Right to express views as a private citizen

First let me correct Mr Silk by pointing out that he repeats a wholly incorrect interpretation of my words. At no time have I threatened the local borough-wide independent community websites with "immediate closure" (or any other sort of closure). I am happy to place on record my support for our community websites, praise their role and state my appreciation for their contribution of newsworthy items to the life of the borough. I have willingly contributed items of local interest in the past (one of the few councillors to do so) and have been solicited for such by the team who run the websites.

Insofar as Mr Grant's misrepresentation that I believe Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians "and other decent folk should not be councillors in case they express opinions", it is of course a complete nonsense. What I described as "crass" by Cllr Dance - one of the few Tory councillors with whom I talk regularly - was her use of her councillor's email pathway. (A mistake, incidentally, that I also made recently and for which I apologise.)

Although I did not agree with Hilary's views, I nonetheless believe she has a right to express them as a private citizen. For the record, Mr Grant may like to note that I was brought up as an Evangelical Christian.

In fact, I was confirmed at that pinnacle of Evangelical Anglicanism, All Souls Langham Place by the late Bishop Reindorp, father of Richmond's much-respected Rev Julian Reindorp.

I still visit All Souls as often as possible. He might also like to note that my late paternal grandparents were Roman Catholic.

Marc Cranfield-Adams Sheen Court, Richmond SIR - Three of your recent correspondents, Mr Grant, Mr Shadbolt and Cllr Cranfield-Adams, have made serious and damaging allegations in respect of our charity Positively Healthy, which requires an immediate and definitive response in order to prevent these being accepted by your readers as factually accurate.

As Mr Grant and Mr Shadbolt (Letters, March 12 and 19) clearly have a problem not only with homosexuality but with democracy, their concerns are best directed to the legislators who have made the laws protecting these minorities they so strenuously object to, than against the borough's gay and lesbian population, or our charity, as we do not have the power to enact or strike out legislation at their behest.

It is extremely worrying that Mr Grant and Mr Shadbolt are abusing and inflaming a sensitive situation in order to make party political gain, in the case of Mr Shadbolt to set out his stall as our prospective UKIP candidate and, in the case of Mr Grant, for a potential future government under Michael Howard, one which he seems to think will share his homophobic agenda.

It may interest and will sadden Mr Grant to read the letter of congratulations I have received from the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park, Marco Forgione, in respect of "the excellent work that you undertake in our community".

At the last general election, Mr Shadbolt's UKIP drew 348 votes, 0.7 per cent of the overall total, a figure sure to collapse further with such a prejudiced and reactionary candidate standing.

My complaint against Cllr Arbour, leader of the council, to the Standards Board for England, now includes the fact that at the full meeting of the council on March 2, he formally and officially refused to dissociate the council from Cllr Dance's original homophobic comments and therefore, by allying the council with her comments, laid open the entire council to charges of institutionalised homophobia, which is precisely the allegation I will have made at the council's cabinet meeting on March 23.

Its is vitally important that your readers and correspondents understand precisely my stand on the matter, as it has been wildly spun out of control by bizarre Kafka-esque correspondents to this newspaper. When Mrs Dance, Mr Arbour and Mr Cranfield-Adams express their opinions, I fully accept this as their right, but when Cllr Dance, Cllr Arbour and Cllr Cranfield-Adams express their opinions they are no longer acting in a personal capacity but speaking on behalf of and with the full imprimatur of Richmond council and therefore are subject to administrative and procedural constraints which I must therefore insist they adhere to.

They must specifically respect council guidelines and policy, as well as the law of the land, protecting minorities from slander, defamation and libel.

The cabinet meeting on March 23 was to adopt the Corporate Equality and Diversity Policy and Strategy, under whose restrictions and safeguards none of the three councillors can make the comments they did without serious repercussions.

As this meeting follows the deadline for this letter being published the outcome cannot be reported here, but will, no doubt, following the meeting.

I was surprised and disgusted at Cllr Cranfield-Adams' claim (Letters, March 12) that there was a campaign against Cllr Dance notorious for its "spite and vindictiveness" conducted by "some from the gay community in Richmond" who "want to see her hung, drawn and quartered". I can assure your readers that there is no such campaign as all activities have been conducted in full public view, mainly in the letters pages of the Richmond & Twickenham Times, and there has been no covert campaign hostile to Cllr Dance outside the fevered imaginings of Cllr Cranfield-Adams.

When he writes that Cllr Dance resigned as a trustee from Richmond Council for Voluntary Service (RCVS) and that this was "something that a member organisation of RCVS was seeking", may I make it clear that we were not involved in this decision and made no representation to the board of RCVS at any time in respect of Cllr Dance.

In conclusion, when Mr Grant accuses our charity of "trying to wheedle £5,000 out of the takings (council tax)" he is distorting our straightforward and uncontroversial grant application to Grants Direct, one which involved no "wheedling" but due consideration by the grants funding panel.

As to his suggestion that Positively Healthy, the world's longest-established gay men's Aids charity, which has survived the closure of more than 50 per cent of UK Aids agencies, is my "little fiefdom", it sounds a fascinating and tempting proposition but the problem with it is that one simply cannot get the serfs these days.

Cass Mann, CEO, Positively Healthy, Princes Street, Richmond