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
