'll achieve a pyrrhic victory when she loses in the next election, and no doubt there will be some unseemly crowing, but those people may be completely misinterpreting the significance of the result.

Francis Rowe ● 1630d

Andrew's question is a good one and deserves a proper answer. I don't know for sure why she chose to apologise but would conjecture that she did so just to put the complaint to bed. Part of the problem here is that the only reason this ever became an issue is David Giles' rather fevered post which suggested that the security guard had told Cllr Biddolph that councillors were being advised to use another exit. Sharing this information wouldn't necessarily be a breach of the code which councillors are supposed to adhere to. Unless the security guard specifically said don't tell anyone else there is no reason to believe that it was given in confidence. However, as I understand it, an internal message was sent to staff advising them to consider using a different exit which Cllr Biddolph may have received and sharing this information could, at a stretch, be deemed to be breaching confidentiality.The advice to avoid the front exit clearly would have had nothing to do with concerns for personal safety and was to allow council employees to circumvent a well attended but peaceful demonstration.Cllr Biddolph could have chosen if she wished to put forward a public interest defence that in a democracy councillors should at least be required to see a protest against policies that they are imposing on people. To be fair to the Labour councillors, as far as I am aware, none of them actually sought to sneak out unnoticed and some of them are annoyed at the notion they might have done so.Therefore, I would speculate that Cllr Biddolph chose not to contest the complaint because she knew that it would just give further opportunity for a group of people who detest her to push a false narrative that she in some way compromised the safety of other councillors. That seems fairly sensible to me.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1629d

ST: "The fact that you felt driven to copy and paste an article from Chiswick Calendar could constitute trolling especially as you seemed to copy and paste it ONLY because it contained some nonsense about Cllr Biddolph."RC: Considering Cllr. Biddolph is perfectly free to post all her own good deeds on this forum, and does so frequently to admiring comment from her supporters, are you saying it is somehow impermissable for any of the rest of us to point out when she errs? As for it being "some nonsense", whatever else one thinks of Cllr. Biddolph, she is known for standing up for herself and her principles, especially when she is accused of something. Had she thought it mere "nonsense", do you honestly think she would have apologised for same?Or is it only "nonsense" when it shows her up in a less than flattering light, and you have no other way of refuting it?ST: "Your opening lines constitute spite and malice because it was unnecessary to link David Giles with Cllr Biddolph.  It was quite bitchy actually!!"RC: Mr. Giles, who is well-known about these parts, was directly involved in Cllr. Biddolph's error, so it was entirely appropriate and fair comment to reference him. As for my use of "discredited", how else would you describe someone who was thrown out of his own party for his behaviour? He literally ran out of credit with his own colleagues!ST: "Anyway, the whole thing has backfired on you because Cllr Biddolph has come sailing through as the ‘good guy’ and you have shown yourself to be just………."RC: Once again, you and the Coucillor's other supporters are resorting to "playing the man, rather than the ball", presumably because you have no valid way of defending Cllr. Biddolph's behaviour in this matter, and cannot bear to let it rest with an "Oh well, she was out-of-order, she's apologised and it wasn't hugely serious, so let's just leave it there".Instead we get 150 posts expressing outrage that someone has dared to point out that their favourite Councillor might not be quite the infallible paragon you appear to believe she is.

Richard Cathcart ● 1625d

Councillors are quitting their seats because of abuse they say they have faced online and from colleagues.And others are said to be unwilling to stand as election candidates on 5 May because "they don't want the hassle".Political commentators said politicians were vilified online when they would not be in real life. Huw George said he was standing down from his Maenclochog seat in Pembrokeshire after 16 years having asked himself: "Do I need this?"The Baptist minister said he had always welcomed scrutiny of political decisions but personal attacks were unacceptable.    • Love Island's Dr Alex George faces online abuse    • Social media abuse: Jack Sargeant calls for action    • Disability hate crime: Rise in reports of online abuseMe George, who is an independent councillor, said: "For the last 16 years, it's been personal attacks. And that's been very hard to take."And there comes a time when you ask yourself the question, 'do I need this?'"Mr George said the decision to leave was difficult because there were jobs he would like to finish. He said: "I believe in Welsh language education... however, I was ridiculed for that. I was ridiculed because of my Christian beliefs. And I believe that is something that I (should be able to) have without any fuss or bother."However, some members don't think that."The time had come when enough had proved enough."When it affects you, your health, the health of your family and your friends, the church where I work, you have to draw the line," he said. Mr George accepted the necessity of political scrutiny, adding: "But the personal attacks, no."Liberal Democrat councillor Ceredig Davies is stepping down from his Aberystwyth Central ward after 18 years on Ceredigion council, after suffering personal abuse.He said it was difficult to get new candidates to stand: "People say they don't want the hassle."Social media has got its good sides and its bad sides. The good side is as a councillor you can get your message out there. But the bad side is that people can be way over the top with personal comments."He said he had faced abuse online."As a councillor you do take it, but when it impacts on family members that takes it too far, and that has happened," he said. "And I'm aware that it has happened to other councillors as well."Political analysts say that being a councillor is less attractive now because of the way councillors are treated, resulting in dozens of uncontested seats in this year's council elections.Of the 74 uncontested seats in Wales, Gwynedd has the highest number with 28.That means 41% of wards know who their councillor will be before the election.In Pembrokeshire, 19 seats are uncontested, or 32% of council wards.Powys has seven (10%) uncontested seats, eight (14%) in Wrexham, and five (13%) in Ceredigion.This is fewer than the 92 wards decided without a vote in 2017.Political commentator Valerie Livingston said uncontested seats were like getting a job without an interview.Ms Livingston, Wales director of political monitors Newsdirect, said it was sad courtesy had been "stripped away" from politics.She said: "That comes often from social media where we think it's acceptable to make comments that are deeply, deeply hurtful to people who, by and large, are really trying to do their best. "We wouldn't say these things to people if we met them in the street, but behind a keyboard, you know, over our smartphone, it seems acceptable."Admittedly, it's not as bad as as it is at Westminster, where there have been threats to MPs' lives, but it's a really sad, sad thing. "I would just urge anyone who wants to complain to their councillor to do so in courteous language, because that will probably get a much better result."Former Senedd member and political consultant Nerys Evans said uncontested seats were a symptom of a "democratic deficit". She believed good councillors were standing down because they had had enough of "endemic" abuse.Ms Evans said the rise of social media was partly to blame, along with easy access to councillors. "You're accessible 24 hours a day to the local community. So that does bring its own problems," she explained."I'm not surprised that many really good councillors have decided, actually, they don't want to be doing that anymore."She added: "It does affect our democracy and how decisions are made. We're not getting the best people putting their names forward because they can see what's happening."By Craig DugganBBC Wales news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61068256

Bernard Allen ● 1625d