27 April (Part 2) - Old storm in a new tea cup
It would appear that I have irritated councillor Philip Read. I’m not sure why
last week’s blog unsettled him so much, it was only
long forgotten stuff I stumbled across in a newspaper archive. Probably he
doesn’t like to be reminded of it but it was very typical Read behaviour.
As I am blocked from viewing Philip Read’s Tweets I only see part of his
conversations if someone Retweets it which is how my interest came to be aroused earlier today.
That
and similar comments showed that councillor Philip Read doesn’t like people
knowing that he was as petty and spiteful four years ago as he can be today.
He had written to not one local newspaper but two to complain that Teresa Pearce
had missed a vote in the House of Commons.
I doubt anyone but Philip cared very much but no opportunity for political
assassination must be missed in councillor Read’s little world.
As you will know, I cannot see any redeeming features in Philip Read. It’s hard
to forgive someone who sets out to get bloggers arrested and indeed succeeded in
one case with a story that a judge in Bromley dismissed as nonsense.
More recently councillor Read has made concerted personal attacks on councillor Mabel
Ogundayo, (Labour, Thamesmead East) repeatedly trying to humiliate her and
relishing broadcasting his barbs via the webcasts. He knows exactly how to get
himself featured here and I don’t like to disappoint him.
Some councillor ogres from the past have learned to modify their behaviour
since social media has been around to expose their excesses. The name Peter
Craske springs to mind. I can’t bring myself to really dislike him any more, but Read never learns.
Late last night he asked Teresa Pearce to check her diary, presumably because he has
convinced himself that his letters to newspaper editor were the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. They were nothing of the sort.
Teresa cannot check her diary any more because she is currently cut off from her
Parliamentary electronics so maybe the following will jog memories.
Below are the letters that were published in the Bexley Chronicle and the
News Shopper at the end of February 2011.
I hardly knew Teresa at the time but I sought clarification from her nevertheless…
I am writing up small piece for my website, having a go at Bexley councillors as
usual. As a makeweight I shall mention Philip Read's letter in this week's
Shopper where he says you “wimped out” of a vote in the Commons. I think I read
somewhere you were otherwise engaged in the constituency and there was little or
maybe no whip, but I can't find the reference now. Is that right? If so I
shall comment adversely on Read's letter.
I make no apology for kicking Read as hard as I reasonably can, my only concern
is that I have the reference to you spot on.
Teresa replied as follow…
Yes I read it too!
Was sad about that. I had been at an event at Erith School on Friday
with Cllr. Read and he did not ask me about it… maybe he wimped out!
The motion was a back bench motion put up by Jack Straw and David Davis. It has no effect
on the law at all. It’s just so the Commons can have a debate.
So I had the choice to either sit in Parliament all day or to be in Erith & Thamesmead doing
a four hour surgery followed by a huge postbag. It was a no brainer which was
more beneficial to the constituents.
If the time comes to actually vote on the issue of prisoner voting where the vote will be
binding then I have no doubt I’ll be there. There was no whip that day either.
Thank you - and we probably don't agree on a single political point!
I’m not sure Teresa’s last comment is absolutely correct but maybe I have mellowed over the past four years.
What is apparent now is that when I wrote that four year old blog I confused the
Erith School event with the one that caused the absence but I don’t think that
changes things very much.
I can see no reason for writing those letters apart from trying to denigrate a Labour MP
- not even Read’s own MP. Maybe excusable if the facts were correct but he failed to mention
that the MP was busy with her constituents or that the vote could have no effect on the law.
Philip Read was simply being mischievous as well as barely truthful.
The available evidence may be seen in full above. Readers will make up their own minds as to whether
Philip Read is the injured innocent party or not. But let’s call a bit of a truce. I won’t refer to
Philip Read in particularly virulent terms any more if he stops having a go at young female councillors.
It was strongly implied by Bexley Tories that young females are by definition incapable of drafting their own Motions.
Now I’m being a wimp. “Implied?” No
they actually said it didn’t they?