Adur's Homophobic Chairman, Mike Mendoza.

A bit of a re-visit this one, but I missed it first time around and it made me chuckle, so I thought that I'd share it around.

You all know about Mickey "The Mound" Mendoza, and his homophobic tendencies despite having simply hundreds of gay friends, (don't they all). I missed this one from Pink News.

What is funny about his outburst, is the fact that at no point did I ever confront him in person about being a "homophobic radio Z-lister", I obviously took that as read. What actually happened was that HE confronted myself, in a rather aggressive and physically violent manner by shoving me and even sucker punching me in the back, because he's a spineless coward, just like the rest of the local Tories. He did this not because of anything I had said about him, but because his mate Tim Loughton, pointed me out and sent him and another thug over to assault me, because Loughton is even more of a spineless coward than Mendoza is. We've all seen how much he loves abusing his parliamentary privilege in order to avoid being personally accountable for being an "arsehead".

This story was fabricated and fed to the Argus by Mendo, in order to cover the real story, and that is, they attacked myself whilst I was out shopping, and expected me to be intimidated by a couple of fat blokes. When they realised that this wasn't going to happen, they created this mythical tale in order to claim that it was myself who approached them. Let's face it, why would I need to go up to a "homophobic radio z-lister" merely in order to call him a "homophobic radio z-lister", it would be like someone going up to Martin Luther King Jr. and reminding him that he was black, It makes no sense. But hey, when people make up fairy tales, they aren't ever that believable.

Anyway, what made me chuckle were the responses, I especially liked this one.

Although laughing at someone because of their fatness is a bit of a cheap shot, but then so is a punch in the back when you outnumber your opponent 5 to 1, so it's open season as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway here's a couple more comments that made me chuckle.

Yep, he certainly is a prime example of a typical homophobic, Tory bigot, that's for sure.


ATAB
K

On anonymous threats.

There are two types of anonymous threat, one is very naughty, the other is very funny.

The naughty kind, is when an anonymous individual, (sometimes referred to as a "spineless turd") sends threats to a named individual. Like the ones sent by the local Tory supporters to myself and my family under the name "The Collective".

These ones:

These are just a few of the examples of the work of the local Tory thugs, who happen to be so cowardly that they used my address as the sender on the one which they were so inept, that they wrote an address that did not exist.

Oh, and if you recognise the handwriting on these, feel free to give Sussex Police a call and identify the local Tory in question as they would like to be able to tie this directly to an individual in order to prosecute them, as all the time that this group refuse to identify which one of them was personally responsible, prosecution will be difficult. Yes, if only the local Tories would tell the truth and own up to their threats rather than acting as a single criminal entity and protecting the more cowardly and aggressive amongst their group (which must be an achievement in itself, as Loughton is a pretty hard act to follow when it comes to these two attributes).

Then there's THIS , which is also an anonymous threat, but it's a funny one, in which nobody get's hurt.

You see, there are some people who like to hide behind an anonymous façade, (Something which I have never attempted to do, I just like funny pictures of myself), and send their abuse from what they perceive to be a safe environment.

People like this "c*nt" (to use his fine choice of words):

Yes, DannyBloom1, or Jakob1, or any other made up person, are just that, made up, non existent, not actually a person. So how can you threaten something that simply isn't there? It's like shooting an imaginary pony in the face with a pretend crossbow, darkly funny, yet no animals are harmed in the process.

Now obviously DannyBloom1, does have a person behind it, as do all the other made up individuals, but I'm obviously not threatening that person am I, I'm threatening the imaginary entity.

I can quite easily claim that I know where DannyBloom1 lives, and that a group of equally imaginary people will be visiting him one night soon, where they will tie him up, rub him liberally all over with a nutmeg grater, fill a garden sprayer with creosote, and give him a good all over coat of brown, after setting up a public webcam so that the whole world can witness his suffering. It may sound harsh, but as DannyBloom1 doesn't exist and so doesn't actually have a home, there is no nutmeg grater, creosote, or garden sprayer, it's not offensive at all, it's just funny, in the same way that slasher movies are funny, in the same way that the imaginary pony, running around the imaginary field, with the imaginary crossbow bolt in his face is funny. It's not real, so it's funny, get it?

Obviously the imaginary person is free to report me for making funny threats, but by doing so, they would have to identify themselves to the police, which would then render them able to be prosecuted for their real anonymous threats. I guess that makes it check mate then.

Anyway, I still may visit DannyBloom1, with a group of mates in the middle of the night, gut him like the chicken he is, and feed him to local school kids as sashimi. It may sound harsh, but let's not forget he's completely fictitious, and so it's just plain funny, and not a threat at all.

Ooops, I just trod on an imaginary hamster and all his imaginary innards squirted out all over the place, I hate it when that happens.

Enjoy
K

Shoreham is in the Daily Mail again.....

... and again they fail to manage to nail any facts.

A pointless load of old crap about the new footbridge and it's eventual opening.

Yes, you usually find plenty of "villagers" in most towns, and the idea that the Duck of Gloucester is not a celebrity is utter madness, look at him, just like our own Council Chairman, Mike (The Mound) Mendoza, he has some top dodgy has-been celebrity mates. Here's a picture of him with one of them and a selection of enthusiastic young fans.

You can't get more famous than Jimmy (The Fiddler) Savile now, can you? He's been in the papers loads lately, nearly as often as Tim (The Liar) Loughton has been.

Anyway, back to the story. What is particularly funny about the Daily Fail's article is this bit.

I think we might need a bigger bridge, because there is no way that the one we have will reach from Shoreham Beach to the place in the picture. Mainly because this is a picture of Shoreham in Kent.

What do you expect from an overrated arse rag like the Mail, after all they did believe that Tim Loughton was investigated for Racism for using the word "unkempt", ahem...

and that he has the authority to "sack" a constituent and henceforth refer to them as an "ex-constituent", ahem.....

Yes, they really are the height of integrity, and a real distributer of facts, aren't they?

What a complete bunch of ignorant arseheads they really are, and the people who buy and believe this filth will be first against the wall, come the revolution.........

ATAB
K

Darren Burns, disappears into a world of fantasy.

The years of alcohol abuse appear to have finally taken their toll, and his poor brain is so addled that he believes that he is living in some kind of 1970s cop show, where he has the "Five-O on his ass".

Here's the clear evidence that our councillor has now thoroughly "lost the plot".

Yes, in Burns' alcohol scented world of imaginings, he is indeed a very important person in a very serious legal matter and so cannot talk about it in any detail. To be honest we thought that he'd disappeared from view because he had successfully managed to drink himself into obscurity/insanity/coma/an early grave, or maybe won a holiday for having the dirtiest curtains in Shoreham.

Meanwhile in the real world, Burns is an insignificant, no mark sadsack with the same delusions of grandeur that are shared by the rest of his Tory mates. Yes you should all go and check out the Daily Mail, they'll tell you the truth won't they?

These Tories are really put out that when they attack an innocent person that they receive a PIN, just imagine if they actually told the truth about which one of them sent the death threats and other abuse to myself and my family and didn't lie to protect their own, and were convicted of their true crimes, you'd be able to hear them screaming all the way from Holloway, because they're being picked on by the bigger girls.

So "Tim Loughton is totally innocent" is he? Sounds just like all the other campaigns to free convicted felons to me. Loughton is many things, but innocent definitely isn't one of them.

Burn's seems to think that his PIN is "totally unfounded" as well, I can assure you that it is not, he did in fact deserve far more than a simple warning, but as with all Tories, collusion and contempt won the day for them.

What is a PIN you ask? Well, it's a document given by the police when you have been a little bit naughty but not naughty enough for the CPS to prosecute you. They contain plenty of  "could possibly" and "may lead to" type statements, you know like the letters that you receive from ADC when they're trying to screw you over royally, so it's nice that they receive some of their own veiled but pointless threats for once.

I got one, Wanna see it? Here you go......

I've redacted my personal details, and a few bits that I intend to have some fun with in future, oh, and an air of mystery doesn't hurt either. You won't see any of these other cowards showing you any of theirs though, I have no problem with transparency, but it appears that they clearly have.

Yes, all that fuss over a little bit of paper, which essentially is worthless in both law and authority.

I'm not sure if mine is even valid TBH, as it contains no names of officers and no reference numbers or other details relating to any formal investigation. You will also note that it isn't signed by myself either, so is essentially the same as any other item of junk-mail that I may find on my doormat.

It's a great shame that the issuing officer didn't sign this one though, because it turns out that the officer in question is a member of Shoreham Conservative Club, you know, the one which has Tim Loughton as it's president. And you wonder how they got away with all the abuse they gave us with nothing more than a polite warning, maybe there's a reason for this, but who am I to speculate......

I'm looking forward to the local Tories challenging of their PINs, because if they manage to overturn theirs, then they've merely laid the ground work and precedence for mine to be successfully challenged by myself, just for fun, and because I know it will annoy them monumentally.

Take care out there, your council is a sham.
K

Isn't it about time that you lot grew some conkers?

Yet again we have the same spineless moron sending the same tired sh*t to myself via social media. How do I know that it's the same idiot? Because they make the same spelling mistakes, and harp on about the same sad, tired, overworked bullsh*t.

After calling themselves Jakob Duktion, Jakob1, and several other pseudonyms, they now claim to be Danny Bloom.

Yes, we have more of the same shit about Loughton's allegations of "WLTM" stories, and tales of "NHS cunts" from his first bullsh*t propaganda mission in Parliament.

Quite a cunning choice of name to use though, Who is Danny Bloom?

And who was Timmy's employer before he declared himself above the law, an organisation in which he still has a financial interest?

What a coincidence?

Anyway Danny Bloom,  You know who I am, how about you grow a pair and identify yourself you spineless turd. Or are you and the rest of Loughton's collective only able to operate from your secure bunkers, hidden away from the laws of this country, and the slap that you so richly deserve?

You seem to have quite a file on me there, making claims that originate from misquoted sources many, many years out of date, I think that you could in fact be stalking me. You know what happens when you stalk people don't you? You get a large thug or eight sent your way, to attempt to intimidate you. Believe me, my thugs are much scarier and far more effective than the fat old men that Loughton sent my way.

And don't think that as I've asked you to identify yourself that I don't know who you are, because I do, and I'd make sure that your doors and windows are very securely locked for the foreseeable future, because we don't make appointments.

Take care out there, because there are some really nasty pieces of work out and about.
K

Adrian Hilton, the thinking man's Richard Littlejohn.

Not that he appears to think that much about his regurgitation of tripe, adorned with his own predictable, right wing bullsh*t.

Today he decided to publish this load of old toss on the Cunservative Home Blog.

Let's break this down as we have previously, to point out, in places for the umpteenth time, the clear inaccuracies.
I'm in red again.


Here we go again.......

I know more than a few bloggers who have, over recent years, received visits from the police following spurious allegations of Islamophobia, homophobia or racism. Certainly, there are some deeply unpleasant blogs and bloggers out there, but increasingly those who refuse to conform to all the foundational precepts of the equality zeitgeist, or dare to utter a dissonant word against the prevailing orthodoxy, are not merely ‘swivel-eyed’, but often, in the eyes of zealous law-enforcers, just a few increments away from the extremes of political expression. And that expression is, of course, ‘extreme right’.
If you dare to raise a theological or historical objection to same-sex marriage, or remark that those who bombed All Saints Anglican Church in Peshawar were Muslim, or allude to a person’s slovenly appearance and disheveled mode of dress, you risk more than a sharp jab in the ribs from the ever-longer arm of the law.

Yes, we should encourage any individual to express their extremist views freely, especially if that involves persecuting minority groups. What a complete numpty, he appears to be suggesting that people being arrested for blogging is outrageous, but only if they are right wing, anyone who is anywhere left of the SS who writes a blog should be immediately arrested and punished most severely. Did I mention that Loughton insisted, and even presented very misleading "evidence" in order to secure my arrest for blogging, sorry if I wasn't far enough into the bigoted hate camp for you Mr Hilton, but I just cannot convince myself to be that much of a tw@.

It was a perfectly innocuous observation of a constituent’s ‘unkempt’ appearance that brought Tim Loughton MP (and his staff) a year of purgatorial harassment and despair. So serious is this grievance that the Speaker permitted Loughton to bring the matter to the floor of the House of Commons last week, and an investigation is now being carried out by the Privileges Committee.

Perfectly innocuous observation? I would hardly call an email sent directly to myself which contained numerous  personal insults and offensive language, sent in response to a single polite email, an innocuous observation. As I have repeatedly pointed out, "unkempt" has very little if anything to do with anything, it was merely the minimum that Loughton could reveal in Parliament in order to garner support for his offensive against myself and my family.

As for purgatorial harassment and despair, are you sure that writing for Cunservative Home is your true calling, wouldn't you be more suited to writing soap operas with that kind of sensationalist crap?

The speaker allowed this rant for the same reason that he allowed the first, and that reason is that he and Loughton are old mates from way back, and any chance to attack the poor is one of their favourite passtimes.

Sussex Police have bizarrely dedicated the best part of a year to investigating and issuing warnings and advice to Loughton on account of a single email he sent to a constituent in which he endorsed the right of his local council to refer to a particularly troublesome resident as ‘unkempt’.

So it was nothing to do with the death threats sent to myself and my family during the investigation, which at that time was not public, and I didn't tell anyone about it. Probably nothing to do with him referring to myself as a "Pikey Cunt" either. Just "unkempt", because anything else would have ruined his chances of getting any sympathy from the gullible swivel eyed loons.

It transpired that this constituent, one Kieran Francis, is (or claimed to be) of Romany Gipsy origin, to whom ‘unkempt’ was a racist expression. And so Loughton was summoned to the local police station and questioned under caution. After half a year of investigation, the case was eventually dismissed, but Loughton – a diligent MP, reasonably concerned for the tax burden of his constituents – questioned why Sussex Police had devoted so much time and thousands of pounds to what, he said, was “an obviously vexatious complaint from a serial complainer”.

Adrian Hilton, a white, heterosexual, male, journalist (or at least he claims to be), continues to write his usual bullshit. Would you like to speak to my family? I'm sure that they could convince you that I am not imagining my heritage in quite succinct terms. I did not claim that the word "unkempt" in itself was a racist expression, however when combined with the dozen or more far less subtle terms used by Loughton it became far more offensive, however that wouldn't make for a good attack on an innocent person would it now?

Loughton wasn't quite as concerned about the tax burden of his ten or more reports of fictitious allegations he has made against myself since, and he even appears to be so disappointed that these had failed, that he still continues to report me for daring to respond to his attacks and correct the inaccuracies being put forward as facts. His vexatious reports of crimes supposedly perpetrated by myself have cost tenfold what the original investigation cost (the cost quoted by Loughton was equally fictitious).

As for myself being a serial complainer, you should hear about the amount of complaints made by Loughton, to the HoC, The Police, The Daily Mail, and any other person who can be bothered to pretend to listen to his vexatious complaining.

This challenge must have irritated Martin Richards, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, who has now issued Loughton with a PIN – a ‘Police Information Notice’ – for daring to send a copy of a Hansard debate (with a comp slip) to Mr Francis. Loughton has been warned that if he repeats this conduct, he could be liable for arrest and prosecution.
You see, Mr Francis didn’t request any pages from Hansard, and so the unsolicited correspondence from his MP caused him much distress, and this constitutes harassment. Chief Constable Richards agrees. But all Loughton was trying to do was inform his vexatious and abusive constituent that he was no longer prepared to act as his MP, and he sought advice from both the Chief Constable and the Commons’ Clerk on how best to impart this excommunication.

Firstly, there was far more than the matter of the Hansard being sent to my home being addressed, like the thugs he sent to assault me, and the numerous threats sent on his behalf, and secondly, I have a little piece of the claims put forward by Loughton himself for you.......



This is a snippet from the search warrant application which resulted in myself being arrested, rather violently, and was one of the primary claims made by Loughton which required my arrest and subsequent complete acquittal. Yes, apparently the sending of a response to his debate, so that he couldn't ignore it, was somehow completely different from him sending a copy of his, to myself, to ensure that I could not ignore it. Same act, completely different response, and he thinks that he got the sh*tty end of the stick? Just another spoilt, Tory posh boy who thinks that half an hour of his time is so much more valuable than a year of ours.

Mr Loughton said the Chief Constable was “singularly obstructive”, while the Clerk was “singularly helpful”. Since any word in a personalised letter might cause unintended offence, a photocopy of a Hansard excerpt sent ‘with compliments’ was deemed acceptable, and this would be protected by parliamentary privilege (and so beyond the sensitised arm of Sussex Police).

This was after Loughton had publicly referred to Mr Richards as a "very stupid chief constable", what was he expecting, flowers and chocolates? And to correct another misunderstanding, it was a full 300 page document, of which about three paragraphs were relevant. There was also the tiny matter of the belief that just because it's in Hansard, it isn't law, it doesn't even need to be factual, it just needs to be spoken in HoC, the claim that I am no longer represented in parliament is no more true after being posted a book with it written in, than it was before. If MPs were allowed to sack their constituents, there would be no need for MPs because democracy would cease to function at that point.

It is worth mentioning at this point that Chief Constable Richards also issued Mr Francis with the same formal warning, which is jolly fair and equitable of him.

And I wait with anticipation for the result of Loughton's tantrum, because if his is revoked, then so will mine be.

Mr Loughton and Mr Francis are not exactly Facebook friends. However, Mr Loughton claims that Mr Francis has been spewing “vile abuse” at him, and also to council staff and sundry others. He told a stunned House of Commons: “..they have included doctored photographs of my children (taken from their social media sites) which were eventually taken down, attempted blackmail to put them up again unless I complied with his demands, doctored pictures of the Council Leader’s children regaled with NAZI insignia, vile contorted accounts of my parents’ divorce, forged Tweets, references to my neighbours, photographs of my home, and most recently, a direct Tweet urging me to commit suicide along with assorted lies, made up stories and pure fantasy.”

Here we go again, this has already been covered numerous times. As for a "stunned House of Commons", some of them nearly woke up. He forgot to mention the abuse of my stepson by him and the local Tory Councillors. The photo of his kids was from HIS twitter feed, after he boasted about  blagging freebies for some Xfactor type event. It was BUF logo's and not Nazi, there's a big difference, although Loughton's pals at the Daily mail loved them both, the main difference is that the Nazis were never voted in locally, whereas the BUF were very popular in Loughton's constituency.

 

His parents are divorced, they are, that's about it. He is repeatedly claiming that people who have kids when they're married, stay together forever, which is blown out of the water by his own family's example. Lots of people are divorced, it's a fact of life, but to ignore his own experience in exchange for a stylised ideal is very misleading.

No mention of his neighbours, as I have no idea about any of the other residents of Wellhouse Lane, Burgess Hill, Here's the photo (singular), which you would have been led to believe was something more than a Google Maps image, but misleading is the theme of Loughton's speeches, and in a lot of ways, his life.

As for attempting to instigate his suicide, that's the last time I'll recommend that Loughton do anything to raise money for kids. He obviously doesn't care much for kids, unless they're the white, middle classed offspring of affluent Tory voters.

Sussex Police have not charged Mr Francis. According to Mr Loughton, “he carries on harassing, bullying, stalking, trolling and abusing” him, his family and colleagues.”

So, it's absolutely outrageous that Loughton was questioned because you don't think that he committed a crime, yet it is equally outrageous that I have not been charged even though I have been found to have committed no offence, after a far more comprehensive investigation than Loughton, hampered by his misleading claims and all out falsifications.

"Bullying", yes myself and my little family are bullying the big, rich, powerful local Tory party in it's entirety, three of us and 40 of them, it's really clear cut isn't it? "Stalking", that would be the single incident where myself and my stepson were minding our own business in town and we were mobbed by the local Tory thugs, "trolling and abusing", because a tirade of abusive lies, delivered on worldwide TV, in national newspapers and all across any other media that can be coerced into providing the media whore with his attention, is nothing compared to a little blog, is it?

Police Information Notices are issued in anti-social behaviour cases. Sussex Police seem content to approve and serve one of these upon their local MP without the recipient having any foreknowledge that a complaint of harassment had ever been made. Mr Loughton was never informed of any investigation and, in contravention of foundational principles of natural justice, was given no right of reply. Rather outrageously, there is no appeal against a PIN, and it remains on file for at least a year.
Mr Loughton told Parliament that DCI Wardley-Wilkins of Sussex Police has now offered him instructions on how he should correspond with constituents without risking a PIN. The tuition fee will doubtless be covered by Sussex taxpayers. But it is not immediately clear how valuable this advice will be, considering they seem to be unable to adjudicate upon that most basic of policing functions – the ability to distinguish between victim and perpetrator.

Now, here we agree. Loughton should have been allowed to be questioned, he should have been arrested, had his home turned over by over enthusiastic and not particularly careful, police officers, locked in a cell for eight hours, and have his phone, computers and vast swathes of his paperwork taken and not returned for months.

Loughton WAS informed of the investigation, however he proved to be his usual obstructive self, and insisted on being unavailable for the most part of this year. I informed him myself via my blog, he saw fit to complain about all of the other content, but strangely miss the parts which were relevant to his exploitation of his job title.

Loughton concluded: “Mr Speaker, such a sequence of events would offend against natural justice if it were suffered by any of our constituents, but in this case it is an intolerable affront to the rights of this House and Honourable Members to go about their business of representing their constituents without fear or favour. If this goes unchecked, any constituent with a grudge against his or her MP could claim harassment; any Hon Member exposing any dodgy organisation in Parliament could find themselves being questioned by the police and in the case of DCI Wardley-Wilkins trying to tell us how to do our jobs. Indeed, Abu Hamza may have a case against the Home Secretary for being rightly beastly about him in Parliament and find herself on the end of a PIN.”

Blah, Blah, Blah, MPs should be above the law, how dare anyone question their motives or actions, the "f*cking plebs" need to know their place.

As for MPs representing their constituents, Loughton's outburst prove beyond doubt that the only person he represents is himself. If anyone else happens to agree with his bigoted, extremist Xtian, 1950s style ideas he will let them think that he's representing them too.

The police seem to have ever-increasing powers to stop and search, enter premises, seize property, arrest and detain, restrict freedoms, take your DNA, and issue a host of intimidating threats which impinge upon freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. You don’t have to be caught in the act of committing an offence: in true Minority Report fashion, you can now be arrested if the police believe they have ‘reasonable grounds’ for suspecting you are about to commit an offence. And the police are, of course, the sole judge of what is ‘reasonable’.

The police do indeed have these powers, but just imagine the tantrum he would have thrown if they actually exercised these rights, rather than allowing him to attend by appointment and avoid handcuffs, intrusive searches, and incarceration, they treated him like the rest of us would be.

He even lied about having to "weave through drug dealers", as I was informed that he was the only person in the custody block at the time he arranged to attend.

What IS "reasonable", personally I don't think that an MP standing in Parliament and lying to the world, is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

We do not live in a police state, and I repudiate the absurd hyperbole of those who equate any British police force with Mugabe’s henchmen, Putin’s thugs or Kim Jong-un’s secret bowibu. But the Chief Constable of Sussex Police needs a few lessons in the basic administration of natural justice, not to mention tutoring in common courtesy and a crash course in respect for the institutions of democracy.

If we're talking about justice, the biggest affront to justice in this country are not the laws in place, or the application of them, but the outdated traditions like parliamentary privilege, and the rights of MPs to directly challenge senior officers when the rest of us have absolutely no option to ask direct questions of the police when they actually do fail, and I'm not talking about having to attend a half hour interview at a time to suit, like this idiot is making such an epic song and dance about.

If he wants to live in this country, he should follow the laws in place, and not expect to be able to side step them simply because of his job title and some pathetic rule put in place in 1689 and in desperate need of being removed.





I do hope that I don't have to repeat this again, as it is becoming tiresome now. Obviously Loughton will have another tantrum about this, but as I am not challenging him directly, he has no right to impose his views on my freedom of speech, and right to correct disinformation distributed by a petty individual with a posh job.

Take care out there in Interweb Land, It's full of arses.
K

Tim Loughton swears in Parliament.

For a person who claims to find swearing "vile", Tim Loughton yet again proves his self confessed "vile" credentials.

Below is a video of  Prime Minister's Questions from last week. If you scoot to 26:40, you will clearly hear, just before Kemptown's Simon Kirby speaks, Tim Loughton saying "Fuck it up!", before giggling like a gibbon and being told to shut up by the scraggy old bint sitting next to him in what he refers to as "the rough trade" section of Parliament.

This clown is being paid handsomely with our cash to basically sit at the back and piss about, instead of actually doing the job he is paid to do.

I'm sure that most of you will remember the "swearathon" that was Loughton's interview with Matt Forde, if you missed it, it's HERE. You can listen to Loughton swearing in almost every sentence during this interview, probably as an attempt to sound a bit edgy, but clearly if he claims that this blog contains language that causes him alarm and distress, then he must scare the sh*t out of himself every time he opens his mouth.

I think I may have to complain to the BBC about their broadcast of naughty words at lunchtime. If we all do it, they may have to tell Timmy off for being a naughty boy, and maybe slap his legs, although I expect he will claim that saying "fuck" is also his parliamentary right along with all the other abusive statements that he makes in the house.

ATAB
K

Open letter to Tim Loughton following his second parliamentary tantrum.

Mr Loughton,

 I awaited with great anticipation, your second attempt to stand in Parliament and talk what you would refer to as"bollocks", and I definitely wasn't disappointed. You succeeded in doing this, to a degree that I never thought possible.

 I would again like to remind you that as you do not employ me (unlike your wife) you do not have the ability to "sack" me, but as you are a public servant, in practice it is you that can be "sacked" by me, please try and get it right in future.

 You should be aware that under parliamentary rules, there is actually no procedure by which an MP can actually sack a constituent. The only way that you will cease to be my representative in Parliament is if either I move out of Shoreham, or you resign or are voted out, I can assure you that I am not planning on moving out any time soon, so you'd better get used to the fact that until this nation replaces democracy with another political practice, you are required to do your job, and that is to represent the constituents of East Worthing and Shoreham, of which I am one, whether you like it or not.

 Just in case you are unaware of this fact, here is a statement from the House of Commons, where you are supposed to work not act like a five year old...

 I hope that this official response is clear, and if you continue to refer to myself as an "ex-constituent" I will have to accept that as a statement of your resignation.

 As the police officers that you chose to attack alongside myself, are to be permitted to defend themselves in a formal and independent setting, I shall let them do so, and assist if necessary. I sadly am not permitted this right, and as my MP has decided to abandon his post, I have no choice but to respond in this manner.

 I'm not sure quite where to start with your second attack on myself, as it was both incredibly abusive and factually inaccurate in equal measure. Let's start with the most offensive and work from there, shall we?

 I assume that this is a clear attempt to allude to me having an unhealthy interest in teenage girls, or to suggest that I am some kind of paedophile, This is a new low, even for you. Some might think that a man in his 50's spending an inordinate time in schools and youth clubs, despite not being a minister responsible for that area any more, is incredibly questionable, some might even question why a man who clearly doesn't respect the thoughts of children would want to surround himself with them. This is a despicable suggestion and I hope that by responding in kind, you now understand that fully.

 You also compared myself to Abu Hamza, which is equally unpleasant, and equally unfounded. You may think that terrorists pose the biggest threat to this nation, I personally feel that the biggest threat to this country comes from yourself, your party, and your government, and all the time that you waste parliamentary time on your personal tantrums instead of serving the public, I see no reason to adopt any other view.

Again, you know full well that the tweet in question was encouraging you to actually do something for a very worthwhile childrens charity, who were holding a charity abseiling event. Here it is.

If you think that raising money for a kids charity is a valid target for you to twist and exploit for your own sick pleasure, it only goes to show what a nasty individual you really are. This is clearly not an incitement to encourage your suicide as well you know. If someone was to tell you to "take a long walk off a short pier" would you report that to Sussex Police and insist that they are arrested? You wouldn't think that it would be wasting police time and resources, a thing that you seem to want to pretend is high on your agenda, when you are the worst offender of this. I expect that you will also report this letter to the police and insist that I am arrested for writing to my MP (not my ex-MP as you are pretending).





 

Is this a pathetic attempt to suggest that I have been to your home and photographed it? You know very well that this is absolute nonsense, I have no knowledge of who your neighbours are, let alone posted about them in any personal manner, and the photo (singular) in question was from google maps, which is public domain information, as is your address due to your directorships of various companies, some which appeared on your register of interests and some which were strangely missing. Here's the photo in case you forgot that I do not own a helicopter, and have never been to your home. You see, unlike you, I actually live in Shoreham, not Burgess hill. I think that it says something when even you don't want Tim Loughton to be your MP.

The reason that this was disclosed, was simply because you chose to identify myself and my address and provide this to the Daily Mail in order for them to stake out my home and harass me on your behalf. If my address is spread to the world, then I see no reason why people shouldn't know that you live in Wellhouse Lane, if they didn't know already from widely published public documents.

 

Would this be the one time that I have actually seen you in person in the last year or more? You remember, the time that I was out shopping with my stepson and you sent over your extremely overweight and aggressive Chairman to assault me and tell me that I needed to move out of Shoreham, a town in which I have lived for almost 40 years and which you have never lived? I simply assumed that as you had opened dialogue, albeit in an unorthodox manner, that you were prepared to interact, surely if you didn't want to speak to me, you wouldn't have sent your friend over to introduce himself. I thought that the street surgeries were for residents and constituents to ask questions of their elected representatives, as I am both resident and constituent, I felt that I had every right to ask why you had lied under parliamentary privilege, and why you consistently complain about my one report of crime was a complete waste of resources, and yet your repeated accusations of imaginary incidents are somehow valid. As usual you refused to answer simple questions asked in a polite manner with no sign of the kind of language that you spoke so freely with on the Matt Forde podcast. I guess that anyone asking questions could be "disrupting" your street surgeries, as they seem to be more of a social for the local Tories to get together in public and ignore any questions asked of them by anyone who isn't a middle classed Tory voter.

 

 

 I did not attend the chairman's charity dance, how could I "menace" any guests? I notice from the press coverage of this event, that you were not even present, so how would you know anything about it. As it happens, this event, which was held to raise money for the church of scientology, and was attended mainly by scientologists, and as myself and my family were out in Shoreham for the day, as we often do, unlike yourself, and were passing, we decided to sit on a public bench and have a sandwich, if people find sandwich consumption menacing in any way, then they probably are best staying indoors. I apologise if you feel that a pseudo religious cult should be welcomed with open arms in Shoreham, but myself and my family do not. Luckily this event was only attended by very few people anyway, so I doubt that the cult managed to recruit many new members from your constituency, I hope that you are not too disappointed by this outcome.

 

 It's not often that I agree wholeheartedly with a statement from the Tory backbenches, but this one is pretty much perfect. You are indeed a very nasty person, and if there were awards for despicable individuals, you would sweep the board.

 

 

 Your attack on myself was not only completely fictitious and extremely childish, it was also delivered in the most cowardly manner imaginable, from behind a screen of privilege, which you appear to want to extend to all angles of your public and personal life in order to place yourself above the laws that we all, as British citizens are expected to follow. The idea that you are among the people who make the laws for us to adhere to, yet you seem to believe that you should be able to operate outside of them, is sickening and only proves that you are not of suitable moral standing to hold this position.

 

 If you are still convinced that I am an "ex-constituent", despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then please could you provide me with a clear reference to the specific act of parliament that allows you to claim this, and explain how I can obtain a suitable democratic representative, one who will adhere to the laws and procedures of parliament and not exploit their position in order to wreak his (or her) twisted revenge for the inconvenience of having to answer for their  extremely childish and very damaging actions.

 

 If only you were so vehement in your support of constituents as you are when you are trying to get yourself out of a situation which you were solely responsible for placing yourself in, you could be a great MP, but sadly you are only interested in self-promotion and misleading anyone who is gullible enough to listen to your unsubstantiated allegations against myself, and that makes you a particularly bad MP and an even worse human being.

 

 The idea that you hold the careers of two senior police officers of so little value that you choose to undermine the many years of service that they have provided Sussex (far more than you yourself have) for 90 minutes of inconvenience to you, just goes to prove that your claims of supporting law and order are nothing more than hot air and that you value others far below the value that you attribute to yourself, however misplaced.

 

 After being arrested myself on fabricated evidence and false allegations I am not over keen on Sussex Police myself, but I wouldn't want someone who has worked hard in public service for many years to have their reputation ruined for a single insignificant incident, that someone has blown out of all proportion in a very public forum.

 

 I expect that you will be reporting this letter to these officers and be expecting them to come and arrest me again, even though you are clearly trying to ruin their careers, and I expect that if they feel that I have broken the law (which I haven't, because writing a polite but firm and informative letter to my MP is not actually a crime), they will do this, and support you, despite your attacks on them both personally and professionally. I think that this clearly shows difference between you and the rest of us.

 

 I hope that I have made it clear to you that your actions this week have been irresponsible, immature, unprofessional and most of all very dangerous, as you have placed myself and my family in danger of attack from your misguided supporters for a second time, and I will hold you personally responsible for any actions that result from your distribution of disinformation about myself.

 

Yours Insincerely

Kieran Francis.

Bloody stalkers!

They're everywhere I tell ya.

I opened my fridge, and who did I find lurking inside, only Tim "vegetable head" Loughton, that's who.

I'm planning on skinning, dicing, boiling and mashing him later. Looking forward to it as well.

Shoreham Herald, or as it's known locally, The Tim(e)s

Well, it appears that yet again the Harald (you must shout this in a Steptoe manner) has decided to demonstrate it's independence by printing yet another story which splashes my name across it's pages but neglects to even bother to ask for a statement, they'd rather just promote the local Tories blindly.

The right to be consulted before being named in the press is a matter of journalistic integrity, but as the Harald has none of this, they simply pretend that they are able to print any old crap they fancy, without and right to reply from the person repeatedly named within their filthy pages.

Lets break it down.....

Former human being Tim Loughton has unleashed yet another unsubstantiated tantrum, riddled with the usual vitriolic "bollocks".

Let's do some correction as Oli Poole is too much of a coward to answer his phone to receive an honest interview with the person he has chosen to slander. My words in red this time.

The Conservative MP previously told the Commons that the police spent six months investigating him for alleged racist abuse after describing ''nightmare constituent" Kieran Francis as ''unkempt''.
Which is complete and utter crap, I'm getting rather fed up of pointing out the clear facts of this matter, there was no "racist" investigation, look at the law books, malicious communications can not be racially motivated, and as such cannot be an investigation into "racism". However after this investigation Loughton did say this:

Mr Loughton, MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, said his constituent stepped up an "onslaught of vile abuse", mainly against him, including doctoring photographs of his children taken from social media sites plus urging him to commit suicide, after he raised the issue during a Commons debate in March. 

Right, so the death threats sent to myself and my family weren't "vile abuse", even when they were opened by a kid on Xmas eve? As for "doctoring photographs of his children taken from" his twitter account, here it is. Is this worse than Loughton and his mates cornering my aspergers stepson in the street and intimidating him after I told him to step away while the local Tories were attacking me, personally I think that posting a silly picture of his horsey faced brats, Eyore and Dobbin, is far less abusive. He chose to bring families into play, if mine are his target, then fair's fair.

As for "urging him to commit suicide", another sensationalist claim, I'm not sure exactly how one would go about trying to encourage someone's suicide, I guess that I would publicly humiliate them with lies, delivered in a forum which could not be challenged, oh no, hang on, that's what this b*stard has been doing to me, what did I do? Well, I did this.....

As you can see, it's incredibly sinister.

During this debate t he one-time education minister said he was " sacking Mr Francis as my constituent", adding that his staff had been instructed to put the phone down on him.
Mr Loughton said he planned to inform Mr Francis of this information in a letter but instead sent a complete Hansard record which included the March 13 debate .

The "sacking", yet another load of old cobblers. You see, when a statement is made in Parliament, it is recorded verbatim in the Hansard. This does not give the statement any power or legal strength, Loughton could have said anything, like sheep can fly, or that he was a really good minister, it doesn't make the statements any less incorrect just by saying them in the Hoc. The official response from Parliament regarding this sacking is this...







I wonder if "sacking" me made Timmy feel a bit like David Camoron, and all important and able to sack people who displease him. Meanwhile, in the real world, Loughton isn't an important politician like a prime minister, or even a junior minister, he's just civil servant with an expense account and delusions of grandeur.

He could have sent me it in a singing telegram, or tattooed on an elephant's scrotum, it wouldn't have made it any more factual. You can see from the official notification from Parliament which was sent to me last month, sadly I still have an incompetent MP who thinks that he can say something and it immediately becomes gospel. Loughton is an MP not a demigod, no matter how much he tries to kid himself.

But the MP said on Wednesday that this action, which he took following advice from a Parliament clerk and believed would be covered by parliamentary privilege, resulted in him receiving a police information notice (Pin) from Sussex Police.
The Pin warned that this action had caused " alarm and distress" to the ex-constituent and warned he would be liable to arrest and prosecution if that kind of behaviour continued, according to Mr Loughton. 
Again he claims that the notice only mentions one incident, when any journalist worth their salt would have asked to see a copy of this PIN in order to judge for themselves whether he is being truthful. I asked to be allowed to see the other PINs, and was told that this would only happen if all parties agreed, I made it clear that I had no problem with transparency, as I have nothing to hide, but someone else refused to allow this transparency, I wonder why. As far as I understand, there was far more than one incident listed on the PIN given to Loughton, but until he shows his hand everyone will just have to believe his very public bluff. Well, Timmy I call!

The Tory told the Commons he believed Sussex Police's actions represented a "clear breach" of parliamentary privilege, which grants certain legal immunities for members to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside the House.
It is not there to allow an MP to air their personal grievances in a very public forum and expect to be protected by some outdated legal vacuum. What duty was he performing here, he definitely doesn't represent his constituents (of which I am one) with this vigour, in fact I don't recall when he has ever directly raised the concerns of any of his constituents in the HoC in the many years that he has been paid to do this.

Mr Loughton said: "If this goes unchecked, any constituent with a grudge against his or her member of Parliament could claim harassment.
Anyone being personally attacked by another should have the right to challenge that person, be they prince, pope or plumber. Sadly this is not a reciprocal arrangement because clearly any Member of Parliament  with a grudge against a constituent can claim harassment, and then when it is revealed that the constituent concerned has not broken any laws they have the right to have a public platform from which to launch a retaliatory tantrum which is far more vile than anything that was ever said to them.

"Any MP exposing any dodgy organisation in Parliament could find themselves being questioned by the police and... being given advice as to how to do our job.
What about MPs REPRESENTING dodgy organisations, can they be questioned by the police, because I have a few potential candidates. Maybe if Loughton was capable of doing his job, people wouldn't need to tell him how to do it, he should be grateful for the helpful hints, I assume it was along the lines of ,"when an MP writes to a member of the public, it is probably best if you don't call them names and swear at them, because that isn't very nice. If people do this to you, you expect them to be arrested, if you do it, you should expect the same. Your job title isn't an exemption from the law you know Tim".

"Indeed, Abu Hamza may well have a case against (Home Secretary Theresa May) for being rightly beastly about him in Parliament and find herself on the receiving end of a police information notice."
Mr Loughton's motion for the Pin to be referred to the Committee of Privileges was passed unopposed in the Commons.
Yes Tim, I'm just like Abu Hamza aren't I? A reported terrorist and preacher of hate. Say that again and I'll tell everyone that in your spare time, you like to dress as a middle aged woman and pretend to be a powerful important person like Teresa May rather than the saggy old sacked minister that you really are. You never know, I might decide not to do that and instead reveal some other dirty secret of yours that is actually true.

Moving the motion, Mr Loughton said he had no communication with his ex-constituent since sending the Hansard record while he claimed Mr Francis had "stepped up an onslaught of vile abuse", which included targeting the leader and chairman of Adur District Council, among others.
Mr Loughton said: "Yesterday he (Mr Francis) was abusing the organisers of Worthing Mental Health Awareness Week, which I have launched, and to date he has posted on his blog or sent tweets to or about me and my council colleagues on well over 200 occasions.
Only 200, that's nothing compared to the thousands of hate filled emails and social media attacks that I received from his extremist pals after his last tirade of lies and abuse, in both Parliament and his direct contact with his mates at the Daily Mail.

"Many come under the heading of political abuse which, however offensive that is, we all know it is part of our job.
"However, what is not part of that job is they have included doctored photographs of my children taken from their social media sites - what a man in his 40s is doing trawling the social media sites of teenage girls I do not know.
Oh, after the terrorist insinuation, we now have a paedophile suggestion, Loughton is really a filthy minded little man isn't he. You would think that someone who is consistently trying to surround themselves with youngsters despite not being a children's minister any more would attract some tricky questions.

Look who's hanging around in a school playground trying to impress the schoolgirls with his ability to dry hump a handrail. Did the idea of youngsters running their hands up and down that railing give you a thrill Tim?

"They were eventually taken down but he then attempted blackmail - to put them up again - against me unless I comply with his demands.
Blackmail is such an ugly word, let's call it, trying to illicit an apology for abusing my family.

"He's posted doctored pictures of the council leader's young children with Nazi insignia.
It was British Union of Fascists insignia actually, and their faces were pixelated, it was for effect, nobody aside from the person taking the photo would have any idea who they were. Again, would not have happened if you lot hadn't directly attacked my stepson.

"He has posted vile contorted accounts of my parents' divorce, forged tweets, posted references to my neighbours, photographs of my home, most recently a direct tweet urging me to commit suicide, along with assorted lies, made-up stories and pure fantasy."
All I said was that Tim's parents were divorced, I thought it was quite important to point this out after his repeated insistence that people who are married stay together forever. There were no "forged tweets" they were all real, if I screen grabbed before you deleted that's your fault, not mine. I have never said anything detrimental about his neighbours, unless of course they're some of the idiots who spouted crap about me or my family after the last speech, because I have no idea who these neighbours are. The photograph (singular) of his home, was a guess, but thanks for confirming that I guessed right, anyway it was a google map image that is in the public domain and is a house that was predominantly paid for by the public purse, so it could be claimed that it was a photo of "our home". I've already covered the "suicide" accusation. Here it is:

Mr Loughton said despite making complaints to the police, Mr Francis had been arrested once and no charges were brought against him.
And that arrest was on questionable "evidence" and is currently being challenged through the correct channels. The reason why no charges were brought is pretty straightforward, despite the false allegations made by Loughton, I had committed no crimes and so could not be charged with any.

He said: "The police have failed to secure any charges and he carries on harassing, bullying, stalking, trolling and abusing me, my family and colleagues."
It's called telling the truth about a politician who is incompetent and continually presents rubbish as proven fact. I have provided plenty of documentary evidence to back up my claims, where's Timbo's evidence, he doesn't seem to want to share that with the press as easily as he shares his gossip and rumour.

On September 4, Mr Loughton said a Pin notice was served against him.
It was way before that, at least a month earlier.

He said: "The notice stated the police had received an allegation of harassment against me by the aforementioned constituent, making me aware if the kind of behaviour described were to continue, then I would be liable to arrest and prosecution.
"And the specific single incident behaviour which gave rise to this Pin was the act of sending a copy of Hansard to my constituent.
Publish the PIN and people will believe that it was in reference to a single incident, otherwise they only have your word for it, and that word was given under privilege, which means it is not able to be challenged and so should not be trusted.

"Apparently this had caused my ex-constituent alarm and distress. That came as a surprise to me and various others, particularly given on his blog on March 14 that ex-constituent had described how he had watched my adjournment (debate) on television with great amusement.
Again with the "Ex", this is absolute rubbish. It's nice to know that Tim reads my blog though, at least he might learn a bit about Shoreham from it, as never having lived here, he hasn't usually got a clue. As for the amusement, it's quite common for people to laugh and be intimidated simultaneously, the best example of this is probably how people react to CLOWNS.

"Apparently Hansard is a cause of alarm and distress. Our deliberations are a potent weapon of abuse if you work for Sussex Police.
Only if they're poisonous, hatred inciting gossip delivered in the style of a true coward, from behind a protective barrier.

The rest of it is just more of the same unsubstantiated rubbish, the kind of rubbish that the Harald just can't get enough of, after all they are the local Tory party's free advertising medium.

Hope that's cleared a few thing up for you all.
Take it easy out there in interweb land, there are a lot of idiots in attendance.

Night
K

Tim Loughton's Parliamentary Tirade under the excuse of Privilege.

This is going to be a bit texty, but it needs to contain facts, and although I usually try to dress up facts with a bit of humour, this is a very important post and is a full response to this pathetic individual's attempts to attack myself yet again in an unprecedented exploitation of Parliamentary Privilege by using it as a means of throwing his toys from the pram in a safe environment, where he isn't restricted by the outside world and the laws concerning libel or harassment, in short, the coward is hiding behind teacher and sticking his tongue out in the hope that he will not be challenged on his lies.

 Well Tim, the real world is here, and your stupid rule written in 1689 makes sod all difference to me and I've had enough of your bullshit and the pathetic cowardly manner in which you distribute it.


The Loughton tantrum is in white, and my notes are in this colour.

9 Oct 2013 : Column 167

Privilege

12.43 pm

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I beg to move,

That the Police Information Notice from Sussex Police addressed to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, dated 4 September 2013, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a matter relating to a breach of parliamentary privilege by Sussex police and briefly to provide the context to this motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
You will recall, Mr Speaker, my Adjournment debate on 13 March when you kindly sat in the Chair to hear the extraordinary and completely fictitious story of the six-month investigation into me by Sussex police on account of a single e-mail I had sent to a constituent in which I had wrongly and rudely endorsed the right of my local council, Adur council, to refer to a particularly troublesome resident as “unkempt” and unlawfully operate a blacklist which was subsequently overturned by the ICO. Subsequently the constituent complained that as he claimed to be of Romany Gypsy origin, unbeknown to me or anybody else even though he and the council were informed of this in writing on previous occasions, this was in some way racist so it was investigated under the malicious communications act which cannot under British law be racially motivated. When the case was rightly thrown out six months later, I questioned the bizarre behaviour of Sussex police in wasting so much time and taxpayers’ resources on an obviously vexatious complaint from a serial complainer Loughton then lodged repeated complaints against Sussex Police officers and staff which were not upheld, but does not view himself as a vexatious serial complainer. I also raised the implications this had for the right of other hon. Members to correspond with their constituents in an abusive sweary manner without fear of the police knocking on their constituency doors.
The heavily dramatized and mostly fictional account I gave during the debate raised, unsurprisingly, disbelief and indignation in equal proportions and it nearly roused half of the chamber from their deep sleep and distracted the rest from their Twitter feeds, there were about a dozen people present. However, what has transpired since will, I am sure, top that and, again, has implications for the way in which all hon. Members go about their business. I believe it represents a clear breach of parliamentary privilege by Sussex police, and in the full knowledge of the Chief Constable Martin Richards whom Loughton had previously described as "a very stupid Chief Constable".
In the debate, I stated that such was the vile abuse that had been aimed at me and my staff by the constituent and his attempts to have me prosecuted that it was no longer tenable for me to act as his MP even though as an MP Loughton doesn't actually have this right under any act of Parliament. I said, therefore, that I would no longer be responding to his correspondence or abusive phone calls, which had left my staff in tears which was apparently a member of staff who was pregnant at the time, which to be honest, I have my doubts about, I accept that it is difficult to tell if someone is pregnant over the phone or not, but I'm pretty sure that HE didn't sound pregnant or in tears for that matter. I proposed to write to him to that effect but, given the spurious grounds on which he had previously referred my correspondence to the police, I first sought the assurance of the chief constable that such a straightforward and innocuous letter would not again lead to their involvement. In a singularly obstructive meeting, in which he repeatedly stated that he had complete confidence that the police had handled the case perfectly correctly, Chief Constable Martin Richards refused to comment on my proposed letter.
Subsequently I sought guidance from the Clerk, who in contrast has been singularly helpful maybe because he wasn't referred to as a "very stupid clerk". He advised me that I should send a complete copy of the Hansard record of 13 March, including the report of the debate, to the constituent, with a compliment slip and without any need for a covering letter, and that that would be protected by parliamentary privilege. That is exactly what I did. Subsequently I have had no communications

9 Oct 2013 : Column 168
with my ex-constituent who is not an ex constituent but a current one, the only way that Loughton gets rid of me is by me moving or him resigning, and I ain't moving, have made no public statement and have not responded to or initiated any social media to do with him. Aside from providing the Daily Mail with my address and mobile and home phone numbers, and pointing me out to a fat thug in his employ who promptly approached and assaulted me whilst I was out shopping with the kid.
In contrast, the constituent has stepped up an onslaught of vile and reasonably humorous abuse since 13 March, primarily against me as well as the leader and the chairman of Adur district council, his ward councillor and assorted others who cross his path and who then proceeded to punched me. Yesterday he abused the organisers of Worthing mental health awareness week, I apparently abused them by sending a copy of Loughton's private lobbying group's mission statement which contained absolute tripe about mental health conditions and they objected to because ironically, mental health awareness week is all about being happy which I launched, and to date he has posted on his blog and sent tweets to or about me and my councillor colleagues on well over 200 occasions. Yes this is called freedom of speech, us mere plebs have this as well, but we are responsible under the law unlike privileged tossers who like to award themselves extra privilege wherever possible.
Many come under the heading of political abuse, which, however offensive it may be, we all know is part of our job especially if you're an out of touch Tory bigot. However, what is not part of our job is that they have included doctored photographs of my children, taken from their social media sites actually taken from his twitter account and all I said was that they were called Dobbin and Eyore, because like most Tory MPs kids they looked more than a little horsey. What a man in his 40s is doing trawling the social media sites of teenage girls, I do not know Just what are you alluding to by this then Tim, would you be trying to insinuate that I am some kind of paedophile? There are a lot more pictures of Loughton hanging around in school playgrounds than there are of me, that's for sure, and I don't regularly visit houses of ill repute either, not like some..... They were eventually taken down, but he then attempted to blackmail me, saying he would put them up again unless I complied with his demands Shall I tell you what that demand was. It was that he apologise for the offensive personally abusive email that he sent to my stepson and that his mate Parkin (the blind leader of the blind) also apologise for cornering and intimidating him in Shoreham town centre. He has posted doctored pictures of the council leader’s young children regaled with Nazi insignia This is an absolute lie, it was a BUF badge, can't Timmy tell the difference between Nazi's and his party's past associates?. He has posted vile, contorted accounts of my parents’ divorce I said they were divorced, that was it, seemed relevant when Loughton was consistently ranting about how important it is to be married, forged tweets No Tim, they were real tweets and you sent them, posted references to my neighbours er, no, didn't do that at all, but I guess that this was to add credence to your next claim and photographs of my home Yes, a shot from Google maps (correctly credited I might add) and this was in response to the repeated publication of my address by the press and the complete lack of equality in naming Loughton's address in the same way. I said it was Wellhouse Lane, I never told anyone that it was The Old Barn, but anyone can find that out on the web when looking at directorships of companies not declared as interests by one's MP, and most recently a direct tweet urging me to commit suicide, Which has already been posted in full and  it was simply encouraging Loughton to jump off a cliff for charity during an abseiling event, I even offered to sponsor him if he did it along with assorted lies, made up stories and pure fantasy Most of it, well researched factual presentations, backed up with evidence. Hang about, are we living in backwards land? Facts and documentary evidence is fantasy and unproven statements made in HoC under cover of a "get out of jail free card" are clearly more viable. He has also recently sought to disrupt our regular street surgeries and pour his abuse on anyone who happens to be in the vicinity this would be the single time I was passing and he sent someone over to punch me, I didn't see the sign that said "Surgery for all residents except Kieran who has socks that have resided in Shoreham longer than the MP and chair combined" (five years old), and to menace guests at the chairman’s charity dance No, you've lost me again, we did see the event venue, and myself and my family had a sandwich and a drink of juice on a bench nearby, but I can't recall doing any "menacing" Oh, and the dance was to raise money for the Cult of Scientology. I guess we all sometimes have to deal with very nasty people, but this one wins all the awards. He is talking about himself and the local councillors here right?
Despite my complaints—which have led to the man’s arrest on just one occasion— Which is currently being challenged as unlawful arrest as the warrant was issued on allegedly perjured information the police have failed to secure any charges This is all sounding a bit "same but different" to me. So him being questioned and not charged is wrong, but me being questioned and not charged is also wrong, but for him it's the questioning decision that was wrong, for me it was the charging decision. So in effect he thinks that he should not be questioned or charged for any unlawful act he may commit, but I should be questioned and charged whether I commit any offence or not, sounds like someone thinks that they should be above the law.  and he carries on harassing, bullying, stalking, trolling and abusing me, my family and colleagues. By doing a similar thing to him, only I am providing evidence and points of reference, rather than sensationalist statements without merit I am apparently the bad guy, I would call it "exposing facts", "providing evidence" and "revealing the truth" and other such phrases but it seems like they aren't in vogue at the moment like "trolling" is although growing up around Brighton, I'm not sure whether I understand which definition he is referring to, it's always difficult with Tory MPs. Anyway, his family and colleagues were never in the sights until they were put there by others in order to provide a human shield for the politicos. However, on 4 September, really? I knew about him getting one about a month earlier but you never can trust Tory MPs when it comes to providing facts out of the blue I had a formal police information notice served on me by Sussex police for harassment. Other hon. Members will probably have come across these notices when used on constituents in anti-social-behaviour cases. So MPs should only come across this kind of thing when they're dishing it out, how very dare anyone give them something that they view as a tool to keep us under control. The notice stated that the police had received an allegation of harassment against me by the aforementioned constituent, making me aware that if the kind of behaviour described were to continue I would be liable to arrest and prosecution. The specific single incident of behaviour that gave rise to this PIN was the act of sending a copy of Hansard to my ex-constituent. Come on Timbo, we both know that there's more than that one thing written on there, but you've done all you can to keep the rest under wraps haven't you? If that is all that is written on there show us it, go on. Apparently this had caused him alarm and distress. That came as a surprise to me and various others, particularly given that on his blog on 14 March that ex-constituent had described how he had watched my Adjournment debate on television with “great amusement.” Therefore, apparently, Hansard is a cause of alarm and distress, and Sussex police believe that our deliberations are a potent weapon of abuse. It wasn't so much the Hansard itself, but the accompanying death threats sent to myself and my family by you and yours (previously published), and not to mention the fact that you personally referred to me as a "p*key c*nt" (evidence provided already), but we wouldn't want the people out there in media land to know about all of that stuff would we now?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: I will not give way, if I may.
For good measure, the leader of Adur council, the chairman of the council and my constituent’s ward councillor were also issued with PINs for supposed harassment, as was my constituent. Clearly, that has only fuelled his vile crusade. Personally I'm not going to go crying to mummy about a piece of paper that contains far too many "if", "may", "could" and "possibly"'s to be legally binding in any way, and as I understand the Leader (Neil Parkin) was for harassing my stepson, and the Chair (Mendacious Mendoza) for assaulting myself upon Loughton's command, as for Cllr Darren Burns, he probably thought that he received two notices due to his constant state of inebriation, that's if he even noticed at all, as he's been pissed since 1994.
9 Oct 2013 : Column 169
Apparently, a gold group Which sounds a bit "Captain Scarlet" to me led by Assistant Chief Constable Robin Merrett met on 3 July to approve those PINs at the highest level. Two months later, they were served on me and my councillor colleagues without me knowing that a complaint of harassment had even been made against me, or that I was under any investigation, in clear breach of the police guidance, to quote one of ADC's favourite lines, it says "guidance" it is not a law or even a rule set in stone, it is up to our discretion which states that I should be given the opportunity to be interviewed to account for my actions and show that they were reasonable and lawful. No such interview took place. So he wants to be interviewed then? Quick officer arrest that man, he's clearly challenging you just to see if you will. There is no appeal against the PIN, which remains on file for at least one year.
The increasingly hapless Detective Chief Inspector Wardley-Wilkins, who has led the investigations, having failed to secure vital evidence, having misled me about the earlier investigation and the current one and having failed to explain why he has breached police guidance, has offered me instructions on how I should correspond with constituents without risking a PIN. That is the police telling us how to do our job. Well someone needs to tell you how to do it, you've been pretty crap at it so far, that's why Dave sacked you for being an "incompetent narcissist".
The chief constable, who has been copied in on all the events, has been content to waste taxpayers’ resources on this nonsense while the senior management of his force is brought into disrepute. He has clearly lost the plot when it comes to distinguishing between the victim and the perpetrator. I know that my local police officers, whom I rate highly, are as embarrassed and gobsmacked as I am at this action by their bosses. So this is Tim admitting that he has attempted to influence police officers and that he has been discussing an ongoing investigation with outside officers, who definitely should be held to account for expressing their personal opinions to a member of the public, which in this matter he is.
Such a sequence of events would offend against natural justice were it suffered by any of our constituents, and we would rightly raise the matter in the House. Don't lie Timbonoccio, you've never raised any such issue on behalf of a constituent, you always reply to them that you cannot get involved in an ongoing investigation, because you are not permitted. However, in this case, the events are an intolerable affront to the rights of the House and hon. Members to go about their business of representing their constituents without fear or favour. Although they expect plenty of favours when it comes to allowances and induce much fear every time there's a budget. If it goes unchecked, any constituent with a grudge against his or her Member of Parliament could claim harassment. Any hon. Member exposing any dodgy organisation in I think he means "like" not "in" Parliament could find themselves being questioned by the police, or, with reference to DCI Wardley-Wilkins, being given advice on how to do their jobs. Indeed, Abu Hamza could well have a case against the Home Secretary for being rightly beastly about him in Parliament and could find herself on the receiving end of a police information notice. And maybe Abu Hamza would show more compassion if he did Timbo's job, he might follow the rules a bit better too.
Therefore, for all hon. Members, I propose that we pass the motion and refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Question put and agreed to.
Yes, Tim Loughton "passed a motion" and it came out of his mouth.


I hope that this has cleared up a few points, there may be more on it later, but that's my initial thoughts on this putrid pile of parliamentary pigsh*t.

K