The ArgusMP to complain to IPCC regarding Sussex Police's behaviour (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

MP to complain to IPCC regarding Sussex Police's behaviour

The Argus: MP to complain to IPCC regarding Sussex Police's behaviour MP to complain to IPCC regarding Sussex Police's behaviour

East Worthing and Shoreham MP Tim Loughton has said he will complain to the police watchdog about Sussex Police's behaviour.

It follows an incident last year when the force issued the Conservative MP with a Police Information Notice (PIN).

A parliamentary committee said the force breached parliamentary privilege in doing this, although the police said it did not intend to do this.

Now Mr Loughton has vowed to take the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

He said: "I am also angry that so much police time and taxpayers money has been wasted on this shambolic and clearly nonsensical investigation which has caused great damage to confidence in the priorities of the senior management team at Sussex Police.

"Many questions remain about how Sussex Police allowed this situation to get out of hand to the extent it did and I will therefore be submitting a full complaint to the IPCC but I am pleased that in the meantime I have been given a full apology."

Temporary Chief Constable Giles York said: "Although the committee recognises that our breach of parliamentary privilege was inadvertent I wish to offer a full apology to the Committee, Mr Loughton and the four other recipients.

"We always sought to treat all parties fairly. On that basis we will withdraw all PIN notices given to those involved in this matter.

"This is a complex area and as such I have set up a review of Sussex Police's use of PIN notices. This will be headed up by a Detective Superintendent and will link in with the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne's request to the College of Policing to formulate improved policy in this area. Sussex Police will embrace any learning for the future from this review."

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:08pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Bill in Hanover says...

It is typical of a politician to say "I am also angry that so much police time and taxpayers money has been wasted on this shambolic and clearly nonsensical investigation' and to then waste even more police time and taxpayers money by insisting on a further investigation but I suppose he's insisting on his pound of flesh.
It is typical of a politician to say "I am also angry that so much police time and taxpayers money has been wasted on this shambolic and clearly nonsensical investigation' and to then waste even more police time and taxpayers money by insisting on a further investigation but I suppose he's insisting on his pound of flesh. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 19

2:18pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Jonathan Mouette says...

And what is this "parliamentary privilege" all about. Does it mean that MPs can say what they like when they like without fear - in the same way they apply libel laws...? Very cosy.
And what is this "parliamentary privilege" all about. Does it mean that MPs can say what they like when they like without fear - in the same way they apply libel laws...? Very cosy. Jonathan Mouette
  • Score: 18

2:32pm Sat 15 Mar 14

theargusissoinformative says...

I could say something, but I don't want Tim to come looking for me.
I could say something, but I don't want Tim to come looking for me. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 8

2:59pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Tel Scoomer says...

While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it. Tel Scoomer
  • Score: 7

3:23pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading.
Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months.
Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had.
I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself.
This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading. Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months. Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had. I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 6

6:36pm Sat 15 Mar 14

JHunty says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading.
Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months.
Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had.
I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself.
Yeah you do realise you have made a couple of libellous allegations there and your allegations against Loughton have in the past been found to be untrue so perhaps its you who should stop your campaign of continuous whinging and whining and continually trying to play the race card.

You claim he has attempted to pevert the course of justice, libellous
You claim you were soundly beaten by the police, untrue and potentially libellous
You claim he has made vexatious complaints, again not true since that term has a specific legal meaning which I suspect you have picked up from it being applied to yourself.

You seem a real attention seeking kind of person, perhaps you should walk away from the internet and give us all a break from your self pitying whining.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading. Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months. Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had. I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself.[/p][/quote]Yeah you do realise you have made a couple of libellous allegations there and your allegations against Loughton have in the past been found to be untrue so perhaps its you who should stop your campaign of continuous whinging and whining and continually trying to play the race card. You claim he has attempted to pevert the course of justice, libellous You claim you were soundly beaten by the police, untrue and potentially libellous You claim he has made vexatious complaints, again not true since that term has a specific legal meaning which I suspect you have picked up from it being applied to yourself. You seem a real attention seeking kind of person, perhaps you should walk away from the internet and give us all a break from your self pitying whining. JHunty
  • Score: -2

7:15pm Sat 15 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

JHunty wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading.
Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months.
Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had.
I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself.
Yeah you do realise you have made a couple of libellous allegations there and your allegations against Loughton have in the past been found to be untrue so perhaps its you who should stop your campaign of continuous whinging and whining and continually trying to play the race card.

You claim he has attempted to pevert the course of justice, libellous
You claim you were soundly beaten by the police, untrue and potentially libellous
You claim he has made vexatious complaints, again not true since that term has a specific legal meaning which I suspect you have picked up from it being applied to yourself.

You seem a real attention seeking kind of person, perhaps you should walk away from the internet and give us all a break from your self pitying whining.
You know nothing, where exactly did I play any "race card", this is all a fabrication by Loughton.

I fully understand the specific legal meanings of statements made and I will stand by them. I have not libelled anyone, nor have I misunderstood the meaning of "vexatious", you however seem to be without clue on many things.

You seem like a sad little right wing warrior who seems to think that race is an issue in an investigation which under UK law could never be racially motivated. Before trying to claim that others don't understand the law, maybe you should try and qualify in it.

If you don't want to know what I think, don't confront me with your ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: This is, like all other stories surrounding this farce, incredibly misleading. Loughton claims that a vast amount of cash was wasted by this investigation, yet a full investigation into costs will show that the original investigation into him probably cost around £2k, his following tantrums and attempts to pervert the course of justice by making further vexatious complaints about this constituent (me), that resulted in my home being ransacked, me being robbed of my liberty and freedom and not to mention the sound beating by Loughton supporting officers, have cost more than ten times that original amount, and looks set to cost Sussex Police far more in the coming months. Yes, Sussex Police messed up, but not in their investigations into Loughton, but in their investigation into the revenge allegations he created which proved that I had committed no crimes, despite his repeated claims that I had. I hope that an IPCC investigation makes it clear that they treated Loughton far better than any other alleged criminal, and that he should stop whining and get on with his job of representing the people of his constituency rather than himself.[/p][/quote]Yeah you do realise you have made a couple of libellous allegations there and your allegations against Loughton have in the past been found to be untrue so perhaps its you who should stop your campaign of continuous whinging and whining and continually trying to play the race card. You claim he has attempted to pevert the course of justice, libellous You claim you were soundly beaten by the police, untrue and potentially libellous You claim he has made vexatious complaints, again not true since that term has a specific legal meaning which I suspect you have picked up from it being applied to yourself. You seem a real attention seeking kind of person, perhaps you should walk away from the internet and give us all a break from your self pitying whining.[/p][/quote]You know nothing, where exactly did I play any "race card", this is all a fabrication by Loughton. I fully understand the specific legal meanings of statements made and I will stand by them. I have not libelled anyone, nor have I misunderstood the meaning of "vexatious", you however seem to be without clue on many things. You seem like a sad little right wing warrior who seems to think that race is an issue in an investigation which under UK law could never be racially motivated. Before trying to claim that others don't understand the law, maybe you should try and qualify in it. If you don't want to know what I think, don't confront me with your ignorance. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: -1

10:10pm Sat 15 Mar 14

LeonBIank666 says...

I respect the police and I like the Tories.

Difficult one, but Mr. Loughton should just let it lie.
I respect the police and I like the Tories. Difficult one, but Mr. Loughton should just let it lie. LeonBIank666
  • Score: 7

11:25pm Sat 15 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

This MP should just let it go its obvious he has a bee in his bonnet,no wonder it got out of hand with his constituent i'm beginning to wonder if the MP is actually the one in the wrong and does not like anyone telling him so.The MP is really starting to make himself look foolish like a spoilt child that does not get his own way.If he does not let it go it will come back to bite him probably at the ballot box.Anyway he should keep his nose down he is just about to get 11% pay rise .After the cuts the police have got enough to do without having to constantly waste time on someone that cant accept to let things go.We already have a poor impression of MPs and this case shows why.
This MP should just let it go its obvious he has a bee in his bonnet,no wonder it got out of hand with his constituent i'm beginning to wonder if the MP is actually the one in the wrong and does not like anyone telling him so.The MP is really starting to make himself look foolish like a spoilt child that does not get his own way.If he does not let it go it will come back to bite him probably at the ballot box.Anyway he should keep his nose down he is just about to get 11% pay rise .After the cuts the police have got enough to do without having to constantly waste time on someone that cant accept to let things go.We already have a poor impression of MPs and this case shows why. clubrob6
  • Score: 9

11:47pm Sat 15 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Tel Scoomer wrote:
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing. clubrob6
  • Score: 6

12:00am Sun 16 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.
I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege?

It would appear so.

If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle?

He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum.

Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.[/p][/quote]I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege? It would appear so. If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle? He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum. Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true....... Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 2

9:42am Sun 16 Mar 14

Tel Scoomer says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.
I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege?

It would appear so.

If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle?

He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum.

Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......
Unpleasant? A fair question. I don't personally know that to be the case.
My suspicion is that it takes two to tango. Perhaps both Mr Loughton and the constituent should find a way to agree to let sleeping dogs lie.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.[/p][/quote]I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege? It would appear so. If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle? He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum. Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......[/p][/quote]Unpleasant? A fair question. I don't personally know that to be the case. My suspicion is that it takes two to tango. Perhaps both Mr Loughton and the constituent should find a way to agree to let sleeping dogs lie. Tel Scoomer
  • Score: 0

10:04am Sun 16 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.
I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege?

It would appear so.

If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle?

He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum.

Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......
If I was you I would also let it go the MP is making himself look a fool without anyones help.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.[/p][/quote]I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege? It would appear so. If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle? He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum. Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......[/p][/quote]If I was you I would also let it go the MP is making himself look a fool without anyones help. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

10:10am Sun 16 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Tel Scoomer wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
clubrob6 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance.
Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date.
Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints.
From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.
I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.
I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege?

It would appear so.

If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle?

He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum.

Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......
Unpleasant? A fair question. I don't personally know that to be the case.
My suspicion is that it takes two to tango. Perhaps both Mr Loughton and the constituent should find a way to agree to let sleeping dogs lie.
I don't think the MP is going to let sleeping dogs lie it looks like he wants heads to roll,someone dare tell him what to do and he does not like it.I would suggest this MP should concentrate on doing his job.I too don't like been told what to do I would like for instance a vote on the EU.
[quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: While Tim Loughton may not be everyone's favourite politician, and he may have handled the situation with his unpleasant constituent in an ill-advised manner, Sussex Police come out of this very poorly. They have shown a contempt not just for Parliament but for the law as well. And an astonishing level of ignorance. Perhaps it's no surprise that the chief constable left ahead of his advertised departure date. Parliamentary privilege is important. While I have never found a politician I can always agree with, it's important that they should be able to have their say without fear of being taken to court. Too many of them are already too hemmed in by party constraints. From this article, it looks as though Giles York at least understands that his farce, sorry, force has painted itself into a corner and is making a mess trying to get out of it.[/p][/quote]I agree with most of what you say but the MP is starting to make himself look foolish by not letting it go,he has made his point but dragging it on will gain nothing.[/p][/quote]I agree in principle, however how do you know that I'm "unpleasant"? Are you taking the word of someone who cannot be challenged under law for their statements and is willing to do whatever he can to preserve that privilege? It would appear so. If an MP wants to lie in Parliament, there is no right to challenge those lies in the same way as an MP can challenge a constituent. I have not been judged by any police force, CPS or court to have been responsible for any of the accusations made in Parliament, so how can anyone in their right mind believe a word that Loughton says from within his magic castle? He has made none of these accusations in any forum in which he can be challenged, and as the media quoting his parliamentary tantrums are also covered by this outdated privilege, originally intended to protect parliamentarians from the crown and church, until a truly free press grow a pair and print the truth about what really happened, the majority of people will just be speculating after hearing unfounded statements made from within a legal vacuum. Hey Argus, why don't you try getting Loughton to elaborate and explain his claims in an interview, then we'll see how much is actually true.......[/p][/quote]Unpleasant? A fair question. I don't personally know that to be the case. My suspicion is that it takes two to tango. Perhaps both Mr Loughton and the constituent should find a way to agree to let sleeping dogs lie.[/p][/quote]I don't think the MP is going to let sleeping dogs lie it looks like he wants heads to roll,someone dare tell him what to do and he does not like it.I would suggest this MP should concentrate on doing his job.I too don't like been told what to do I would like for instance a vote on the EU. clubrob6
  • Score: 4

10:48am Sun 16 Mar 14

pithound says...

This MP comes across as a rather arrogant individual. The electors of East Worthing and Shoreham have an opportunity to choose a more pleasant representative in May 2015. Use your vote!
This MP comes across as a rather arrogant individual. The electors of East Worthing and Shoreham have an opportunity to choose a more pleasant representative in May 2015. Use your vote! pithound
  • Score: 7

1:38pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Poem58 says...

Mr Loughton is coming over in the typical arrogant self important way we see so often from our politicial masters.

Reading this article it's clear they talk a different language to the rest of us - probably trained as a barrister (professional liar) or some sort..

Whatever you think of the greens (and I am in no way connected to them) they are a breath of fresh air compared to the smug complacency of the usual parties.
Mr Loughton is coming over in the typical arrogant self important way we see so often from our politicial masters. Reading this article it's clear they talk a different language to the rest of us - probably trained as a barrister (professional liar) or some sort.. Whatever you think of the greens (and I am in no way connected to them) they are a breath of fresh air compared to the smug complacency of the usual parties. Poem58
  • Score: 1

1:40pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

Rob & Tel,
I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept).
Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation.
Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever.
I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself.

There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family.

K
Rob & Tel, I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept). Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation. Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever. I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself. There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family. K Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 5

1:43pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

Poem58 wrote:
Mr Loughton is coming over in the typical arrogant self important way we see so often from our politicial masters.

Reading this article it's clear they talk a different language to the rest of us - probably trained as a barrister (professional liar) or some sort..

Whatever you think of the greens (and I am in no way connected to them) they are a breath of fresh air compared to the smug complacency of the usual parties.
Worse than that, he was a BANKER.
[quote][p][bold]Poem58[/bold] wrote: Mr Loughton is coming over in the typical arrogant self important way we see so often from our politicial masters. Reading this article it's clear they talk a different language to the rest of us - probably trained as a barrister (professional liar) or some sort.. Whatever you think of the greens (and I am in no way connected to them) they are a breath of fresh air compared to the smug complacency of the usual parties.[/p][/quote]Worse than that, he was a BANKER. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 3

7:00pm Sun 16 Mar 14

michael505 says...

Will he never give up. Tim Loughton is like a dog with a bone. He complains that the Police have wasted time and money yet he will not let go and wants more money spent on his complaint. Vote him out at the next election as he isn't concerned with the electorate only himself.
Will he never give up. Tim Loughton is like a dog with a bone. He complains that the Police have wasted time and money yet he will not let go and wants more money spent on his complaint. Vote him out at the next election as he isn't concerned with the electorate only himself. michael505
  • Score: 4

7:31pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Bluebeef says...

Why is Loughton going so aggressively and irrastionally on the attack against the Sussex Police. It couldn't be that he is trying to cow them into supressing another bit of embarrassment could it?
Why is Loughton going so aggressively and irrastionally on the attack against the Sussex Police. It couldn't be that he is trying to cow them into supressing another bit of embarrassment could it? Bluebeef
  • Score: 5

6:39am Mon 17 Mar 14

JHunty says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
Rob & Tel,
I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept).
Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation.
Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever.
I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself.

There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family.

K
What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP.
As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities.
Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up.
As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: Rob & Tel, I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept). Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation. Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever. I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself. There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family. K[/p][/quote]What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP. As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities. Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up. As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement. JHunty
  • Score: -3

7:12am Mon 17 Mar 14

alyn, southwick says...

JHunty wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
Rob & Tel,
I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept).
Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation.
Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever.
I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself.

There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family.

K
What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP.
As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities.
Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up.
As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement.
And you know all this to be false and malicious against Loughton (not by him), because....
(Are you just as biased - but possible with no reason.)
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: Rob & Tel, I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept). Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation. Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever. I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself. There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family. K[/p][/quote]What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP. As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities. Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up. As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement.[/p][/quote]And you know all this to be false and malicious against Loughton (not by him), because.... (Are you just as biased - but possible with no reason.) alyn, southwick
  • Score: 0

10:42am Mon 17 Mar 14

Isaac Rinkfern says...

alyn, southwick wrote:
JHunty wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
Rob & Tel,
I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept).
Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation.
Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever.
I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself.

There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family.

K
What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP.
As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities.
Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up.
As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement.
And you know all this to be false and malicious against Loughton (not by him), because....
(Are you just as biased - but possible with no reason.)
You seem to think you know all about this, yet all you seem to be doing is quoting Loughton.

There was no "racism" investigation, look up Malicious Communication act and see for yourself that it cannot be racially aggravated, he made it up. What kicked this off was the unlawful operation of a blacklist by a local council, this was proved by the ICO investigation, the MP chose to respond to a polite letter with an extremely offensive reply, this appears to be a traditional Loughton action.

As for the death threats, these are written on paper and I can assure you that these exist, as did the funerary cards and other hate mail sent to my home and my family's during the investigation into Loughton under the MCA, nobody else was aware that this investigation was underway at that time and as the letters referred to this, there is little doubt where they came from, however the cowards that sent them wore rubber gloves when doing so, (the police fingerprinted them and this investigation is still viable if the offender is found).

As for no proof that it is right-wing organisations, I think that the organisations that sent abuse can be described as nothing else, unless you'd prefer that I refer to them as neo-nazis.

I asked for anonymity, I sought no publicity, I am merely defending myself against fictitious allegations made against me in a forum which is protected by an outdated rule that allows MPs to say whatever they want, whether it is true or not.

You seem to think that you're some kind of expert, when in fact all you are quoting is the same things that Loughton claimed from within a legal vacuum, you should be aware that the tabloids do not speak the gospel, and all of the allegations made against myself in the media are privilege protected quotes with no legal or factual content.

I never wanted a "feud", however when death threats, tabloid hacks and other undesirables are sent to my home address and that of my family with the intention of removing our right to a private life, I will fight, and I will fight hard.

Sadly it appears that far too many people think that just because they read it in the paper and it came from an MP, that it is somehow true, it's as if no MP has ever lied.
[quote][p][bold]alyn, southwick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: Rob & Tel, I have tried to let it lie, but my name and allegations that I can prove to be false keep reappearing in the media (although not name in this one, I accept). Sussex Police failed to make it clear that mediation was arranged, however despite my willingness to bring this to an end, the MP refused to attend, I assume this is because he would not be covered my his magic cloak of privilege and would actually have to account for his distribution of disinformation. Myself and my family have had 2 yrs of consistent abuse and lies hurled at us, received numerous death threats from extremist supporters of Loughton and have actually suffered greatly, unlike the MP who has had a hissy fit about a half hour interview and a meaningless letter with no legal implications whatsoever. I guess that I should never have taken the advice of the CAB and referred an abusive letter from an MP to the police to be investigated under the Malicious Communications Act (a law that cannot be racially aggravated, that was just an invention of Loughton's in order to induce anti traveller rhetoric), I have since discovered that Loughton's standard response to anyone left of centre is usually rude and offensive and may contain swearing, after all I've even seen a letter he sent a 12 yr old that was just as personally abusive as the one he sent myself. There is a lot more of this to be played out yet, personally I'd rather that happen in private. Sadly this supposed pillar of the community wishes that it be conducted in the public arena, so I have no choice but to correct any mistakes that are apparent, before it descends into another raft of death threats being sent to myself and my family. K[/p][/quote]What your saying has no basis in fact you are clearly someone who likes nothing better to do than have a feud. It was the remark he made about you being unkempt that kicked off the charges of racism because of your gypsy or traveller background that kicked a lot of this off. As for being right wing, well you couldn't be further from the truth there but your willingness to project your own prejudices onto others explains a lot about your feud with this MP. As above google this guys name for a fuller account of his activities. Now you are making allegations of death threats having been made to you, another completely unfounded allegation with nothing to back it up. As for your wish for this to be played out in private, if that was true you would not be using social media and newspaper forums if there was any truth in that statement.[/p][/quote]And you know all this to be false and malicious against Loughton (not by him), because.... (Are you just as biased - but possible with no reason.)[/p][/quote]You seem to think you know all about this, yet all you seem to be doing is quoting Loughton. There was no "racism" investigation, look up Malicious Communication act and see for yourself that it cannot be racially aggravated, he made it up. What kicked this off was the unlawful operation of a blacklist by a local council, this was proved by the ICO investigation, the MP chose to respond to a polite letter with an extremely offensive reply, this appears to be a traditional Loughton action. As for the death threats, these are written on paper and I can assure you that these exist, as did the funerary cards and other hate mail sent to my home and my family's during the investigation into Loughton under the MCA, nobody else was aware that this investigation was underway at that time and as the letters referred to this, there is little doubt where they came from, however the cowards that sent them wore rubber gloves when doing so, (the police fingerprinted them and this investigation is still viable if the offender is found). As for no proof that it is right-wing organisations, I think that the organisations that sent abuse can be described as nothing else, unless you'd prefer that I refer to them as neo-nazis. I asked for anonymity, I sought no publicity, I am merely defending myself against fictitious allegations made against me in a forum which is protected by an outdated rule that allows MPs to say whatever they want, whether it is true or not. You seem to think that you're some kind of expert, when in fact all you are quoting is the same things that Loughton claimed from within a legal vacuum, you should be aware that the tabloids do not speak the gospel, and all of the allegations made against myself in the media are privilege protected quotes with no legal or factual content. I never wanted a "feud", however when death threats, tabloid hacks and other undesirables are sent to my home address and that of my family with the intention of removing our right to a private life, I will fight, and I will fight hard. Sadly it appears that far too many people think that just because they read it in the paper and it came from an MP, that it is somehow true, it's as if no MP has ever lied. Isaac Rinkfern
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree