This is the Press Association report of today's proceedings in the Martyn Jones MP v Mail on Sunday Libel trial.
A young security guard told the High Court today how he was left "shocked and flustered" by a foul-mouthed outburst from a senior Labour MP. Chris Ham, 21, said that he had never seen Martyn Jones, who has held Clwyd South for 20 years, until the day he "politely" asked to see his pass at Portcullis House in Westminster in May last year.
"His immediate response was to tell me to f*** off and that he was a member of parliament. "I again asked politely, persisted. His second response was 'f*** off, you should know who I am, you don't have the right to question me, you are only security'." Mr Ham, a Metropolitan Police security officer, was giving evidence for Associated Newspapers which is being sued by Mr Jones for libel over two stories which appeared that month.
The 60-year-old MP has told Mr Justice Eady and a London jury that he was "flabbergasted" when he saw the claim in the Mail on Sunday that he had twice told Mr Ham to "f*** off" and was shouting and swearing at the top of his voice. His QC, Ronald Thwaites, said the newspaper had blown up a "trivial" exchange into a "full-scale international incident".
He said that when Mr Ham asked for the pass which, like many others, Mr Jones did not wear around his neck, the MP only said: "I don't give a s*** what you are. You should know who members of Parliament are," before showing his pass. Mr Thwaites said that Mr Jones regretted swearing at the guard and apologised to him shortly afterwards for his discourtesy. Like many MPs, he feared that passes could be copied if they were seen, and that it was better for security to identify MPs by their faces.
Mr Ham said that the MP "reluctantly" produced his pass from his wallet after he asked him the third time. He said that Mr Jones's tone of voice was normal at first but he then became more aggressive. "I wouldn't say he was shouting. He was sort of dismissing me, waving his arm at me."
Mr Ham said that he thoroughly enjoyed his job, which he had been in for six months at the time, and had never been sworn at before although he frequently had to ask for passes. He was "a bit shocked" and "a bit flustered" by the incident and made a note of it shortly afterwards. Before that, Mr Jones had approached him again and apologised. "He said 'I'm sorry about before. I was having a bad day'. I think he was sorry."
Mr Thwaites has said that the article, "Labour MP in foul-mouthed outburst at police guard", contained a dozen untruths and was a vindictive attack on a hard-working conscientious career politician. Mr Jones is also claiming damages over an item in the newspaper's Black Dog column, a week later, which called him "ludicrous" and claimed that his excuse for not wearing his pass was that if al Qaida got in, they would have been able to identify him.
Bernard Livesey QC, for Associated Newspapers, which denies libel and says its story was substantially true, said that Mr Jones was incorrect if he thought that his beard, bow tie and glasses made him known to every security officer. "For all Mr Ham knew, Mr Jones could have been a terrorist wearing a suit or just someone wandering around trying to get information he shouldn't have access to."
He pointed out that the day of the incident was a Wednesday, when there was heightened security because of Prime Minister's Question Time. He added that, even on Mr Jones's account of events, the MP had verbally abused Mr Ham. Earlier, Bob Ainsworth, the Government Deputy Chief Whip, said in evidence that his office was trying to encourage MPs to wear their passes despite resistance from a number of them. "We don't want security officers to be aggressive or unreasonable but we don't want MPs wandering around without any identification, effectively damaging the security of the House."
42 comments:
Does his bow tie whirl clockwise or anticlockwise?
MPs seem to be labouring under the impression that the rules are for sombody else - cf the now dead-in-the-water amendment to the FOI act.
I hope that one day, a Diane Abbot lookalike (they all look the same to us anyway) will enter the chamber and cover them all in piss and anthrax.
Another "Do you know who I am?" episode, and every one of those is a clear indication that no, I don't know who the feck you are so show us yer pass. What a tosser.
The 21-year old security guard is a gainfully employed taxpayer/voter and he was conscientiously doing the job for which he is drawing his salary.
Even Martyn Jones didn't accuse him of being officious or rude. He was just trying to do what he is paid to do.
What a nasty piece of work. Instances like this make me sick.
You know what? Chris Ham should have said, "Do you know who I am? I pay your salary."
'His QC, Ronald Thwaites, said the newspaper had blown up a "trivial" exchange into a "full-scale international incident".'
Full-scale international incident?
Wasn't it Jones who has "blown it up" by suing?
He obviously didn't remember because he was too sozzled on taxpayers' booze.
Tip of the day: don't sue for libel if it's a true story.
Osama Bin laden wears a beard , he is also short sighted .Not sure if he wears a bow tie though.
This could be a job for theo spark
Some Labour (Socialist) MPs have been rude to the police and security officers for years, I suppose it's an ideological thing; others, the 'new' lot are just rude and arrogant, drunk with power. Some even 'suck their teeth' to display afro-caribbean contempt. I don't know which camp this Jones person falls into (well I know it isn't the last)!
w g gruff - "Full scale international incident". Yes, I noticed that too.
International in what sense, I wonder? Do you think French TV ran with this exciting incident? CNN carried the story of a legislator being asked to show his pass? Was it front page in The Australian?
Was it front page in The Australian?
I expect they are laughing at the shell of a nation that England has become.
Isn't the 'people's party' lovely?
I've heard that a popular response among airline check-in staff to the 'don't you know who I am?' approach is to put out a public address announcement along the lines of 'There's a man at desk 14 who doesn't know who he is. If anyone can help, please come to desk 14'. Apocryphal no doubt.
I bet he loses.
Never heard of him until this row blew up. I have since checked Martyn Jones' website and in the biography section it states "* Please click on the video icon on the top left of this page to view a welcome message from your Member of Parliament". However, "The video is not presently available but will be available in the near future". If the greeting he allegedly gave the security guard is anything to go by, perhaps it is just as well that it is not available...
Verity said...
You know what? Chris Ham should have said, "Do you know who I am? I pay your salary."
June 12, 2007 10:27 PM
He's a state employee. We pay his salary as well as that of the MP. Neither pay for anything.
"Oh, you can't chop your momma up in Massachusetts!
"Not even if it's meant as a surprise!
"Oh, you can't chop your momma up in Massachusetts!
"You know how neighbours like to criticise ...".
Anonymous 12:14 - you are correct and I didn't think of that. Neither is a wealth creator and neither contributes to the Exchequer. You are right.
The security guard earning his salary did not deserve such contemptuous treatment, but neither man creates wealth.
Please forgive me for three in a row, which is going it a bit, but how do we know that Chris Ham does not work for a private security company which contributes to the wealth of our nation?
verity3 that is bonkers book-keeping. A private security guard generates no more or less wealth than a state security guard.
(If the state security guard is laid off, then hired back as a private contractor to do the same job with same risk for same reward ... there's no change in the wealth being created / destroyed / preserved)
Good on you Verity!
"You can't chop your mama up in Massachusetts
"Not even if you're tired of her cuisine!
"No, you can't chop your mama up in Massachusetts
"You know it's almost sure to cause a scene!"
Go that marmalade jar!
"You know it's almost sure to cause a scene!"
should have arrested the jumped up pratt for not wearing a pass.Im sure some anti terror law would give him the power then tossed him in a cell till he could prove who he is.
Originally posted over at Guido's, but what the hell...
Many a long year ago, I was standing in the foyer of the local British embassy waiting for a mate to emerge from within. The only other person in that area was the security guard cum receptionist, so we got chatting. He told me his name was (let's call him) Jimmy from Glasgow. He had a very short crew cut, was an ex-Royal Marine who had done his stint and was now looking for a quieter life. So he had joined the foreign office security branch and had been sent to that embassy. He had been in town for just over a week. As we were talking the front door opened and a very tall thin man dressed in pin stripes and a full length black overcoat entered and made his way towards the lifts.
"Oi! Where do you think you're going?" said Jimmy.
The man stopped and came across to Jimmy's desk. He placed his knuckles firmly on the table and glowering at Jimmy said: "What did you say?"
"I asked you where you thought you were going", said Jimmy firmly.
The man leaned over and staring straight into Jimmy's eyes said, very slowly: "Do...you...not...know...who...I...am?
Jimmy looked straight back at him and replied at the same speed: "I...do...not... know...you...from...Adam".
The man withdrew his face and pulling himself up to his not inconsiderable height (well over 6 feet) said: "I am the deputy head of this embassy and it is time that you indians learned to recognise the chiefs around here".
Jimmy pulled himself up to his 5'8" or thereabouts and said: "Good. In that case you will be in possession of the appropriate security pass which my orders require me to scrutinise before allowing you any further into this building. Failure to produce said card will result in my having to note the fact in my security log-book. Furthermore, I shall then be required to telephone Mr {..X..} to come down from his office to verify to my satisfaction that you are indeed who you claim to be. Now, your security pass, please".
The man was rather gobsmacked, but after a few seconds retreated a pace or two and reached into his jacket pocket and took out his wallet from which he extracted a laminated card. Jimmy took it and spent a good 10 seconds thoroughly scrutinising both sides. Satisfied he handed it back saying: "Thank you. You may proceed. Have a nice day".
When the man had gone, I asked Jimmy if he really had not known who that man was. As the No 2 in the embassy, he must have been a very senior officer.
Jimmy replied:" Of course I knew who he was. He is an arrogant, pompous toss-pot and if the unimportant little squaw-esses in the typing pool have to show their passes to get in and out, I see no reason why Geronimo and his mates on the top floor should not do likewise!".
Jimmy and I subsequently became good friends.
I remember my shifts in the guardroom in darkest Hampshire way back in the seventies, (just before British life was to change for ever), sometimes we were told to ask for everyone's ID card no matter who they were. It is a good idea and kept everyone on their toes.
How did the Mail get the story? Are guards or police (whatever Ham is) some kind of press stasi or do they owe MPs and the public in general a duty of discretion?
Are the police or guards now an arm of the press? Ridiculous!.
Associated Newspapers effectively lost when they took on Ken Livingstone and THEY HAD A TAPE. Police didn't snitch in that case. AN lost all moral authority when they doctored the tape to remove some comment from Mr Finegold (about five seconds' worth).
Well done though for taking down yesterday's story. the original quote used did not make sense. And the he he him passage was ambiguous.
By the way ... are people saying that there has never been a bad tempered outburst from a Tory or other than Labour MP?
Leaving aside the party political biffing does the panel really think that guards or police should be agents of the press?
He must have a death wish to have brought this case to trial if he knew that the guard would testify against him and he would have to admit that he had used foul language to him.What was he thinking of?
You would have thought that he'd be much more courteous to a man whose job it is to keep him safe?
That said the line that suggested many MPs think that photo IDs are a threat is very telling. Don't these people clamour for photo opportunities whenever they present themselves?
Anyone who describes himself as a 'career politician' deserves to lose. Hope it bankrupts him.
It's frankly unbelievable that the time of the Court (for which we, as poor bloody taxpayers (PBTs) all pay), together with tyhat of the lawyers etc is being wasted on what is no more than a pompous twit having a hissy fit. the learned judge should throw the whole thing out and tell all parties to 'calm down, dears'. the rather theological arguments over wearing of passes, who swore at who etc are nothing more than confections designed to keep the legal boys and girls in claret and chablis.
Has no-one anything better to do??
So, ignoring the specifics of this odious little man, the bit of the story that riles me is that most MPs don't like the idea of security passes. Presumably, they will be exempt from having to possess ID cards when they make the rest of us carry them. Facism and communism alike have the same effect on the middle classes. The leaders exempt themselves from legislation essential for the rest of the populace. Someone more expert than I, compile a list of current legislation please
I agree that it is essentially a non-story. That, though, does not excuse bad behaviour. It was a case of someone being arrogant without good cause. Members of both Houses are encouraged to wear their passes within the parliamentary precincts and many do so. In my experience, it is some of the most senior members (especially in the Lords) who wear their passes as a matter of course. To be fair, quite a few new MPs do so as well. The problem appears to lie with MPs who have been in the House for a few years and do no not seem to think they have a responsibility to assist the security staff in doing their important work.
Rachel said
"You would have thought that he'd be much more courteous to a man whose job it is to keep him safe?"
A line of reasoning that will not work I'm afraid. Just think of the Police/Joe Public relationship. We all want to be protected from harm/crime but rant and rage when we get caught up in 'minor' matters (parking,speed etc)
These minor laws are 'for others not me..I'm far too important dontchyaknow'
Jones is merely mirroring the great British public.
Gwil ap Tomos
By the way ... are people saying that there has never been a bad tempered outburst from a Tory or other than Labour MP?
I doubt it very much! Many MPs appear to be pompous t****rs. The point is he sued the paper for libel, and it looks very much like the story was true!
Did the officer report it to the paper? No, I expect another MP or journalist within earshot did.
1. The guy wobbled along quietly for 20 years without any problems.
2. Maybe he simply had a bad day? It happens to the best of people, and sometimes even to wimen despite PMS.
3. Maybe the guard is full of it?
4. If it's a shakedown to get money out of the paper, well, them libel laws and the process of applying them is in die need of fixing. Don't whinge, fix or campaign for it to be fixed.
In any case, a small egotrip tantrum like that is silly, but it is something we all do from time to time when life conspires against and someone turns up at the wrong moment to annoy the last 1% of sanity out of us. Let those without sin cast the first rotten tomato... :P
In any case, a small egotrip tantrum like that is silly, but it is something we all do from time to time when life conspires against and someone turns up at the wrong moment to annoy the last 1% of sanity out of us.
Yes, and no-one would have thought much about it had he not sued the paper for printing the story.
People do lose their rags on occasion but MPs should realise that they are in the public eye 24/7. If he doesn't realise that after 20 years as an MP then perhaps he will now?
Sounds like a similar pompous ass who, late checking in for a flight, pushed his way to the front of the queue and had an altercation with the chack-in agent, culminating with the inevitable 'Don't you know who I am?'. She, bright thing, pressed the button on her tannoy and broadcast to the whole airport 'Attention please, I have a gentleman at check-in desk 14 in a camel overcoat and yellow scarf who doesn't know who he is. If anyone can identify him could they please come forward'. Such a message ringing out in Portculis House ('...man with beard, bow tie etc..' would, I'm sure prevent a recurrence.
What evidence does Chris Paul have for the security officer giving or selling the story, and for the unpleasant implication of Stasi like behaviour ? Classic case of trying to defend the perpetrator of the stupid outburst by attacking the victim. Worthy of the "feral media".
On his own admission the MP abused a working man who was doing his job. Is this appropriate behaviour from a Labour MP ? In any event the public have the right to know when MPs behave like pompous self-important prats; and in this case the whole story is relevant in view of Government policy (supported by Jones) to require ID cards on pain of criminal sanctions.
Chris Paul "Leaving aside the party political biffing does the panel really think that guards or police should be agents of the press?"
Holy Cow! Where do want to get with this? Leaks to the press by Government, MPs, and virtually every bleeding establishment are endemic. You want an effective 'silence' code to be built into society? How about starting at Downing Street and working your way down?
Chris Paul's assertion that this is non-party-political is wrong.
The issue is about an MP who's behaviour has been seriously bad and whose attitude towards security stinks. The fact that he is a Labour MP is relevant because they are the party pushing the Respect agenda (the same sort of "Respect" no doubt that Goerge Galloway is famous for) and who are the ones forcing largely unwanted and unnecessary security measures down the whole nation's throat. I'm sure the likes of Mr Paul were (rightly) slagging off the Conservatives in the 90's for preaching Back-to-Basics, whilst half the cabinet were shagging their secretaries and the other half were taking back-handers. It is about time the likes of Chris Paul looked at the appalling state of New Labour and stopped being such total hypocrites.
And afaik, there is currently no indication that the securtity guard was the source of the story. Maybe Mr Paul would like to explain why he thinks otherwise.
Many years ago when I was a wee slip of a girl and Lady T reigned supreme, I managed the Customer Service Dept of a department store in London.
A customer, who had purchased a pair of size 12 sports shoes - against sales staff advice as he had size 13 feet - was disgruntled when we would not refund his money some weeks later. He complained about "comfort and wearing out at the toes".
He ranted down the phone "Don't you know who I am?"
To which I replied.
"Yes sir, you are xxxxx, Tory MP for xxxx, a Junior Government Minister at the Dept of xxxx. May I add as a party activist I find your tone offensive and detrimental to the party's image...."
That shut him up, and he sure as anything did n't get a refund!
Any Member of Parliament or member of the public entering Portcullis House or the Palace of Westminster can now be arrested, on a whim, by any police constable in uniform, now that these buildings have been Designated as Protected Sites under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
This came into effect on the 1st of June, and applies even to the formerly public areas like Committee rooms or Central Lobby etc.
Prosecutions require the consent of the Attorney General, and there is a defence of ignorance, which, even though it reverses the burden of proof, does make it hard to see how any prosecutions will succeed if there are no visible warning signs.
However, these days, simply being arrested is, of itself, quite a severe punishment, as it automatically now means DNA sampling, fingerprinting, photography etc. all retained indefinitely even if you are never charged or even if you are found not guilty.
See ParliamentProtest.org.uk blog for some photos of the warning signs, which are not yet in place at the Portcullis House public entrance, although there are some on the railings round the edges of the site.
The news from court is that he has won!
The Mail on Sunday has clearly got what it deserved for that awful piece of journalism.
He got his costs in full as well.
According to BBC Wales Jones has won himself £5000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6753947.stm
Post a Comment