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
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.
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
