I had hoped we’d seen the last of this subject but I have received a
complaint of “spreading false information” and for good measure the phrase is repeated.
The subject matter is Norman Dodds House.
I have reviewed every word written over four days and changed just one. Labour activist has become Labour Party member because I realised that activist was an assumption on my part. I’ve already admitted that the story about my 229 bus ride was an invention to mask the identity of the informer but apart from that everything is a careful reflection of the news - gossip if you insist - that came in uninvited.
What I find significant about this episode is that over time three people contacted me about the loss of historical signage. Why would they do that? I can only think they had no response or had one they didn’t like from within the party.
All three were happy to give their names and reply email addresses. All three had been in touch at least once before so had gained some sort of credibility and one would be known to everyone who reads this blog regularly.
They were not nobodies and did not ask for anonymity although perhaps they know me well enough to assume it would be given without asking.
The complainant used the anonymous contact facility and claims to be an activist. Maybe he is right and the Norman Dodds face lift was part of a long term planned building upgrade. Maybe it would have been done quicker and aroused less discontent if a local signwriter was used instead of one from Bromley.
The self-confessed activist may be right and my informants may be the “jealous resentful activists” he claims they are but I hesitate to fully accept Mr. Anon’s opinion of people that I’ve known of for quite a long time.
The question remains. Why did Labour members send their stories and photos to me? Surely it must indicate some sort of division in the party ranks and Mr. Anon slagging them off sort of confirms it. Doesn’t it?