Forum Topic

Hatchet Job on Joanna Biddolph in Private Eye

I've scanned below an article about Joanna Biddolph in the latest Private Eye. I know she is a marmite politician and some people have no time for her — while her personal vote shows she is popular with her constituents but I don't think any fair-minded person can believe this item is reasonable.

Having gone through the greatest hits consistently wheeled out by her detractors — cherrygate, lack of enthusiasm for market etc — the writer focuses on a planning issue in which Cllr Biddolph appears to have intervened. Set aside that that is her job and that the story relies on the say so of a disappointed developer, the bigger problem is that it suggests the borough planning officers will meekly do whatever she tells them. From what I can see over the years, the opposite is the case and she has had little success in influencing planning applications in her ward. She probably won't be too bothered by the article but the unnamed council officers have every right to be aggrieved. Private Eye is great and I particularly enjoy Rotten Boroughs but this article seems really out of place given the terrible things happening in local government across the country. I'm guessing the regular writers are away and some intern has picked up the story in a quiet week for news.

Francis Rowe ● 13d48 Comments

“ As for the loathsome Jeremy Vine, he's a hypocrite of the first order.”Totally agree.

Steve Taylor ● 1d

Fag.Faggot.Homo.Puffter.Gay."in my country we kill people like you"Batty Boy.Sissy.Girlie Boy.Pansy.Many times a "f__king" got tossed in for emphasisTake your pick, folks. I've heard them all and then some. More recently than you'd ever imagine.Andrew is absolutely 100% correct. Nothing quite like a bit of gaslighting to blame the recipient and downplay if not negate the abuse. A bit like this whole faggot conversation.

David Lesniak ● 2d

Well David is American and faggot is used in a homophobic way in the US and probably occasionally over here.  I have no doubt it is hurtful. Many people are hurt by language and why shouldn't they be?  They don't necessarily complain about it or show their distress or sue, but it still hurts.  Likewise the relentless personal attacks on some of our local politicians take a toll even if they don't publicly complain. Its Ok to call to people to account but personal attacks reflect poorly on the attacker and cause distress to those they target. And it is bad for the political process.

Jackie Elton ● 2d

Nope, the word meant something else in that song.https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/dec/08/no-need-to-take-offence-to-the-word-faggot

Andrew Jones ● 2d

"I can't remember the last time I heard that word in that context, at least in the last 30 years."Christmas Eve in the drunk tank?

Francis Rowe ● 2d

Is faggot not a word used in the USA rather than in the UK? I can't remember the last time I heard that word in that context, at least in the last 30 years.

Julian Pavey ● 2d

I objected in my post at 11.37

Janice Evans ● 2d

I was agreeing with someone else, as they are my thoughts on the subject, and stick by them.

Janice Evans ● 2d

I don't get it, Janice. You seem to contradict yourself.Shrug it off. Don't lose sleep. Object. Is this a pick and mix?As for the loathsome Jeremy Vine, he's a hypocrite of the first order. How many times has he been in the news for pretending to be hurt or offended or threatened by those who throw epithets at him? How much money has he spent "defending himself?" Arguably he knows the ins and outs of abusive behavior better than most and yet still, repeatedly, he pulls the trigger. A pathetic excuse of a man.

David Lesniak ● 3d

I agree with you Janice, apart from the need to say some people are very sensitive.Yes, some people are very sensitive, some people aren't but you don't have to be very sensitive to be affected by something.I'm not saying this about you Janice, but telling someone they are too sensitive, when they object to or are affected by something abusive that's been said to their face, can be a way for someone to dismiss the other person's feelings, and avoid accountability for what they have said themselves. It's a technique used to try and turn the tables on the person being abused, and suggest they are the problem.Again, I'm not suggesting this is you Janice, I'm just trying to make clear that one doesn't have to be very sensitive to be affected by verbal abuse. I hope you see what I'm trying to say, thanks. Andrew

Andrew Jones ● 3d

Was always told treat others as you wish to be treated, sadly that approach does attract more abuse because they are not getting the reaction to it that they wanted, so they keep on and on in their own warped little world.

Janice Evans ● 3d

Andrew, yes some people are very sensitive, but the abusers don't care that's what they want.  We are never going to stop it but we can object to it.

Janice Evans ● 3d

"If people call you a faggot they are the ones with the problem, not you."If someone calls you a faggot and you've got a thick skin, then you may be able to just shrug it off, but not everyone who's at the receiving end of derogatory remarks is the same.Some people who are subject to insulting remarks meant to humiliate, will feel affected by such abuse, and making such remarks can lead to an environment where others feel emboldened to make inappropriate remarks.Yes the people making the remarks have a problem, but please don't dismiss the effect it can have on people, just because youwouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Andrew Jones ● 3d

David, I've had loads of abuse just for having a different view to others,must say wouldn't lose any sleep over it, and doubt Cllr Biddolph would.  If people call you a faggot they are the ones with the problem, not you.

Janice Evans ● 3d

My attention was drawn to this story when it was shared on Twitter by Jeremy Vine, who has never been a fan of Cllr Biddolph. He was quick off the mark because I hadn't received my copy of the Eye in the post at that point.She may have one or two detractors on this forum but generally people are aware of her work and supportive. On social media it appears to be a different matter where she seems to be singled out for particular attention by some.I couldn't tell you whether she is upset by this or not and we are often reminded by free speech proponents that we should be prepared to tolerate 'hurty words'. However, what none of us should have to deal with is outright falsehood. I think this article has comfortably crossed that threshold. Cllr Biddolph doesn't make her living being a councillor. I'm not sure what she does other than knowing that she is still working and her reputation will be a factor in how much she earns.

Francis Rowe ● 3d

I completely agree, Jackie. I'm surprised by Janice's post. Especially from one woman to another.Persistent abuse, rhetoric, attack, bullying...call it whatever you want, it will still pierce the thickest armor. As you say, it is meant to despite all efforts by the recipient to brush it off. And I say that after 50 odd years of being called a faggot.

David Lesniak ● 4d

Another witch hunt by women haters. Joanna is one of the best, and most committed Councillors Hounslow has got. She’s also one of the most experienced. Some people who have not agreed with her in the past will find any excuse to slag her off on this forum. It fails miserably though because she has overwhelming support for most of her actions.

Steve Taylor ● 4d

One should not assume it would not hurt Jo Biddolph or any elected person to get this type of abuse. People who choose to attack others, often do so hoping that it will sap the attacked person's resolve. People may put on a tough face but any abuse and unfair criticism is very cruel and hurtful and it's a time when they most need support.  There is a lot of both careless and intentional abuse being spread and it isn't helpful.

Jackie Elton ● 4d

Abuse seems to come with some jobs these days, agree it will not bother her in the least.

Janice Evans ● 5d

She is not my ward councillor but I know from others that she often serves as a lightning rod for people who want to object to things but don't want to expose themselves to pushback from the people and organisations whose plans might be frustrated as a result.She is a tough cookie and can take the abuse this often attracts but it should be remembered she does this for a councillors basic allowance. Unlike most of the others, she probably does deserve the big pay rises that councillors have been given but still means she only gets £15,000 a year for what she does. Ian Hislop will be getting a multiple of that for every episode of Have I Got News For You. He should be ashamed.

Diane Brown ● 6d

The Eye will probably appreciate this being pointed out. The story is so far short of its usual standards in so many ways that it must be a case of key staff being away.While there are many bizarre aspects to the claims against Cllr Biddolph, the one that struck me as the most odd was that she was responsible for the cannabis farm taking occupation in the houses. You do hear tales of developers handing over properties to anti-social occupants to force residents to accept an unwelcome proposal but these seem far-fetched and I doubt this is what happened here. The fault however is entirely with the developer and his failure to properly secure the building and invest in a decent alarm system. But no, he blames a woman.

Felicity Caborn ● 7d

That struck me as well - the fact that when the developer bought the properties, planning permission for 6 flats had already been given.Spending £60k on two failed planning applications seems on the face of it, most likely to be a gamble on the part of the developer to increase the profit margin on the development, that didn't come off.

Andrew Jones ● 8d

Not sure the complaint to the ICO will have yielded the developer any more information. It looks like some names were inappropriately redacted in some communications but the identity of Cllr Biddolph and the council officer considering the case were in the public domain in reports posted on the council web site, as is standard practice for the planning department. I presume the attempt to get the names of the other objectors failed.The developer could try again with another application but the planning teams report is damning and I very much doubt Mr Kelly's claim that officers were ever supportive of his plan. They have already approved a design with one less flat which presumably doesn't have the issues with over-crowding, lack of amenity space, fire safety and bedrooms in the basement. All the objectors to the latest design and the planning department deserve our thanks for putting a stop to it and if the developer wants to provide new housing compliant with planning law at the site there still is nothing to stop him.

Francis Rowe ● 8d

I was underwhelmed by the article as all it seemed to show was it needed escalation to the ICO for Hounslow to provide the FOI responses they should have.I expect the developer won't give up and there will be a ding, ding, round 4 planning application.

Michael Robinson ● 8d

Michael, if your darkest suspicions are confirmed and Cllr Biddolph's conduct did deviate in some way from the very highest standards expected of a councillor (which the internal enquiry found that it didn't) would it be mitigation in your view that she was acting to prevent the building of what was possibly an overcrowded fire trap?

Francis Rowe ● 8d

The Information Commissioner's Office upheld 2 complaints about information Hounslow provided in response to FOIs, (or rather, lack of information...) so that does indicate Hounslow were deficient with their response to the FOIs.The FOIs may have been for emails related to the planning application, so not necessarily documents that appear on the Hounslow planning website.The article highlights an apparent contradiction as it says "Emails subsequently disclosed by the Council show Cllr Biddolph contacted the planning officer directly while the planning application was live and asked to discuss it, a request to which the planning officer acceded." then Cllr Biddolph is quoted saying "I do not believe I met the planning officer about this application".So we are left in the dark if such a meeting actually occurred.My interpretation of the article is that a councillor can publicly help residents lobby against a planning application or they can lobby directly with an officer, but they shouldn't do both as access to planning officers is usually not available to the general public.

Michael Robinson ● 8d

Not sure this makes the story any clearer.The code of conduct on councillors and planning is obviously primarily aimed at those that are in decision making positions  i.e. on the planning committee. The idea that other councillors are constrained from objecting or campaigning against applications is obvious nonsense as every good councillor will do this at some point. Perhaps it crosses a line if a councillor tried to directly influence a planning officer but, as has been confirmed, Cllr Biddolph never did this despite the allegations being made by the developer.The complaint about the redactions also seems a bit iffy - the developer is reported as saying that the council was  employing ‘unlawful use of blanket redactions to hide official identities’. If you look at the published information on the council's web site, the name of the officer considering the case is there and Cllr Biddolph's objection is recorded. The only names that are not published are the local residents who objected. Unlike with licensing, you can apparently avoid being publicly named as an objector to a planning application in Hounslow unlike many other boroughs. It could be that the developer is simply keen to have a calm conversation with those he feels are standing in the way of his scheme or it could be more sinister. Hounslow are probably erring on the right side of caution by not sharing the names.The developer - who appears to be a one man band - is deluding himself if he thinks his plan was blocked by a few pesky NIMBYs. Have a read of the report Jeremy refers to - the scheme would have been rejected even if nobody had objected - the officers could have saved a lot of time by just writing - 'inadequate fire safety.'

Francis Rowe ● 8d

There is further background to the Private Eye story here.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/builder-claims-cllr-biddolph-oversteps-her-role-as-councillor/The applicant's main complaint seems to be the transparency of the process hence complaints to the Information Commissioners Office about Hounslow responses to FOI requests for documentation of the decision making.

Michael Robinson ● 8d

You can send letters to them which they may well publish or they will certainly take note. letters@private-eye.co.uk.So while they are unlikely to retract the story a flurry of supportive letters will send a message that perhaps there is a little more to the story than “meets the Eye”.  Excellent though Chiswick w4 is, its reach is definitely rather local!

Jackie Elton ● 9d

That's a good suggestion although I'm not sure Private Eye will acknowledge its error. My beloved is an avid reader but when I browse through it, I find that it gives the impression of public schoolboy humour with lots of in-jokes and not particularly hard hitting satire of soft targets. I am never going to forgive it for its role in the Andrew Wakefield debacle.While I don't read it very often, this case confirms an the sense of misogyny it sometimes gives off. It would not surprise me to learn they have a much lower bar when it comes to choosing to set their sights on a female politician.

Anita Blake ● 9d

It’s good to see that many people on this Forum have taken the time to consider the facts and background and express their faith in and support for Cllr Biddolph who really works so hard for the residents and businesses of Chiswick even If they don’t vote for her or always agree with her. People in public service deserve respect but often don’t get it. it might be good if at least some contributors on here  might also write to the letters page at Private Eye and take those views directly to the letters editor of Private Eye.

Jackie Elton ● 9d

I tracked down the planning application that the Private Eye article refers to. It is for the demolition of a pair of semi-detached houses on Gunnersbury Lane which the developer wants to knock down and convert into seven flats which are just on the edge of the allowable minimum size. As I understand it, this is not technically an HMO as the proposed flats are self-contained but if approved the development would have had 19 people living in it presuming the flats were occupied at normal capacity.This is not the first attempt to move forward with this project with at least one previous similar application rejected. While this process was ongoing, the owner failed to secure the property and squatters moved in for a while.Opposition to this and other proposals for the site doesn't seem to be only from Cllr Biddolph. There were five resident objections to the most recent proposal in addition to the comments made by the councillor. The builder appears to be accusing Jo Biddolph of coaching residents through a WhatsApp group and advising them how to object effectively. This surely is what she was elected to do?The officer's report on why they decided to reject the application is available online. It wasn't a close decision, there were multiple grounds for turning it down - inadequate fire safety report, bedrooms placed in basements against planning guidelines, incomplete noise management and waste management reports, inadequate amenity space for the number of residents and no play area for children in a scheme which contains flats aimed at families.People broadly familiar with planning policy in Hounslow will know that officers bend over backwards to approve applications which will deliver new housing. Just consider their attitude to the Burlington Lane development. This site has already been approved for redevelopment for a proposal containing six flats so this latest submission appears to be an attempt to cram more people into the space to maximise profit. Private Eye has really let itself down badly on this one. It took me ten minutes to find out this extra background which puts the case in a completely different light. Yet they chose to base an attack on a councillor doing her job based entirely on the word of a builder with a grudge unhappy that his Rachmann-like scheme didn't get the go ahead. A possible explanation for this very poor piece of is that Rotten Boroughs may have a policy of targeting the whole political spectrum each edition. This time there were pieces on misdoings by Reform, Labour and two on the Greens so perhaps this filled a quota. Maybe with the Tories having relatively few councillors these days it has become hard to find newsworthy misdeeds from that party.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 9d

Hounslow seem to have a very over cautious policy when it comes to publishing comments. Other authorities will reveal names and or addresses for planning and licensing matters. No idea why they do this but if the catch-all excuse of GDPR is used it would not be a surprise.The online version of agenda papers may redact names of people making comments but they shouldn't in the documents provided to the meeting. Even in Hounslow the policy is that no anonymous comments are allowed so to describe this as an anonymous complaint is erroneous and if the name isn't revealed the Street Food Market would be completely within its rights to ask for it to be disregarded.The requirement to be named has discouraged some people and businesses from commenting because they fear potential abuse directed on them from social media. However, I believe the requirement for comments not to be anonymous is law not council policy so it can't be changed.

Francis Rowe ● 10d

A person contacting the licensing committee will need to provide their name for their input to be considered but the name was redacted in the documents presented to the committee so as far as the applicant is concerned, it is anonymous.I don't know what policy is applied by the officers looking after licensing - if the default is to redact, if they redact upon request or don't redact if the person says they are happy for their name to be visible.Hounslow approach to redaction is referenced in the Private Eye story about the planning application and "unlawful use of blanket redactions to hide official identities".  I believe officers shouldn't be redacting names of councillors and it appears they may have done this in the planning case.

Michael Robinson ● 10d

I agree that the document submitted by the food market is a very effective rebuttal of the complaints. It does deal with the point about lower frequency volumes and that should have been the end of the issue. However, to go on to misrepresent the councillor's position and describe it as 'a bit nuts' was ill-considered and could make what was previously uncontentious a bit of a problem for all the markets. I double checked on the rules about commenting on licensing applications and it is indeed the case that these cannot be made anonymously so the original report was misleading.As for the timeline of the submission for the comments, your apparent belief that Cllr Biddolph made her submission then realised it was the only one therefore leant on others to back her up is possible I suppose but, a bit of stretch surely?

Francis Rowe ● 10d

If you look at the documents provided to the licensing committee, they include a 10 page document from Richard Johnson in response to the complaints from Cllr Biddolph and the anonymous complainant.I think it is correct to say that he did read Cllr Biddolph's comments otherwise he wouldn't have responded.Both things can happen.  A formal response to the licensing committee and an informal "it's a bit nuts" response to a journalist.

Michael Robinson ● 11d

Looks like Richard Johnson didn't read the comments by Joanna Biddolph before saying this presumably having been asked to comment. She is not wrong that it is bass sounds that cause more disturbance and she does make a good case no matter how hard people are trying to mispresent what she is saying. It would be wrong to put a significant extra compliance burden on the markets on the basis of a single complaint but the use of the phrase 'a bit nuts' might mean that the councillors on the committee feel obligated to implement her suggestions out of solidarity. A timely apology might be in order.

Anita Blake ● 11d

Cllr Biddolph herself refers to festivals at Gunnersbury Park twice in her complaint.  Is she claiming that the same principles, resources and technical approach applied to a concert with 25,000 people and a 500 kW PA system should also be applied to a line dancing display at the Food market? Cllr Biddolph's own complaint has invited the comparison and as the Food Market organiser is quoted as saying it's "a bit nuts" The point about Cllr Biddolph complaining before a member of the public raises the thought that Cllr Biddolph didn't want to be on her own.

Michael Robinson ● 12d

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with her politics, I know from her actions, Jo Biddolph works tirelessly for commercial tenants and occupiers in Chiswick without fear or favour and she is to be applauded for her enthusiasm and dedication. I only act for retail Tenants in W4 (in matters of rent review or lease renewal) and Jo is always to the fore def part of the equation railing against agressive rent increases or unfair/greedy Landlords. Politics aside, Jo is exactly what our community needs and deserves, without her W4 would be a lesser place for business occupiers and traders.

Andrew Cole ● 12d

No sure about the relevance of the points that you make. You are right I didn't notice that Cllr Biddolph's comments predated that of the member of the public but I don't really understand why this is important. Now that you have had a chance to view the documents relating to the case, are you prepared to say the way Cllr Biddolph's actions were presented was accurate and fair?

Francis Rowe ● 12d

Jo is one of my councillors and responds quickly to our concerns.

Susan Kelly ● 12d

Bingo

Julian Pavey ● 13d

Pot, kettle, Francis never posted the article about the Greens below it, just being vindictive.  I have different views to Cllr Biddolph and always supported the markets, she however makes things run smoothly so theydon't disrupt things for those concerned about the changes, she is doing her job it's a shame others don't do the same instead of keep attacking others, she has been picked on continuously over the years for doing her job and on a lighter side anyone who lives near cherry trees yes they are an amazing display but will know they are messy things, and dodgy underfoot so oddly as it is I agree with her on that one. Rant over.

Janice Evans ● 13d

Yes Francis, those cowboy boots stamping during line dancing displays are well known for generating booming bass.If you looked at the emails sent to the licensing committee you don’t appear to have noticed that Cllr Biddolph sent her objection before the other person did.And of course Conservative concerns about over zealous application of licensing regulations don’t apply when one of their own is the source .

Michael Robinson ● 13d

Cllr Biddolph represents those who matter, the electorates, good for her.

Janice Evans ● 13d

Michael, this article seems to be a continuation of the feud between the two women and is just as much of a hatchet job as the Private Eye article.The agenda papers on for the panel meeting are online and you can read Cllr Biddolph's submission and decide whether you think it is an accurate reflection of the facts.Firstly she does not, as is claimed, compare the sound levels at the Street Food market to those from Gunnersbury Park. Her point is that setting controls based on decibel levels alone may not be effective as much of the disturbance is cause by the bass range rather than the overall noise as has been the experience with the Gunnersbury Park concerts.Her letter makes no objection to the market or the playing of music but rather argues for the vagueish restrictions on noise which is standard for these licences to be defined specifically so that they are more appropriate to the location.I believe I am right in saying that it is also false to say that the review has been brought about by 'a single anonymous complainant'. It is Hounslow's policy to redact the names of complainants in published papers but the complainants name will have been forwarded to the market organisers.The truth of this story is that at least one person living near the market is annoyed about the level of amplification and Cllr Biddolph has come up with a suggested solution which on the face of it seems reasonable and sensible. It is perhaps best not to rely on sources which are relentlessly hostile to her.For the record I hope the Licensing Panel disregard her suggestions. People living near major commercial centres should have to accept a certain amount of noise and I've never witnessed music being amplified to an excessive level at any of the markets. It is pitched to make the High Road a more vibrant and enjoyable place to live. Creating tightly defined limits would create an admin burden for the organisers that they could do without.That said, Cllr Biddolph may be doing the markets a favour here by getting this issue settled at this point in time. Once the Birchgrove development opens there will be lots of relatively wealthy old people living right on top of the markets and the chances of there being no curmudgeons who will do what they can to stop people having fun seems very low. An agreed noise regime which has been in place beforehand may make it more difficult to impose restrictions later on.

Francis Rowe ● 13d

Cllr Biddolph againhttps://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/chiswicks-street-food-market-licence-in-question-over-one-complaint-about-music/I can only assume that the Conservative councillors will be organising a demonstration at the next Food Market in case over zealous council licensing stop community activity like L’il Nashville line dancing because a ward councillor has raised a question.

Michael Robinson ● 13d

Not read it, but you know what names are if not behind it, but in support of it.

Julian Pavey ● 13d