It is not with a little sadness I, again, read in the Wimbledon Guardian another offering from Michael Barltrop (No civil war within Labour, November 6).

This time insisting there is no ‘civil war’ in the local Labour Party when, as a result of this latest offering, he attempts to denigrate a local Labour councillor, just recently democratically elected to represent his ward.

It appears the ‘civil war’ he denies, he is promoting.

In addition, he says he has embarked on his attempt to have the councillor ‘immediately expelled from the Labour Party’.

He says he is ‘deliberately’ doing this ‘independently’ of Councillor Stephen Alambritis, and without any discussions with other members of Merton Labour Party.

He then says "there is no civil war inside the local Labour Party, except in the deluded mind of a lone troublemaker".

Since Michael Barltrop has admitted he, alone, without any discussions with any other member of the local Labour Party, suggests neither are ‘lone troublemakers’, but ‘brothers in arms’, perhaps there’s a ‘petard’ waiting off-stage, in the wings?

‘Evidence’ has resonance elsewhere.

What can be said of ‘truth’? Michael Barltrop has made public allegations against a recently elected local councillor, currently with evidence untested in public.

If anyone believes Michael Barltrop has engaged in ‘extremist behaviour’ (?) with his public allegations, is that quite different from expressing ‘extremist views’ which he alleges of another?

Are both unfamiliar to Michael Barltrop?

Is what is becoming acceptable in our modern democratic society, progressive?

For outriders and agitators, can truth can be the Achilles heel? Is the unparalleled provenance of the Common Law-sovereign?

Bob Whitfield

Via email