3 June (Part 1) - Down with Daniel!
Mother said never debate religion, money or politics at the dinner table
because it will inevitably cause a row which is why BiB is mainly, I think,
simply a reporter of facts but it cannot be denied that a bit of political
controversy can be fun. If one regards the resultant kick-back as fun.
The comment about the Bexleyheath and Crayford’s General Election candidate did, I accept,
come across as generally supportive without quite being an endorsement. That was the intention and some
readers were not slow to object and say so but I have never believed it to be
wise to make enemies of every politician. Not all of them are scoundrels.
(Mother would say if you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say it at
all; something else you got badly wrong Mum.)
My opinion of Daniel Francis was based almost wholly on his performance at Council meetings.
I have never worked with him and such people may have a different perspective.
His occasional emails are always polite and as helpful as he can be
but I don’t suppose we have exchanged a few face to face words more than three
times in God knows how many years; and never more than a couple of sentences. To me at any rate, he
is not the outgoing friendly personality that Labour Leader Stefano Borella undoubtedly is.
Despite that, it is a significant advance on any other election candidate I am vaguely aware of.
I tried to speak to Louie French once but he didn’t want to know. Same goes for
another former Bexley Councillor, Gareth Bacon MP for Orpington, yet I would probably vote for
either of them given the chance. Maybe Daniel was number 1 subject because all
the others are too boring!
What if I had tried to please my critics by portraying Daniel Francis differently and slanting things
in a different direction while not straying from the truth?
I was not very happy when he told that this blog is a third wrong and another third
conspiracy theory after trying very hard to stick to facts. Never have I allowed
anything to remain even a bit wrong if something is brought to my attention.
Daniel clearly regards me with suspicion and he is right to do so. Politicians I
know far better than him and with whom I have sunk the occasional pint have not been immune from criticism here.
Daniel can be combative and argumentative during Council meetings but
I tend to be sympathetic to that after witnessing some Conservatives using their numerical muscle to shout him down.
It is a personal thing and not wrong but I find the use of his
disabled child to advance arguments always grates with me but I can also see that it might look different to many.
He
hangs out with the most obnoxious people imaginable. What else?
Ah yes, he once asked for copies of some files I had acquired from the High
Court and I delivered them on a USB memory stick to his front door. I never got it back!
I wonder if he still has it? If so he should take another look.
It was in essence an evidence bundle
after a business owner could not account for a six figure sum and three or four employees were
accused and subsequently arrested on suspicion of theft and an associate was seriously libelled.
If Daniel has trawled through innumerable files he might remember the letter calculated to deceive a client
and written under duress by an employee who became a Court witness. Other employees
were encouraged in writing to steal from contractors and lots more I have half forgotten.
The judge made a number of disparaging remarks about the defendant and found in favour of the complainant.
That business owner is now a General Election candidate. (Not the woman in the
picture, Daniel knows everything about that one without needing a USB stick.)
I am beginning to think I should reconsider my assumption that not all politicians are scoundrels at heart.
Perhaps I have not been probing sufficiently deeply.
Currently I am inclined to make the same General Election decision as in every year since 2005. Who is the least bad?