Arthur or Martha?

Looks like the local Tories are getting confused again. Their cold couple of hours, earning some of their easy money in Southwick this morning must have frozen their poor brains.

They seem pleased that they as a party have thwarted "Johnny Foreigner's" attempts to enter the UK, but seem to think that it's a racist UKIP based idea to express disdain that some of Johnny's mates actually got in and are cluttering up Southwick Square, clearly exhibiting their homelessness for all to see.

Some would think that Loughton is just using this as another attempt to prove that he isn't racist, when the majority of locals who express this "UKIP" attributed view, actually voted for him, and the person he quotes probably did vote for him at the last election.

If the Tories concentrated on solving the housing crisis and hadn't criminalised squatting, there would be no need for Big-Issue sellers of any nationality or heritage, that said, did anyone actually check any of the Big-Issue sellers passports to check if they were British or not, or did they just assume that a slightly darker skin hue and hint of an accent was clear proof of non British citizenship? Personally O have spoken to most of the sellers in the square, and have found them all to be very amiable, only last week one told me that it was really nice to have a local person smile and say hello, and I guess to simply acknowledge them as a fellow human being, the Tory voting locals on the whole are incredibly rude to these people and would rather not have them there at all.

I wonder if Loughton and the councillors even considered getting an extra coffee on their run to the sandwich shop? Considering that they complained heartily even though they only had to be out there for a couple of hours, the homeless don't have the choice, but that would rely on any of them having compassion for a fellow human being, something that they seem to have mislaid.

But they're definitely not racist, oh no, that's UKIP you're thinking of.

K

Silly little boy.

You know that someone clearly is set on a path to true idiocy, when they appear to hero worship someone like Loughton.

Lancing's very own political Justin Beiber (yes I know I stuck up for him earlier, but I like Canadians and hate tabloids, so I had to), an irritating 12 year old playing big boy's games is Cllr James Butcher. He seems to think that Timmy is worth worshipping like some kind of guru figure, and displays at a very young age, the same bigoted, self absorbed, ultra right-wing views as his Sith master.

How do you think he views last year's traveller evictions in his Lancing ward? This might give you some idea:

 

Now obviously he is attempting to link the Occupation of buildings within Sussex University with the traveller encampment in Lancing last summer when him and his Tory pals, ran around using mummy's car to block entrances to public spaces around Adur to prevent access to homeless travellers. By rights the police should have nicked them for obstructing a public right of way, but that would just be far too amusing, and they would probably get them a stern telling off in parliament for upholding the law.

 

Now, I used to work in Sussex Uni, and during my time there, occupation was accepted and to some degrees encouraged, as it has been a tradition and political right of Sussex students since the 1960s. It is also a good advertising tool to encourage students to apply to Sussex in order to experience the political freedoms afforded at a "new" university rather than be stuck with the stuffy and outdated Oxbridge version of higher education. To demonstrate this, when I was there, I was instructed to secure all sensitive and personal documents in a locked separate area the day before as we knew full well when occupation was about to occur and which buildings were to be affected. The Tories may hold quite a few "seats" in Sussex, but the "seat" of education is luckily not one of them.

Shoreham Herald, Shitty paper with aspirations of Tabloid Tory rag status.

Well, Looks like I have been banned from the Shoreham Herald.
A little while ago I was told by their reporter that Adur Council had informed them that if they print any more of my letters, they would consider legal action, and as such I have been restricted from free speech.

Considering that none of my previous letters were actually libellous, and they do not have a magig machine that will tell them the content of any future correspondence, it only leadsme to believe that they are nothing more than the puppets of the local Tory filth. I have also been blocked from leaving comments on any stories, and all of the stories including Loughton or the local Council are not allowing any comments. Funny how they refused to take down all of the "pikey", "coy" and "Gyppo" comments last time they covered Loughtons fascistic views of last years visits by the travelling community though.

They seem quite happy to cover Loughton's latest rants and his trip to the hospital that he and his mates are ballsing up with their attempts to privatise the NHS, with Jeremy Hunt. Is that rhyming slang?

Yes, the Herald are not interested in the truth at all, just the blind support of the local Tory scum, even this week they covered Loughton's pathetic collection of lies told in Parliament, and claimed that I refused to comment, when in fact my statement to them was far from this, I did state that I would notcomment on the accusations made by Loughton in Parliament but there was quite a bit more than that, like the reasons why I would not be able to make comment at this time. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story Load of old bollocks.

More later, some good stuff coming up, stay tuned.
K


Would the (dis)honourable gentleman please give his arse a chance.

Another day, another dollop. Yes, looks like Loughton is really getting into recycling, how many times are we going to hear the same lines time and again? I hope that his speech/press release writer in on a fixed fee, because if they're on royalties the public purse is going to run dry soon.

This time on Cunservative Home:

 

 

 

 

"Tearing into Catholic Bishops"?, that sounds like fun, must try it sometime.
Anyway it appears that Timmy is proudly declaring a selection of things that he claims that he is not, this is becoming a bit of a habit. I'm not sure, but I fail to see the (obvious only in Timmy Tory World) "flaw" in the logic that if you do not believe in equal rights for gay couples then you are are against equal rights for gay couples. Tim's voting record doesn't look to favourable to equal rights either, despite his claims that he supported the idea to give gay couples a "wedding light" type ceremony.

Claiming that "gay marriage" is the "new black" could quite easily get misquoted, especially as a statement from a tory, but obviously I wouldn't dare do that on here, that's far to cheap a shot, I'll leave those to Timmy.

The basic principle of a "yes or no" vote does actually mean that if you are not for, then you are against, you can dress it up, but rhetoric cannot dress up a "one or zero" outcome. Parliamentary voting is not on a "Strongly agree - Strongly disagree" sliding scale, they are on a simple yes or no basis, probably so that MPs like Loughton don't get all confusticated.

When he started on about the "most insidious and destructive forces at work in society today" I thought he meant the Tory party, silly me, he obviously meant all of those naughty pieces of, equalities and diversity legislation, that catch out, and clearly identify bigots from time to time.

Well, here we go, get out your violins 'cos Tim's recycling parts of his fantastic rant about how unfair it was that he was subjected to a whole 90 minutes of tricky questions when he thought that they'd invited him to the police station for milk and cookies. Lucky that he didn't follow his usual procedure and ensure that he had a couple of reporters on hand to document his fantastic and exciting MP type lifestyle. That could have been embarrassing now couldn't it?

Cue the good old well rehearsed lines claiming that was all there was to the investigation and it all seems like everyone's picking on poor Timmy Boy, despite the matter being somewhat more than the simple one word racism lies put forward by him. Yes he had no idea, if he actually listened when people spoke to him he would have clearly heard it, but like all Tory narcissists, he has a selected deafness towards anything other than praise, so he must have missed it. With regard to the not being "required to prove it" part, I get images of horrendous 70's style "comedies" where a policeman asks the nice afro-caribbean chappie if he is able to actually prove that he is black, I thought that those days were over but it seems that I may have been wrong. Well as Loughton seems quite at home with the whole "are you being served" world of comedy, considering his likening of the DfE to it, maybe he thinks that all gay men are just like John Inman and I bet he still laughs at those pathetic "pussy" jokes.

He then goes on to make up some silly "urban myth" style examples of "PC gone mad, I tell ya", I wonder if the "completely fictitious, arrest of witches manual" suggests that putting handcuffs on a witch is like hand fasting and the officer could end up trapped in a "satanic" marriage without knowing it, the nonsensical rantings of the Tory insane PC posse get better every time. Crap, crappity, crap, crap, pretty much sums up what I think of your silly examples of political correctness.

Apparently it's all down to free speech according to Timmy Pants, funny how when he accused me (falsely I might add) of calling him a F*cking Nazi, he wasn't out there fighting for the rights of members of the public to express their freedom of speech by calling their MPs F*cking Nazis if they fancy. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I did not call him this, or most of the other things that he claims I did, well not in his presence anyway, I will have take the fifth on whether I have referred to him by any of these terms in private conversations since though.

Oh and that "joke" at the end wasn't funny the other dozen or so times, so sorry Timmy, looks like you can go on your crusade alone, don't forget your packed lunch and bottle of ginger beer now, and be home by tea time, it's your favourite tonight, pauper's head on a silver platter.

K

 

Which came first, Chicken or Egg?

Well, obviously it was the Egg, but in order to attain the correct answer you have to accept the process of evolution as fact, and ignore all of that silly creationist crap.

I guess that the real question should be: What came first 10th Novenber 2012, or 17th August 2012?

I say this because I have had a bit of a look round my computer and pinned down the exact quotes that Tim Loughton attributed to this blog, and his claims that they were written before his abusive email to myself, and were the reason that he believed that he had the right to speak to me like something found on the bottom of his horrendous 1980s loafers.

I can now confirm, that the post quoted in Parliament was written on the 10th November 2012, almost 4 months AFTER his abusive email of 17th August 2012 was written by him and sent from Parliament.

This leaves only two possible answers, you choose which........

Police release official statement.

Lifted from "Splash".

Well, looks like the truth is finally wriggling it's way out of the Loughton sack o' fibs.

A clear and concise, and independent, account of the situation in full. Including a clear statement that Loughton's claim of a £100,000 cost is "fanciful", after all, with his party's budget cuts they don't have that kind of money to throw around.

I am, of course, very pleased to see that despite his attempts to exploit his privileged position to gain access to information not legally available to any other person being investigated for an alleged criminal offence, this was refused. It's a shame that they refused politely, they should have used his choice of communication in order to put this across, in my humble opinion.

Quite amusing to note that despite all of his bile, spewed in Parliament and the right-wing media, he hasn't submitted a formal complaint to Sussex Police, maybe he thinks that this route is only taken by the plebeian masses, although by true Roman standards he would in fact be viewed as a "pleb", and people like me, Capite censi, although technically as my head is no longer counted after being "sacked" maybe I am now judged below that level, and as such, now feel the need to proclaim....

I am Spartacus!

K

LoughtSpeak The new name for telling porkies.

Well, as telling the truth seems to not be the favourite passtime of Tim Loughton, it should come as no surprise that the man who stood in Parliament and denied that he was a "lying Arsehead", is in fact, a "lying arsehead".

As it was obviously his intention to present me as a violent and aggressive individual, he did not hold back with the LoughtSpeak. This one in particular got some serious "ooooooh"s from his Parliamentary buddies, I wonder if he actually told the truth, whether it would have had the same effect. You decide.

LoughtSpeak:

Very scary indeed, and obviously the man who wrote this clearly needs psychiatric help, Luckily that man was not me, what I wrote was:

 

So it must mean that it is Loughton that needs the trick cyclist then. What I wrote was a silly ending to a clearly made up post, because I couldn't be arsed to write about any more of the tedious self congratulating at a council meeting.

 

Clearly Loughton's intention was to portray myself as a sinister individual with violent fantasies, and when there is clearly no evidence to support his stupid made up beliefs, his only option was to fabricate some. If he read out what I actually wrote, I think that the reaction would be quite different, but Loughton seems to have only a passing relationship with the truth at the best of times.

 

If only I had mates in the press who could put forward the truth with the same tenacity that they choose to perpetuate Loughton's lies, when exactly is this vote on press freedoms?

 

K

The other half of Tim Loughton's fibs addressed.

Following on from the earlier post outlining the absolute nonsense that was spouted by Loughton in parliament earlier in the week, I will now point out some more inconsistencies in truth, I think that's what politicians call lies anyway.

Right, we got to the 300 edged weapons, even if I included my cutlery drawer I wouldn't even come close to 300, maybe he found a picture of me at a museum whilst researching or something, I couldn't find a picture of me with 300 swords, and I'm not sure that I've ever been to a single room with that many swords in it, if anyone knows of such a room, let me know, I'd love to visit it?

The hilarity of claiming that I wrote about me with a machine gun in hand and a council chamber drenched in blood, well scroll down to the Village Idiot post and you'll see just how little truth there is in Loughton's claims. The picture of Loughton in a school playground was real, I thought it was funny, I took the precaution of covering the kids faces but after a polite request from an unnamed individual, I censored the whole thing, and apologised to the children concerned, maybe an error of judgement on my part, I remember how outraged I was when Loughton used my stepson as a weapon against me, so I acted appropriately I feel.

Beware of terrorists, they apparently look just like this.

He claims that I am wearing a "terrorist-style balaclava", well, it's actually a ski mask, and he forgot to say that I have a purple furry cushion on my head and am holding an onion, If that's terrorist-style, then they should be pretty easy to spot. But clearly if he included the truth about all of these things then I wouldn't appear to be the dangerous monster under the bed now, would I?

The claim that I shat on my family's allotment is absolute "bollocks", two of Loughton's mates visited after we raised child safety issues and claimed that they found some mysterious poo, but weirdly the smell seemed to both arrive and leave with Cllrs Parkin and Dollemore, leaving the only reasonable conclusion that it was in fact them who smelt of plops and not our allotment.

This thing about losing a court case and being placed on the council's COC, (hee hee) is also total crap, I have never lost a court case in my life, mainly because I have never been tried for any crime let alone been convicted of one. The constant complaints to the council regarding their abuse of their COC (hee hee), were due to the fact that the council kept extending the complaints process in order to keep it in house, I expect that the majority of folks would get bored of a 9 stage complaints procedure, but I wanted to be able to take it to an outside body, which I couldn't unless I had exhausted all local routes, and when I did make it outside to the ICO they agreed with me, and informed the council that they had breached the DPA which I had been telling them all along.



Eyebrows of a Bond villain

Then we get the personal comments about my appearance, yes it is true, I do not wear suits, or anything that Loughton would deign to be acceptable, sports jacket and chino's are not a look that suits me, well it doesn't suit many people apart from 80's fashion throwbacks like Loughton. He comments on my personal grooming when he has THOSE EYEBROWS? Really, I'm surprised that we don't all have to fork out expenses for his hollowed out volcano island hideout.

He claims that after he sent his offensive email that I supposedly unleashed a "foul mouthed tirade" well, I did call to ask why he hadn't actually had the courage to abuse me in this manner in public when I asked him about this the week before when he told me that I'd have to write to him, his researcher then called me, on his orders, and was incredibly offensive to me down the phone, but Timmy's memory doesn't seem to be all that accurate of late, never mind eh.

With regards to the communications between myself and the police, those are private and should be kept between the parties involved, it is only Loughton that has chosen to go to the right wing fascist rags to put a very misrepresented version of the events into the public domain. Needless to say, there is much more to the police investigation than Loughton claims, but the truth wouldn't get him as much support no, would it?

The telling thing given away by his claims that I had been "offensive" to the press, is that he would only know this if he had insiders, and I wasn't offensive, I just asked them firmly why they thought that they could lie through their teeth and only put forward one side of the story, the one that Loughton approached them with. I did not attempt to involve the media in any way that was purely the media whore Loughton's doing, and yes I was pissed off, who wouldn't be if a complete load of cack was distributed by filth rags, formally identifying myself as the victim of crimes, when I had asked for anonymity, but Loughton decided to spread my name and images taken without my knowledge or permission, about the world in a further act of abuse towards myself and my family. If it wasn't harassment before, that act clearly made it so.

He then rattles on about more self promoting nonsense and digs at Sussex Police, who I must say were very supportive throughout this investigation, despite numerous apparent attempts by Loughton to derail the investigation, which I can only assume was the reason that it took six months and was not dealt with sooner.

~Then he takes the unprecedented move of "sacking" me as a member of the public, and stating on Parliamentary record that he intends to fail to fulfil his duty as an MP by not actually representing the views of all of his constituents, something that most of his constituents were already aware of, as we have never seen him act so swiftly or tenaciously on behalf of anyone in the 16 years that we have had the misfortune of having him as our MP. Some might even say that the effort he has put into putting across his own personal views, and pursuing his personal vendetta against me is unprecedented in his career as an MP, and he objected to the SPAD claiming that he was "obsessed with self-promotion".

I'll say again, however I speak in my personal life, it does not give an official of any type to address me in an offensive manner in official communications. If your bank manager overheard you using the F word in the pub on a Friday night, would you accept him sending you a formal letter on bank headed paper telling you to "pay off your f*cking overdraft"? If not, then why should I accept that my MP can write to me, in response to a polite email, from his Parliamentary email account using words that he thinks are acceptable to use formally because I use them informally?

Maybe he sacked me in retaliation for him being sacked after his bosses were informed of this investigation, I guess that we'll never know the answer to that one. However, as I am now the only person in this country without representation in Parliament, I intend to request a By-Election in order to appoint me one, failing that it will have to be Loughton's resignation for dereliction of duty.

I think that's addressed most of the lies told, there are probably more, but if I think of any I'll let you know.

K



Basic facts about Tim Loughton's diatribe.

At no point did I swear or use abusive language directly towards Loughton, his staff, or any of his mates. However if I swear in my personal life and in my personal blog then it doesn't give anyone the right to swear directly at me in response to a polite but firm official letter. Look at it this way, if you say "F*ck" on facebook, everyone in the country does not automatically gain the right to call you a "F*cker", Timmy seems to think that this should be the case.

Parliamentary Privilege is essentially a "get out of jail free" card, any MP can stand in the house and say whatever they damn well please without any legal consequences; if you are wondering why there were so many more accusations made against me in his Parliamentary diatribe that in the press, there's your answer. The press wouldn't be able to print any of his accusations, let alone represent them as facts in the way that he chose to, due to the fact that I could sue the arses off of them for defamation if they did, however under Parliamentary Privilege, Loughton can essentially lie with impunity without any retribution, and he thinks that this privilege should be somehow extended beyond the chamber, allowing him and other MPs to become above the laws of this country, just like that greasy Italian politician wanted.

I have only spoken to Loughton twice in the last 7 or so years, (my personal records stop around then), onse to ask him a question at his surgery in Southwick, in which he claimed to have some kind of MP super power which allowed him to not spend more than 3 minutes listening to a complex question with supporting evidence, which he didn't even glance at, and still understand everything I had to say, and he objects to being called "arrogant"? I was still trying to show him evidence when he opened the door and told me to leave, claiming that as I wasn't mentioned by name in the government bill, that it couldn't possibly affect me. He was indeed at that time as well as now, an arrogant arsehead. The other time was shortly before he wrote his abusive email, this time I approached my local tory gang during their Farmers Market (we call it the Middle Classed Zombie Apocalypse), I attempted to speak, and the leader of the council, a cab driver called Parkin, put his nose almost to mine and shouted in my face "Now look 'ere pal" in a manner more associated with the NF that the Tory party, I refused to be intimidated and said my piece while Loughton ignored me in order to speak to some young girls who seemed to be fawning over his air of superiority, either that or they were hypnotised by his eyebrows.

It does entertain me that Loughton is usually surrounded at these surgeries by teenage "Cameron youth" girlies, whilst he pretends to be cool, you know in the same way that a drunken old man embarrasses himself at a family party. They all seem to like to have their photos taken with him as well, I wonder if we'll see any of these pic's appearing in the press in 20 years or so, beneath scandalous headlines, in more tabloid half truth accusations.

I wrote to him twice in this period as well, both emails are available in this blog so that you can see that although I like to swear in my personal life, yes I f*cking love it, I do not extend this enjoyment outside of my personal life, unlike Loughton, who seems to think that it somehow makes him cool to swear and persecute people in order to appear edgy and exciting to his adoring idiot twitter fans.

His speech to the house was a pile of horse shit, and yes I can say that on my personal blog with impunity, however if I were to write to anyone in an official capacity I wouldn't use that term, and probably go with something a little more professional. Sadly as I appear to be the first member of the public ever to be "sacked" from that role, I have no right to representation in the parliament of the country in which I was born, and so cannot challenge the lies put forward under cover of Parliamentary Privilege by the self proclaimed "arrogant arsehead".

Looking at it all objectively, his public announcement that he no longer intends to represent all of his constituents as he is required to do, could actually be considered to be his formal resignation from the post that he was appointed to at the last election, he certainly has resigned the post of MP to my house, therefore I wish to call a By-Election, in order to be represented in Parliament as is my right as a British citizen.

Who wants to stand for election by me?

K

Loughton clearly loves travelling folk.

Yes, he certainly does. WOW, that was my first real lie posted on here.

Now despite his claims about not having a clue about my ethnicity/heritage/call it what you will, he should remember me actually telling him in person at the "street surgery", however he seems to have a twisted recollection of this and maybe his made up stuff pushed the truth straight out his other ear. There is always the possibility that as usual he didn't listen to a word said by a mere "sackable" member of the public.

Here's some of tim's great idea of how we should treat the travelling community (which we should remember are recognised as a ethnic or cultural group under the HRA):

Yes following "the recent incursions" yes "incursions" (def. an invasion or attack) he decided to gather together a selection of like minded Tory pals, and go and make some suggestions to the local police. What were his suggestions?

-Yes, if they have homes, they cannot be part of an ethnic group can they?
-All registration numbers should be checked despite no crimes being committed by the owners of these vehicles.
-A hotline, yes, if you see someone who looks like a traveller, be sure to call him and report them, even if they have committed no crime and are driving a legally registered, taxed and insured vehicle on a public road.
-Once on site, they should be held prisoner and not permitted to leave the site to work.
-When travellers arrive we should monitor their every move.

Yes, he really loves travelling folk, now swap the word "traveller" for any other protected ethnic or cultural group and see if you think that this should be viewed as acceptable material for an MP to be distributing on his website that you and I are funding.

Protection under the HRA doesn't worry Tim, he makes this clear as well:

 

Yes, he also wants the power to be able to seize their property and wants to bring in new laws to make the burden of proof required to convict travellers of crimes, lower than that applied to other ethnic or cultural groups.

 

Obviously it is difficult to radically alter established legal procedures and laws, but that doesn't bother Tim, he's looking for ways to sidestep them instead:

Yes, he wants to know how the ROI get around the HRA in order to adopt a "zero tolerance policy" that he appears jealous of and wants to impose here.

 

There is plenty more if you have a cursory glance of the web under "Tim Loughton Travellers", and this is the man that stood in Parliament and stated that he "personally resent(s) any suggestion that (he) is racist. Racism is an insidious cancer against which (he) has always fought", yet he generalises about an entire ethnic or cultural group without worrying what the law abiding majority of that group may find offensive.

 

And before believing that he is only referring to travellers staying on illegal sites in this area, you should be aware that there are no legally designated sites, and so not only is he targeting the entire travelling community but he is concentrating his hatred towards homeless members of it.

 

He's not alone in this I might add, all of the local Tories seem to be happy to pick up their pitchforks and join his "crusades" against myself and any other traveller who sticks their head above the parapet, and has the audacity to speak out against his intolerance.

 

K