Comments

• ' . . [Lib Dem majority 26.]' should read ' . . [Lib Dem majority 26%]'.

  Chris Squire on 2010-04-17 10:22:17 +0000

• Sir,

  It is not me that is controversial, this is only spread about by LibDems, I suggested 30 mins free parking to help local shops, more primary places to stop local people having to appeal to get a child's place, protect our parks and open spaces, stop over-development, improve the pavements etc and offer a type of consultation which actually reflects residents views. The LibDems said they would do these things four years ago and have broken promises on all of them; that's controversial.

  Putting People First and believing in residents has been championed by the Conservatives. After 26 years of LibDem dereliction, the Conservatives are the only ones who can run this Borough with the community at its heart, with my strongly held private and professional views, I should know. I will explain what is controversial; it is the LibDems calling the community liars, which Chris Squire posted on the LibDem website, which was obviously approved by Vince Cable and Serge Lourie - Have a look at:

  www.richmondunitedgroup.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=180

  This type of abuse should not be allowed in politics, or any walk of life and voters should be aware of this LibDems' dark-side and vote accordingly. If I am controversial by being against this type of use of an image of a child, I hate to think what the LibDems think is normal!!

  It is very difficult for voters to have a realistic choice when the LibDems are ordered by their party to "be wicked, act shamelessly, exaggerate and stir endlessly". (Quoted from LibDem campaign literature). This is not a good way to run your election campaign Chris and your usual snipe at me is typical.

  Also have a look at the involvement of your current LibDem Councillors in removing the St Margarets community budget.

  www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2009/12/creating_the_st_margarets_christmas_fair.html#comments

  This is an attack against 300 residents who have participated within the St Margarets Community Action Plan study and an attempt to silence local people.

  Some paths lead to paradise, some paths lead to pain; some paths lead to freedom, the LibDems try and make them look the same!!

  It is clear that the things the LibDems actually do, are not what they say and this is definitely not the way to produce a fairer society!!

  Barry Edwards on 2010-04-25 19:42:59 +0000

• I think someone should speak up for Mr Edwards in his denial of controversiality, if that's the right word. I was wondering whether in the interests of fairness and harmony, and bearing in mind the kind things previously said about me in a non-controversial way by him, I should not for a short while carry the heavy burden of arguing his case.

  Yes, I know, it's a tough one.

  Controversy: what is it? Controversy is "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."

  Let's look at that for a moment. It's probably best to break this down into its several elements.

  "public dispute or debate".

  I must concede that Mr Edwards has indulged in public dispute and debate. This is a public forum, and the issues has raised are disputatious and the subject of debate.

  "prolonged"

  Yes, here, too, I am forced to admit that the disputes and debates have been prolonged. Indeed, - and I say this to forestall some critic of Mr Edwards impertinently pointing this out - they have been so prolonged that most people had assumed that they were not going on any longer; and that Mr Edwards, on the brink of political greatness as a prospective councillor for the village of Teddington, had moved on, and maybe even forgotten all about us. But I move on.

  "concerning a matter of opinion". It is here, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, that I feel assured in refuting absolutely the claim of controversy. That anyone should hold the opinions attributed to Mr Edwards by his own postings is so manifestly absurd that it must be clear to you all that he is just joking. Thus I contend that they are not as such matters of opinion, properly so called.

  You may say that if something is called a camel then it is a camel. But if it has no humps, produces yellow flowers, and grows in your back garden, then it may well be a dandelion, and no amount of camel-calling will remedy that.

  In short, Mr Edwards has written what he has written to entertain us all, and in so doing, has performed a valuable public service, so far from the dismal state of controversy painted by Mr Squire as to be risible.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-04-28 21:40:38 +0000

• Barry, thank you for your comment. Your links in particular were very enlightening.

  Steve Pulfrey on 2010-04-29 11:24:23 +0000

• If you want to see where your candidates live and the extent of the St.Margarets and North Twickenham ward then visit:

  goo.gl/MyCI

  A. Davidson on 2010-04-29 11:39:16 +0000

• Why can't Labour field even one candidate who lives in the Ward?

  David bertram on 2010-04-29 15:46:06 +0000

• Thank you Mr Mann for identifying and supporting pure democracy - not a "Presidential Debate" two-party bipolar view, nor a "Prime Ministerial Debate" three-party view, but the right of any individual to stand up and be counted.

  Because of devolution I do not see the relevance of the Scottish National Party appearing in the recent televised events, but I fear as a consequence for the marginalisation of other parties who have a valid agenda; The Green Party, UKIP, etc. I stop short of the BNP.

  Mr Squire should be commended for the effort he put into his opposition to the redevelopment of the former Brunel University site. He stood up (alone) when needed and raised important issues with the previous (Conservative) council regarding:

  1. The covenant under which the site had to have educational use when donated to the state by the Kilmorey Estate. (Fulfilled by relocating the Rambert Ballet School)
  2. The dire need for local primary school places and fulfilling the covenant by the building of a new primary school on the site. NO
  3. Public access to the site. NO
  4. Preserving trees and views. It is my understanding that permission was allowed by the current council to redevelop a listed wall to maintain the view of Kilmorey House after the developers took it upon themselves to block the pre-existing view. They have subsequently planted bushes of such a rapidly maturing nature that I feel Mr Squires constant and democratic objections may need to be upheld on his behalf.

  He might be a major pain in the ass, but someone needs to be and he represents democracy. I wish him luck.

  A.Davidson on 2010-04-30 03:16:13 +0000

• A.Davidson seems to be confusing me with someone else: I live in East Twickenham and was not involved in the issues he lists.

  Chris Squire on 2010-04-30 09:37:50 +0000

• Christopher Squire, thank you for putting the record straight. St Margarets Estate Residents Association; North St Margarets Residents Association; Tistleworth Marina (about 30 houseboats) and many other individuals objected to the over development of the site. A. Davidson is ill informed, none of the 4 issues he listed stand up to scrutiny.

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2010-04-30 13:05:11 +0000

• I don't know whether Mr Davidson is muddling up Mr Squire and Mr Edwards, which is something neither of them is likely to welcome!

  As Gerhard says, many people, including the St Margarets Residents' Associations and the North St Margarets Residents Association and the Marina made constructive comments and objections to the proposed development of the Brunel site.

  All of us argued for primary education provision on that site, but the Council's officers advised that it was not necessary as there was insufficient demand. That advice spanned both the Liberal Democrat Administration before 2002 and the Conservative one afterwards. In retrospect it is clear that it was wrong advice, and despite representations from various people locally, it stood.

  There is going to be public access through the site in accordance with the planning consent. I have actually been chasing this up over the last few weeks as we rather fancied a gentle promenade along the same. I am told by officers that the central pathway is not quite finished. I have suggested that Octagon are deliberately faffing around, and I would ask anyone who is interested to gather evidence to support this.

  I also raised the matter of the view being obstructed as well. There is a landscaping scheme which provides for the protection of the view, and officers say that they are looking into it.

  Barry Edwards did raise restrictive covenants as a ground for opposition to the development, but as you may know, their existence or not is not a planning matter. I did look at the title to the site, and it did not seem to me that there were any restrictions which could be enforced to prevent the development, nor was there any evidence that anyone could enforce them had there been any. This was rather a red herring therefore.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-04-30 15:26:35 +0000

• Sir,

  I have provided 2 links which explain the approach of the LibDems, but Laurence and Chris have avoided explaining the use of this image of the child, the accusation that local residents are liars and the roll of St Margarets & North Twickenham LibDem Councillors within the last minute reallocation of community funding to another organisation.

  I understand Cllr. Lourie had to make an apology for at least one of the above.

  Barry Edwards on 2010-05-01 23:20:24 +0000

• The Lib Dem Council manifesto for 2010 - 14 is at: www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/aManifesto2010.html

  The achievements of the St Margarets & N Twickenham councillors over 2006 - 10 and their commitments for 2010 - 14 are at: www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/smnt.html

  These 2 documents amount to 7,300 words, which seems to me to be plenty for residents to digest.

  Chris Squire on 2010-05-02 01:27:16 +0000

• As always, it is a delight to hear from Mr Edwards, although it is a trifle hard to understand what he is getting at.

  I do now know why he should think I know anything about the links he has posted. I have no idea who the child he refers to is. Is it perhaps a picture of Mr Edwards in his youth? As the child is lacking a beard and the photograph is in colour this seems unlikely.

  I must say I find the Riverside "debate" somewhat tiresome. Unfortunately consensus on its development is impossible. Whilst virtually everyone would agree that it should not be left in its current state: as soon as any process leading to potential redevelopment is commenced; at each of the many choices between options and refinements, more and more opponents are generated until eventually and inevitably there will be a substantial number of vocal and previously involved people who will be opposed to whatever is proposed!

  The current proposals involved a number of community groups in and around Twickenham, and the same people would be involved again no doubt if, heaven forbid, they went back to square one.

  Whatever is done, unless it is to leave it derelict, there will have to be some sort of enabling development, whether housing or commercial, and I wonder if the end result of a new engagement of the community would be much different from that which currently sits before us.

  A generation has been born and grown up in the time since the pool closed, and it would be nice if something happens before they eventually die of old age.

  I am also surprised that Mr Edwards is still going on about alteration in the funding for the Christmas lights and trees in St Margarets this last Yuletide. I am told that the splendid arrangements for this, which were the best ever, were funded in the same way as previous years, but at a lower cost, because, essentially, Mr Edwards was substantially undercut by the Traders of St Margarets. Now, one would have thought that value for money would be something every candidate for public office would be keen to engender. But maybe not.

  Finally, it would have been nice if Mr Edwards had thanked me for my defence of his position as a non-controversial person, although I suppose that his posting reinforces my arguments in his favour.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-05-02 01:38:18 +0000

• Also, I have just re-read Mr Edwards' original posting about the St Margarets Christmas Fair funding arrangements. I am a bit puzzled by what actually happened in 2008. He seems to be saying that the Council's funding was used not only for the Fair, but for other things including funding the St Margarets Alliance survey.

  Whether or not those things were good things to fund, about which I express no view, it is surely not right that they should have been funded out of money supposed to have been used for the Christmas Fair.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-05-02 08:41:08 +0000

• Sir,

  Sir,

  Laurence in his true LibDem way has not answered the question. He is hiding his political affiliation in an attempt to seem impartial and mislead the reader. He knows the circumstances of all the topics raised. I wish he could just be honest for once, rather than defend his LibDem chums.

  Barry Edwards on 2010-05-02 18:55:18 +0000

• I don't hide my political affiliation. There is a big poster outside my house which makes it clear!

  But seriously, I am determined to assist Mr Edwards now he has demonstrated so much need for it, and in consideration of his many years of selfless striving for his own interests. Maybe there is a bit of the socialist in me.

  There is an election going on, and the people of Teddington, a splendid part of our borough, are anxiously awaiting the moment when they can elect and carry through those leafy streets the man for whom they have been waiting all those years - Barry Edwards. Homo controvertialis, he may not be, but inspirational and wise beyond any sensible description he surely is.

  But still, despite this, he has sufficient feelings for us all to know that we, here in St Margarets, deeply miss the opportunity to cast our vote for him. A man with a big heart, and who is not to say that where the heart is, the head doth not follow.

  Some sort of public advertisement of this is absolutely necessary. So I have drafted for him a letter, which might be usefully delivered by him in the roads near to where he lives. I am sure that there would be many volunteers anxious to assist if this task should be beneath him.

  Here it is. ------------------

  A LETTER FROM BARRY EDWARDS, BSc, Dip H/E, PhD (started but not finished).

  Ideally a large and imposing picture of Mr Edwards should be at the top.

  Dear Fellow Residents,

  You may be disappointed to hear that I am not standing for election for the borough elections on 6 May in this ward.

  I have been chosen instead to represent the Conservatives in Teddington where I am standing against Cllr Martin Elengorn. This is because I am an expert in Environmental Science, having obtained a degree in this in 1986.

  I am therefore writing to you to apologise for the fact that you will not be able to vote for me this time, and to endorse the Conservative candidates for the ward, who must be very good candidates indeed as they beat me at the hustings meeting.

  Some people may be surprised that I have accepted a nomination for the Conservatives at all. But as you know, I have ceaselessly worked for many years to improve my own environment, and if you elect me and my colleagues to represent you, we will, under my guidance and using my expertise, be able to put into effect measures which will encourage moderate only levels of car ownership, such as a right to park outside our own houses and not to have other people in the same road selfishly doing it.

  Although in the past I have suggested that the that the party political system was not correctly representing local people and that the party political view always seemed to be put before that of the local residents, I must make an exception for myself and my colleagues. After all, I have been resident here for many years and I understand exactly what you are all thinking and can relay this to my colleagues.

  Once more, I apologise for my absence from the ballot paper, but I can assure that it is in the best interests of the community as a whole.

  Yours sincerely,

  Barry

  -----------------

  I would welcome any comments, but hurry, if this letter is to be appreciated by its recipients, it needs to go out promptly.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-05-02 21:35:43 +0000

• Re: ' . . if you elect me . . we will . . be able to put into effect measures which will encourage moderate . . car ownership, such as a right to park outside our own houses and not to have other people in the same road selfishly doing it.'

  Does this mean that Barry Edwards' Conservative have hatched a secret plan to introduce CPZs outside their homes to make sure they always can find a parking space? The public highway, Barry, is a 'common treasury for all', nominally vested in Her Majesty. Privatising it for your convenience is not going to be a vote winner, here or in Teddington.

  Chris Squire on 2010-05-03 00:35:20 +0000

• As a matter of fact, the Highway is not necessarily vested in the Crown - it rarely is. The ownership of roads can vary. Sometimes individual titles stretch across to the centre line, sometimes the road was retained by the original developer.

  Only where the land comprising the highway was never itself granted in fee does the title paramount of the Crown still represent the residual title to the land. This is likely only to affect roads in existence before the late thirteenth century.

  The right of Highway is an extra layer, as it were, with rights and duties conferred both by the Common law and by Statute.

  Highway rights themselves prevent anyone having an absolute right to obstruct the road by parking, and also extinguish the right of any landowner to regulate the use of the highway which by accident of history might be vested in them.

  Laurence Mann on 2010-05-03 13:29:48 +0000

• Thanks for this most interesting reply. 'Frequently Asked Questions about Highway Law' is published by Norfolk CC at: www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=NCC027433&ssSourceNodeId=&ssTargetNodeId=130 from which comes:

  ' . . 6 My deeds show that I own the land you say is highway. Does this mean it isn't highway?

  As the Highway Authority, we rarely own the land which the highway runs over. Most people own the land up to the middle of their road, but don't realise it is only the subsoil that they own and the control of the land and its surface lies with the Highways Authority.'

  Chris Squire on 2010-05-03 22:17:15 +0000

• With so much dialogue on here about what seems to be the world verses Barry Edwards, I am left somewhat confused as to where the conservatives stand on all this. Barry Edwards portrays himself as the man of the people; he is a fighter and somebody that appears to want to stand up for the ordinary resident and so has the makings of a great councillor. We need people who represent us to have a passion for people's rights. Draw a line under all the history and perhaps Barry Edwards is the ideal candidate for St Margarets. Today I sat down to fill in my postal vote and find no mention of Barry Edwards - why I wonder? Surely if the conservatives had any sense they would field Barry as a candidate in St Margarets? Or do they know something the we don't? Which perhaps is why he is standing as a conservative in Teddington? Perhaps the conservatives would like to comment on their choice of candidates for St Margarets? Why if Barry lives here is he not standing for St Margarets? Why have they not allowed Barry to support us? My conservative vote is on hold.

  David on 2010-05-04 11:00:37 +0000

• David, here is how I see Barry Edwards. A fighter, yes, he even looked like Che Guevara when he first moved into "our road". Complete with beard, bandana and dark glasses.

  I soon realised he was not a neighbourly person when when he insisted no one but him was allowed to park on the road outside the house he lives in. To enforce this he has since that time put dustbins, planks of wood etc. on the road every time he ueses his car to reserve "his" space. Even 20 Years ago this was a rather controversial action, annoying to all neighbours but collectively it was decided to dismiss him as a bit of a crank and no action was taken. He has since that time run his private CPZ, no visitor permits for his or his partners visitors, they park outside neighbours houses.

  Some Years ago Barry tried to get support from the neighbours to make the road "private" to stop residents from surrounding roads from parking in "our road". The plan did not receive support.... my reasons for not supporting it was that it would not be community spirited and because Barry saw himself as enforcing officer, administering street cleaning, tree maintenance, parking etc.

  More recently Barry managed to get on the committee of the St Margarets Estate Residents Association (Smera). Despite being specifically told not to act or speak as a representative of Smera, when attending meetings of other groups, without consent of the Smera committee, Barry listed Smera as a member of the St Margarets Alliance created by him at the time. He kept the website secret from Smera for about 3 Month, only told about its existence when asked about how his new venture was progressing. It took 2 Month of requesting Smera to be removed from the alliance web site before any action was taken. The action taken was no more than word play; Instead of "members" the category, page was changed to "groups". Smera is still on the top of list of groups supporting the alliance.

  However, as the North St Margarets Residents Association, our neighbours, where part of the Alliance because one of their committee was part of the alliance committee, smera agreed to have observers attending alliance meetings to find out what direction the alliance was going, until such time that smera can decide whether or not it can support the alliance.

  I followed the posts of Laurence Mann on this site closely and was impressed by his efforts to make the alliance more acceptable to the community and smera.

  On June 1^st 2009 I attended the alliance meeting as Smera observer, accompanied by Andrew Latham, Smera`s chairman. Barry Edwards proudly introduced two local residents that would stand alongside him as independents at the forthcoming local elections. He also announced that he registered to stand for the conservatives. He said that that way he would be able to get police protection should he again be subject of harrasment from opponents. A letter from the Chairman of the Cole Park Residents Association was read out which stated the association did not want to be a member of the alliance..... Barry Edwards dismissed the letter as politically biased. Some time of the meeting was dealing with the residents survey document as it was ready to go to print and the alliance committee was not prepared to change it by taking reference to Smera of the document.

  My report back to the smera committee was negative.

  Smera has not been advised of or been invited to observe subsequent alliance meetings over the past 10/11 Month and their web site still gives the wrong information.

  During that time the St Margarets Traders have withdrawn their support from Barry Edwards St Margarets Alliance.

  The St Margarets Alliance published their constitution. (I could not sign up to it)

  Early in 2010 the North St Margarets Residents Association withdrew its support for the St Margarets Alliance.

  Barry Edwards was quick to respond to the latter, questioning the integrity of the messenger. All his posts on this site from Barry Edwards are his own thoughts, he never seems to sign as the chairman of the alliance. I doubt that all, if any, of the St Margarets Alliance Executive share his views.

  He probably made the right choice, to stand elsewhere rather than St Margarets. Known to well to win in St Margarets......

  Gerhard Schellberg on 2010-05-05 03:54:56 +0000

• I am going to close comments on this article, I think it is starting to get personal.

  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2010-05-05 07:58:51 +0000