Forum Topic

Transparecy and openess promised by Council Leader Peter Mason, or is it censorship?

Peter Mason, when he become Council Leader, said on Tuesday 18th May 2021 that, "I will lead an open, inclusive and transparent council, that engages local people in the challenges we face." (source: Ealing Today 20/05/2021). Yet I would like to bring to your attention an example of Ealing Council's censorship. When submitting comments/objections to planning applications on the council planning portal, Ealing Council are applying moralistic political censorship, which seems to show them to be wilfully ignorant of past history.On 2nd November 2021, I submitted my objection to Planning Application 215857FUL, the developer's land grab of Friary Place Green. I was the 208th commentator at 11.03pm. On the next day, 3rd November, I looked through the planning portal comments page, and my comments/objections that I submitted had been taken down. This led me to re-submit my comments at 12.39pm, as commentator 222, after someone at W12 0RF. These comments/objections were taken down/censored when I looked at around 1.30pm. All this suggests that the present Ealing Council leadership seem predetermined to approve of this land grab by developer Catalyst/Mount Anvil. My second submission to the Ealing Council planning portal, which is almost identical to my first submission. The only difference is instead of Hitler, I wrote H....r, and instead of Friary Park Estate, I changed the capital "E" into a lower case "e".All this led me to copy my second submission and put it on the ActonW3.com discussion forum under the "Catalyst and Mount Anvil attempt Common Lands Grab through dubious planning application" topic/thread. Below is the text of my first submission to Planning Application 215857FUL. Thanks.  Friary Place Green is Common Land, its derogation cannot be changed without a formal consultation carried out by the Council. A Consultation has not taken place. The Council should be protecting Common Land for the people, and not letting others who do not own it redevelop it for their own profits.  "Salami Slicing Imperialism", that Adolf Hitler practised before World War Two is being applied at local level by the developer, Catalyst and Mount Anvil. "One Man", i.e. the developer is trying to impose his will on the thousands of residents, and objectors, that live in the local area. Why is Ealing Council being feckless towards the "salami slicing" of the peoples' Common Land - Friary Place Green, by greedy avaricious developer.  Please do not let Ealing Council be a malleable Quisling, Chaim Rumkowski or a Vichy Republic lackey collaborator for the avaricious developer. Catalyst and Mount Anvil should have planned for the children's play area and cycle hub on the Friary Park Estate that they are redeveloping into an over dense battery council tax farm. Among other things in this redevelopment, they want to erect a 37 and a 29 storey death trap tower blocks. They should not be allowed to parasite on land that they do not own for their own profit desires. Please protect the peoples' Common Land - Friary Place Green, and the environment in general, and reject planning application 215857FUL.

Anthony Hawran ● 901d2 Comments

I was not comparing Ealing Coucil to Hitler. I stated that the developer, Mount Anvil and Catalyst, are behaving like "salami slicing imperialists", as practised by dictators in the past, eg. Hitler or his one time Soviet ally Stalin. In this case, it seems to be that Ealing Council in its apparent failure to protect Common Land for the people, from the outset, appears to be acting like a collaborator with Mount Anvil and Catalyst. Historical comparisons can sometimes bring out emotions, but peoples freedom of expression should not be cramped when voicing an opinion. Peoples voices should and must act as a check on excessive government power in a functioning democracy.

Anthony Hawran ● 900d

You presumably read this before you submitted your comments: "Any comments should be submitted in a rational and impersonal way and comments directed to the planning issues raised by the proposal. Please note that comments of a personal, libelous, defamatory, or otherwise offensive or abusive nature are not constructive or helpful to the process of determining a planning application and may result in an action for libel against you by third parties." I suspect people working for the Council noticed the word 'Hitler' and just removed your first comment. Why would the Council publish your comments comparing them to a person responsible for murdering millions of people on their website? 256 other comments have been published and are publicly available. Whilst you may disagree with a planning application to use a piece of public land as a play area for a temporary period, your evocation of WW2 atrocities is not appropriate in my opinion.

Simon Derbyshire ● 901d