Labour MP Brian Jenkins is a prat. And a bully. The Mail on Sunday reports that he has sent a letter to a constituent, Warren Clegg, threatening legal action over a letter Mr Clegg had sent him about the Gurkhas. Mr Clegg pointed out in a letter to the local paper in Tamworth that he hadn't had a reply. Mr Clegg is a student at Cambridge about to sit his finals. His father has just gone to serve in Afghanistan. Now Warren Clegg's mother has written to the Prime Minister to protest at this letter.
Doesn't this letter from Mr Jenkins tell you everything you need to know about him? Tamworth: Conservative Gain.
136 comments:
I notice this young mans mother does not address the issue as to whether this MP did or did not ignore her sons letters.
An Mp is entitled to be very pissed off at false allegations in the local paper.
Hurrah for heroes. They can lie about people. For they are soldiers and sacrosanct.
An MP with less of a complex would have said "Your letter was replied to, this is when, I have asked the paper to print this clarification".
An MP with such a complex really does not understand that "being out of touch" doesn't just refer to expense claims!
(Word verification for this is "belly", that can't be a coincidence, can it....? :))
The phrase "pompous ass" comes to mind.
This is disgusting letter. I agree with Liam that a simple 'Sorry you didn't get my reply' and sent him the reply. To threaten legal action against a constituent for merely expressing their own opinion is an outrage.
Brian Jenkins.... What a tool !
Brian Jenkins may be a prat, but what relevance is it that the bloke is a student about to sit his finals at Cambridge, and what relevance is it that his father has just gone to Afghanistan?
The legal 'action' won't amount to anything. It's a storm in a teacup, although kudos to you for attempting to sway those who think that the man should be trusted to tell the truth because he's a Cambridge student (obviously an upstanding member of his community, right?) and his father is serving in Afghanistan.
Crikey Iain, I thought I was reading the Daily Mail for a moment when reading your blogpost!
Am I the only one who thinks this is a fair response from the MP? Yes, he could have said "Sorry you didn't get my response", but if what he's saying about his records are true - that the two times he's received a letter from the guy, he's responded, and that he never received a letter about this issue - then why should he have to?
Yes, they're elected to serve us, but that's not the same as "elected to be our punch bags". I don't honestly see what he's done wrong here.
Also, the mother appears to be woefully missing the point.
I cant see anything wrong with an MP (of whatever party) taking issue with what he claims to be libelous allegations against him in the local paper.
If this Cambridge student has indeed written a letter which was unanswered then he should either back up his claims or he should apologise as requested.
Bleating on about his personal circumstances does not mean that he is entitled to get away with making unsubstantiated claims which are damaging to a persons character. If he was bright enough to get into Cambridge then surely he should realise this.
Bye bye to MP Jenkins. I've ranted on my little blog as well!!!
http://jess-the-dog.blogspot.com/2009/05/twat-of-year-labour-mp-brian-jenkins.html
Brian Jenkin - what a dickhead.
All he needed to do was say sorry you didn't get my reply/here it is - case closed.
What on Earth was he thinking of. The point of references to Afganistan/TA etc are clearly trying to prove that her son's concerns are very genuine.
I think Jenkins letter defines bullying.
What an utter fool this man is! David Cameron would have slammed a Tory MP who did something similar. Doubtless Gordon "Man of Jelly" Brown will prevaricate, dither and dally before deciding to put his head under the duvet and do nothing.
Brown is a liability to the Labour Party. When will he go? When will they realise he is potentially a very dangerous man, indeed?
That's News Sunday Morning Update: Some are of the opinion that Gordon Brown could yet become a very dangerous man, if he is allowed to by his colleagues. Only time will tell.
Fetler, the fact that he is a student is relevant as by his crass action the Clown MP might damage his chances of passing his finals.
the MP says it damaged his good name yet he voted for the Government and against the Gurkhas - what good name?
I write to my MP using "They work for you" website. The good point being I can have some evidence that I sent a Email. What I cannot prove is whether I got a reply. This leads me on to ONE of my hobby horses, that of the performance of MPs. There are gov targets for nearly everything, except the performance of MP. Not even something as basic as to the % of Emails replied to and in what timescale.
I hate Labour as much as the next man, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that response.
Sounds like he's got caught out with his pants around his ankles and is flailing. Surely even Cambridge students know you can't just brazenly libel people even if it is the local rag?
I would have thought a letter published in the local paper rebutting the allegations would have been sufficent. Threatening legal action seems a drastic over-reaction by an MP who is maybe feeling the pressure of the expenses issue. I do hope the local paper has or will print the MPs letter to the family in order that the local community can decide. It would be interesting to see how many other people in the MPs constituency have written to him and received replies, or not as the case maybe.
another one needing shaming.
The labour trougher Tom Levitt MP for High Peak tried to claim £16.50 on his expenses for a wreath he bought to lay on a war memorial.
Troughing immoral git.
I think the real issue is that the poor kid has been threatened in the first place, and that is pretty ridiculous. Yes, of course anyone has the right to legal recourse if they have been libelled, but in politics it doesn't exactly work like that, does it? I mean, does David Cameron instruct solicitors every time Brown claims that it's his policy to do nothing about whatever the latest issue is? Of course he doesn't, because that would be bloody stupid, but at least he's not looking for Cameron's vote, as this guy presumably is of his constituents.
Incidentally, this is another example of how the libel laws in this country seem designed to stifle free speech (specifically, in this case, that someone who alleges their letter had not received a reply is expected to prove that they sent it in the first place, which I should have thought would be impossible unless they'd sent it recorded and kept the receipt, which is hardly very likely in the case of a letter to one's MP). Remember the South Park episode about Scientology, banned from being broadcast in the UK because of threats of litigation from that totalitarian cabal calling themselves a church? Even the episode itself made fun of it - "I'm going to sue you in England," quoth cartoon Tom Cruise, and he could have.
It's a constant source of surprise to me that the erosion of free speech in this country thanks to our draconian libel laws receives only a fraction of the attention some of our other civil liberties have of late.
Anonymous said...
I notice this young mans mother does not address the issue as to whether this MP did or did not ignore her sons letters.
An Mp is entitled to be very pissed off at false allegations in the local paper.
May 24, 2009 10:16 AM
How about the MP writing to the said newspaper to refute the allegation. Sorry, that might be a bit too much bother - much easier to use taxpayers money to threaten legal action.
Oh, and Pete, surely the last thing we want is the government extending its culture of setting 'performance targets', least of all for MPs! Can you not imagine, even for one moment, the absolute minefield we'd be laying for ourselves if we gave the government the authority to regulate the conduct of Members of Parliament, and presumably also to impose sanctions against them? You'd have to be insane to make such a suggestion!
I agree with the general feel of many other comments - legal is a bit heavy handed, but understandable that the MP wants to take redress.
Whether or not this constituent was not responded to is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.
So Jenkins has replied? Then all he needed to do was send a copy of his reply to Mr Clegg and the local paper, recorded delivery, which would have been using at least one of his allowances in an appropriate manner. This action in itself would have been a positive for Mr Jenkins.
Jenkins is probably very pissed off at the exposure of his hypocracritical actions over the Gurkha affair, which would explain in part his inappropriate behaviour.
Are the Rapid Rebuttal Anyrats at 1016 going to check that a letter was sent? An email would establish the facts.
Three pompous asses in this imbroglio, methinks.
The prime minister is taking this matter very seriously and is in the process of setting up an independant committee to review this. Their report and recommendations should be ready by June 2010
What a prat.
He assumes that a jury will find for him in a libel trail over this? Any sensible lawyer will tell him to wise up
Oh well. The voters in the constituency will soon have their say. His majority is a tad over 2000 so he's toast anyway.
That said his ACA was one of the lowest so he's not a crook.
It might be deemed by some to be an over-reaction but it is 100% justifiable if the MP does indeed have the replies to which he refers.
It seems unlikely that a minimum of two letters from one person to another have gone astray, posted on separate occasions. Methinks that the student may have overstepped the mark rather more than the MP.
I went to Cambridge, BTW. Not that it is relevant but since this seems to be the topic du jour ...
Could'nt make it up, have a look, not content with defrauding the purse but he's using phantom firms and fake invoices, bye bye Devine.
a Sunday Herald investigation can reveal that there are serious doubts over whether Eastern Electrical Ltd has ever existed.
Fresh from the scandal of MPs billing the taxpayer for so-called "ghost mortgages" - where the public was meeting the cost of politicians' home loans that had already been paid off - this fresh invoice now raises the prospect of the country's elected representatives being reimbursed by the taxpayer for services provided by phantom firms.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2510018.0.scots_mp_claimed_2000_for_electrical_work_carried_out_by_phantom_firm.php
Brian Jenkins may have been within his rights to write such a letter - but perhaps not wise. I've always found it's far better in the long run to leave people such as this student a door through which to escape.
If the MP had written to the paper saying he hadn't received a Gurkha letter from this young man, but if the young man would write again he'd refund the postage and promise a reply within seven days, he would have come over as a decent and sensible bloke. Instead of a bit of a prat.
Very heavy handed. He should have wqritten to the Tamworth Herald himself to rebutt this. Threatening legal action over such trivial stuff suggests he is rather worried regarding keeping his seat. This will not help him. Bring back trial by combat or duelling.
Defenders of this MP are being truly pathetic
"Threatening legal action seems a drastic over-reaction by an MP who is maybe feeling the pressure of the expenses issue."
If so, isn't that rather like trying to deal with the fact that your sleeve is on fire by dousing yourself with gasoline and striking a match?
Seems to me that some Labour (and Tory) MPs have decided that the public who vote them in are an inconvenience who should be quashed or bullied into silence.
We'll see...
Where did the MP get Cleggs address from? Did the newspaper give/leak it and would that be OK? Or was it from the letter he never received?
I studied in Berkeley.
Jeffrey Arsehole studied in Oxford.
There seems to be a rush to judgement here (against whom depending on your politics). Jenkins claims to have received no Gurkha letter, Clegg claims to have sent one. On the information available so far, both could be telling the truth, or either could be lying.
That said, if Jenkins is telling the truth this is still a gross over-reaction and does look like bullying. All he needed to do was say to both Clegg and the press that he didn't get the letter, but if his constituent woud furnish him wth a copy he would deal with it.
Anon 11:15 AM
"My MP did not reply to me" is not a libel.
It is a statement of fact. One would have thought the MP would have had far better things ot do than string up negative PR for himself and his party, but, there you have it. He obviously didn't.
The Honourable member is a fool, the mother is a fool. They deserve each other
Brian Jenkins is clearly bullying. This is what the government do in general. The approach he has taken is just what is done to this country as a whole. Jenkins escalated this matter for no reason at all, his reaction although on a smaller scale is no different to Labour implementing a series of assaults on our civil liberties for all sorts of reasons. Some of those security reasons are questionable and unconvincing.
They no longer work for the people and this reaction is further proof of that. He should have just tried to convince him he was wrong rather than attack him. This is government policy towards everyone; guilty until proven innocent. Disgraceful. Time for them to go!
hang on a sec. The PM HIMSELF didn't want to help the Gurkhas, so why we would he incriminate himself by answering that letter? His government was totally complicit. I agree that the tone of the MP's letter was crass, though.
Some Mps have a death wish!
Is it possible to defame a Labour MP? Do they have a reputation or good name that could be damaged?
There is just the small issue of evidence of the missing letter. The student son claims that he has got a copy of it on his computer. So, why has this not also been published to support his claim?
I have sent emails which have not been received, and have had to be resent.
Proof of posting is not proof of delivery.
The answer to what's wrong with this picture is that a vital piece of the jig-saw is missing.
Is this a case of Iain Dale fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
This Labour MP is no doubt a horrible man, but if he did indeed reply to this young man's letters, I can see why has become annoyed.
In terms of the young man being about to take his 'finals', this is irrelevant. What is the MP supposed to do? Check everyone's schedules before he sends them a letter?
I'd just like to know the truth: were the student's letters replied to?
Jenkins’ response is symptomatic of the “shoot the messenger” mentality of our political classes. GLA member Brian Coleman made a speech last week blaming bloggers for driving voters into the arms of the BNP. Nothing to do with the troughing behaviour of our elected representatives, of course.
I see the first two replies (both anonymous) are from Mr Jenkins, himself.
The MP should have simply written to Mr Clegg, asking for a copy of the letter, so that he could reply both to Mr Clegg and to his constituents (via the newspaper).
The MP is, obviously, an accolyte of McNokia and likes to throw his weight around.
Mind you, he's unlikely to write to the paper and say "Yes, I voted against letting the Gurkhas settle in Britain", is he? Hence the smoke-and-mirrors deflection.
Anon 10:16 AM
Why don't you provide your name and address. Since you're accusing young Clegg of being a liar, shouldn't you back it up with a name and address so that he can exercise legal recourse if you are, in fact, slandering him?
Mmm.
A bit of an over-reaction, but what to do when children lie?
A while ago I was watching the singer Pink being interviewed on Ross. She said she had written to Prince William to protest about his rumoured killing of an african dik-dik.
She then told Ross she hadn't had a reply. As it happened, I was watching the programme with the person who had sent the reply from Clarence House. In fact, because of Pink's status they had faxed the reply to the hotel she was staying in.
So Clarence House and Prince William were bad mouthed on TV - with no redress.
This student is clearly under pressure, as are MPs. But who is worse, the over-reacting MP or the lying student?
Whether he replied to him or not is academic. What matters is that an MP is seeking legal advice purely because someone has dared to criticise him.
If the MP thought the criticism was unfair, he could have written a response in the newspaper explaining why.
If this MP feels he cannot be criticised, fairly or unfairly (which he plainly does), he should have the whip withdrawn and stand down immediately.
I thought I smelt a rat.
Bob Piper has done some detective work and exposes the not so innocent student after all!
Link hereIain do you not just feel a tad daft now?
I don't see that Labour MPs have a monopoly on treating their constituents with contempt, although Jenkins certainly sounds a bit of a master at it.
MacKay showed that a Tory could 'do contempt' very well, and in spades, recently - along with every other trougher, regardless of their political flavour.
You're not going to take many people with you whilst you preach, 'Tories good - Labour bad'. There are too many people fed up with this tired old rhetoric and these simplistic partisan politics.
People are also sick of one party bolstering its image by condemning the negative actions of its opponents.
I see a faint glimmer of hope in what Cameron said about parliamentary reform this morning, but how that translates into what happens at grassroots level is anyone's guess.
Things *have* to change, but I don't think that many people who could put this into operation realise how radical such changes have to be be.
There aren't many who really 'get it' yet - although Carswell is getting there.
yet more evidence that mp's believe themselves to be so much better than us 'little people'. This mouthy little worm of an MP needs his constituency taken away from him.
prat and that goes for anonymous muppetts at the top too..
why not let him know how you feel directly.... I am:) jenkinsb@parliament.uk
"Nigel Allery said...
Where did the MP get Cleggs address from? Did the newspaper give/leak it and would that be OK? Or was it from the letter he never received?
May 24, 2009 12:01 PM"
I know that some people like to create scandals out of thin air (even against deserving MPs) but this is just crazy...
Given that Jenkins says he has two letters from Clegg in his records he could have simply used those or searched the electoral register.
Very simple. No conspiracy. The truth is out there.
I agree with the first comment.
What the hell does the fact this guy is a cambridge student or father is a hero have anything to do with the fact he wrote complete b*llocks to his local newspaper in order to discredit his MP?!!
Weird post, Iain.
I'm amazed that some people are actually defended this bullying toad of an MP, but I suppose that even NuLabor trolls have to find something to do on a Sunday afternoon.
Not only is this MP an insane sociopathic bully, who seems to be following the litigious example of that other Labour MP Robert Maxwell, but I would like to know who is paying for the "legal advice" he claims to have sought. Anyone want to bet that he's not claiming for it against his expenses?
God, I hate scum like this. If Gurning Gordon does not call an election soon, so we can get rid of these monsters peacefully, then anything could happen.
I see Mr Piper has responded to a poster on his site.
What a rude and unpleasant man Mr Piper is.
I will not be visiting him again.
I disagree. I think the MP is right. Why should people be able to print lies about their MP? If Jenkins has answered the letters, then the little upstart deserves all he gets in my opinion.
In future when you wish to publicise circularised letters from the Tamworth Tories/CCHQ - please take the spell check off before displaying.
Ps you/Mrs Clegg appear to be the American spell check and could Master Clegg please use his Cambridge education and tell his mum how to spell Gurkha
Plato:
mr piper is nasty, like his party. I have told him so and I doubt he cares as any critical posts must be from Tories and hence people to be nasty to.
As for his comment about Polish immigrants being entitled to benefits while Gurkhas do not get a pension perhaps he could use his Cambridge education to look up the facts rather than peddling such garbage to his local paper. And why does he want to have a go at Polish immigrants?
This M.P letter is appauling, I live in Tamworth and have heard this to be a regular practice by the member of parliament and its quite simply wrong. Politicians should have broader shoulders thank that. I am sure the M.P has heard much worse said about him in the pub or at meetings so why bully people probably 3 times his junior?
How typical of Labour cowards and bullies to hide behind lawyers "legal redress" indeed.
Of course they're not the only ones, The Telegraph's owners seem to be doing the same thing (Dorries' blog) not to mention the Iraqi billionaire who cannot be named purging the web.
Jailhouselawyer tells us he smelt a rat, and who wouldn't, this sinister threat of legal action being, after all, such an eminently reasonable response to a critical letter in the local rag.
He says "Bob Piper has done some detective work and exposes the not so innocent student after all!"
It turns out that the diligent Mr Piper has discovered that this student is a Conservative supporter who once had his photo taken with David Cameron. And, er, that's it.
Perhaps people like Mr Lawyer could just confirm that supporting the Conservative party disqualifies a constituent from complaining about a constituency matter to the Labour MP who is supposed to represent them, regardless of party, and who is being paid to do precisely that.
"Anonymous said...
Ps you/Mrs Clegg appear to be the American spell check"
Is English your second language?
Since when is a person an "American spell check"? You need far more than a spell check, sonny.
Politicians always have to have thick skins and this guy is obviously very sensetive or very stupid , and possibly both.
Our local MP in Reading West (Martin Salter)gets much more than this on a regular basis . His skin seems to be thicker than a crocodile's!
This particular man is obviously a pratt and if he wants to sue me for that he can find me at Barrett court , Cardiff rd , Reading ,RG1 8ED. what a tosspot!
the MP is being a bully.
The normal civilized response is to rebut the accusation in the same publication - whilst requesting an apology.
What sort of moronic bully threatens legal action BEFORE doing anything else ?
No request to withdraw ? I wonder what libel law actually says about that ?
Mr Clegg said 'as usual my opinion (as one of his constituents) did not warrant an acknowledgement'
This implies (publicly) that Mr Jenkins does NOT reply to constituents by using the words 'as usual' . Well, of course this would damage his reputation. Just because there is a hostile atmosphere now towards MPs, surely they still have to right to defend themselves - Mr Jenkins was right in my opinion to respond in the way he did.
There an awfully large number of people willing to throw around the accusation of lying. It is perfectly possible that both sides are telling the truth.
I know it's open season on MPs and everything, but really, Jenkins is well within his rights to behave this way, although perhaps a little ill-advised to do so.
The only thing this does prove is that la famille Clegg can't get their story right between them:
The concerned parent writes:
"I am writing to complain about one of your MPs, Brian Jenkins, who has written a very threatening letter to my son simply because he dared to criticise Mr Jenkins' failure to support Ghurkhas in a vote in Parliament."
lol -- No, he didn't. He threatened legal action because the son was caught telling porkies.
Clegg was caught out. He needs to deal with the consequences.
"His majority is a tad over 2000 so he's toast anyway."
Does anyone else think that this is part of the reason why Jenkins has reacted like this? On the "may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" principle.
I.e. if his majority were 10,000 - 12,000, he might well think it touch and go whether he'll still be around the Commons this time next year, so every good bit of publicity counts.
Interesting, in view of the emerging overrepresentation of safe-seated MPs among the expenses miscreants, to note that marginality of seat can make an MP just as untouchable in an opposite sort of way.
I do hope that the staunch and upright Mr Jenkin intends to pay his legal bills out of his own pocket and not mine...
why is anyone defending this over reaction from an MP who will soon be just a footnote in electoral history? With a majority of 2,569 I would suggest that Jenkins learns that suing constituents is not the best way to convince them you should be taken seriously. Is he charging the costs to his expenses?
He should get in touch with Joanna Lumley. After five minutes with her, Brian Jenkins will end up retracting his threats of legal action and apologising on national television - all under the watchful eye of Lumley, of course.
Someone needs to remind Jenkins that you can't destroy someone's "good name" if they didn't have one in the first place. Twat.
Interesting that this blog seems to have gathered more comments than most of Iain's other blogs.
I wonder what that says about us or the subject?
So, Iain, "Labour MP Brian Jenkins is a prat and a bully" and you support the allegations made by Mr Clegg.
Given that:
a) Mr Clegg is an active member of Conservative Future (picture in this role with David Cameron last year)
b) Brian Jenkins claims not to have received a letter from Mr Clegg re Gurkhas
c) Brian Jenkins claims to have received, and replied to 2 letters from Mr Clegg about Gaza in the last year
d)Mr Clegg (as yet) has provided no proof he sent the letter
Do you start to feel someone is making you look like "a prat and a bully" with this article, and also someone who is getting into a lot of trouble for smearing political opponents in recent weeks?
Maybe Mr Clegg has the proof, maybe he doesn't, but it seems your article is based on a lot of assumptions of good faith on the part of Conservative activist Mr Clegg when he criticises the sitting Labour MP of Tamworth.
Thatsnews - there have been a number of cases in the past reported in Private Eye and elsewhere of Tory MPs threatening constituents - to my knowledge, no reprimand was given in those cases.
Probably it would be now!
That said, this is a great example of the worst kind of bullying by an MP against one of the constituents he is supposed to be working for.
I would propose that if he proceeds with this pathetically ignoble threat, we get up a defence fund and Iain continue to give every aspect of it maximum publicity.
Congratulations Iain on this article.
Ahh. So Mr Clegg is a member of Conservative Future. I think that puts a different light on this.
Still, in that case the MP could have just queried his political motivation in the letter, rather than resorting to threats. I think a lot of MPs must be frit at the moment!
Daisy: Is that the flower or the cow? In any event, you miss the point. Iain Dale who has a reputation for libelling Labour MPs and bullying other bloggers has put his foot in it.
Where is the missing original letter?
Duh!
If the young man's father is a serving soldier then in my and many other people's opinion he can complain about what ever he damn well likes!
This government sent our finest men and women off to die for a lie.
Every one of them should look in the mirror every day and see the faces of the dead and hear the cries of their families.
There should never have been a question about Ghurkas -no I can't spell it either -staying here they were willing to die for this country -willing to undergo hardship in the belief that they would be fairly treated. I don't care if the young man was a communist/Tory/Socialist or Jeddi Knight he was questioning a wrong.
Furthermore are some of these commentators so old that they have forgotten the rash idealism of youth?
Would not a little common sense, a little humour (does this government have one?) a little understanding might have helped a lot.
Even if the guy was being used (and suprise some young people can think for themselves if they have been lucky enough to have been educated) youth has ever been so.
For goodness sake lighten up -its not the young you need to worry about but we who have lived long enough to have been appalled by this war and the treatment of all service people.
Its the grey voters you need to worry about!
1. Over-reaction by the MP. A simple "your letter was not received" is the polite reply.
2. Methinks it's a co-incidence that the letter that wasn't received happened to claimed to have been sent by someone who's a Tory activist.
3. Does Mr Jenkins have "a Good Name" that can be damaged?
The MP is not "bullying".
In his letter he says he will take legal action unless either; Mr Clegg can prove his allegation, or withdraws it.
So why can't Mr Clegg simply furnish a copy of the letter he says he wrote? Brian Jenkins certainly claims to be able to furnish copies of the two replies he has written to Mr Clegg on another matter, which kind of knocks his calim of "as usual, my opinion did not warrant an acknowledgement".
If Mr Clegg's accusation is true, and the MP still threatens to sue - THEN you'd have a "bullying MP" story.
Otherwise, if the original allegation is neither substantiated or withdrawn, I hope that Brian Jenkins does sue Mr Clegg.
It would be intolerable if a constituent couldn't criticise an MP where they have been at fault, but people making accusations to the press should expect to be able to back them up or face the consequences.
iain, you got this wrong.
while the tone of the letter from the mp is not what we would expect, the content of the reply is sound.
if someone made an allegation against you which could reflect badly on your job, wouldn't you want to take action against the fallacious comments, especially if it's in a national newspaper? his constituents likely read the newspaper and could've gotten a wrong idea about him.
next time, imagine you were in his shoes and think how'd you feel! always works for me. :)
Perhaps the lefties defending Jenkins can turn their astute minds to building a defence for Andrew Burnham?
A Tory puts in a claim for a duck pond which is not paid. A labour MP puts in a claim to avoid paying CGT which the Fees Office bend the rules so he pays none.
Guess which has said he will not stand at the next election?
Who is it who claims he has a moral compass?
WV is exess.
So how is revealing himself to be a rude, pompous prat ingratiating himself with the electorate?
Why is he demanding copies of letters he said he has already replied to - presumably he has the letters already in his files?
The MP would have been far better advised to merely state he had received no communication about the Ghurkhas from his constituent, and would certainly have replied if he had (should that be the truth, of course).
I note he says his staff "pride themselves on providing a professional service....." - but he doesn't say he feels the same!
6:13pm - it is by no means clear he did send the letter.
Mr Clegg said he didn't.
Mr Jenkins said he didn't and that he had also replied to 2 previous letters Mr Clegg had sent him re Gaza.
At the moment, it is one person's word against anothers. Surely it is wise not to jump to conclusions as the article does.
Mr Clegg is a member of Conservative Future and an active political activist in the Tamworth constituency. There are (at least in my mind) potential questions as to his motivations and whether the letter was actually sent in the absence of any proof (especially as Mr Jenkins apparently replied to 2 previous letters from Mr Clegg - I doubt the Gaza issue was easy to reply to twice but the Ghurka issue was too difficult and so ignored by the MP).
Yes - the MP went hardball too early - legal threats seem heavy-handed. But he had been publicly libelled and it his right to ask for a public apology if his version of events is true. I'm sure Mr Dale would also take legal action were he libelled. But I'm completely sure that he would not be "a prat and bullying" to do so.
Besides, if Mr Clegg sent the letter, why did he not clarify that Mr Jenkins had received it before jumping to the local press. And why lie about the MP never replying to his letters?
Somebody else who has forgotten the relationship between MP and constituent.
Gordon still does nothing. Allows Cameron do show Labour up as the “do nothing” party...
Mr Piper found nothing of the kind.
Mr Piper might like to address the troughing of his fellow MPs, if he has so much time on his hands.
All those jibes over the years about the Conservatives being the nasty party.
I think Labour have stolen that accolade.
http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/news/way-Government-treats-brave-soldiers-change/article-496350-detail/article.html
Thats News:
Mr Piper found nothing of the kindMember of Tamworths Conservative Youth Team Warren Clegg meeting David CameronSeems like there is some grounds for suspicion that Warren Clegg is a member of Conservative Future then - unless the Tamworth Conservatives are misrepresenting his position, which seems rather unlikely.
And, by the way, Thats News, that's the 6th result on google for "warren clegg" + tamworth
I'd hazard a guess this took Mr Piper about 30 seconds to find out.
This looks like one small problem and 3 big pillocks to me; none any worse or better than the other.
Look, the point isn't whether the MP received a letter, or the constituent replied to it, or the constituent received the reply, or whatever - there are too many permutations, many of which could not be proven, for this to be a worthwhile issue to discuss. ~The real issue is whether it is proper for an MP to be issuing threats of legal action against a constituent over a 'libel' as innocuous as an allegation that his letter had not received a response.
Taking the most extreme possibilities on both sides, and ignoring the political viewpoints of both sides, may I ask those who have defended the MP, would you rather live in a society where an MP can sue a constituent who can't prove he's sent him a letter, or one in which an MP whose constituent falsely alleges not to have received a reply to a letter he never sent has no legal redress? My preference would strongly be for the latter, because of the pre-existing power disparity between the two parties; an MP has many more means for recourse than an ordinary constituent, and ought to realise that, morally, a threat of legal action against a constituent in such a trivial situation is unconscionable. Liberty requires the protection of the individual against bullying from the political class, and if members of that political class end up taking a few shots as a result, they should put up with it or choose another game to play in.
I would therefore suggest that this MP is morally unfit for his position.
Brian Jenkins said after the 2005 election: On his proudest achievement in parliament since 1997: "When people feel comfortable enough to stop me in the street and relate their concern, if I then can take action and help them remove their concern, then the job is worthwhile. Always remember politics is about people."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,9290,-2714,00.html
But Tory malcontents and Daily Mail readers need not apply ? ;-)
Unless Mr Jenkins decided to ignore the letter because it was from a Tory activist? Or perhaps the person who opened the mail realised who the letter was from a consigned it to file 13?
lordrosemount
Look, the point isn't whether the MP received a letter, or the constituent replied to it, or the constituent received the reply, or whateverIsn't it?
IF (and only if - this is a pure hypothetical and I am not forming a pre-judgement on whether Clegg did write a letter or not) Warren Clegg - who, remember, is a Conservative activist in Jenkins constituency- completely made up having sent a letter to Jenkins (as Jenkins seems to think), then this would make the letter Clegg wrote to the local press libellous and libellous for clearly politically motivated reasons.
So it clearly is about whether or not the letter was sent, unless you believe that Jenkins should let a libellous politically motivated smear by the local Conservative Party go unchallenged?
I seem to remember some people getting quite upset about the mere discussion of publishing libellous smears by some officials in the Labour Party. I thought that meant this was considered poor behaviour, no matter who does it.
And can straw-clutching commentators trying to suggest Jenkins received the letter but decided not to reply to it as it was from a Conservative activist (?!) explain why Jenkins replied to 2 previous letters from Clegg - on in January 2009 after Clegg alleges he sent the Gurkha letter?
Since when has a threat of legal action been the only way to challenge a false allegation, least of all one that took the form of a letter to a newspaper about another letter it was claimed was not received?
Frankly I find it unbelievable that anyone with a reasonable commitment to democracy and free speech could even think of defending the MP's conduct in this case.
lordrosemount
Since when has a threat of legal action been the only way to challenge a false allegation, least of all one that took the form of a letter to a newspaper about another letter it was claimed was not received?Since said alleged false allegation was made by a local Conservative Party activist, and if false likely to be a deliberate smear.
Imagine if this was a Conservative MP in a Conservative-held marginal being allegedly libelled by a Labour activist.
Labour activist writes to local press moaning that the local MP did not reply to a letter and never replies to letters, despite never having written a letter (not suggesting this is the case here - too early to judge)
Conservative MP asks for retraction of said allegation, noting a willigness to take legal action if it was not.
I rather suspect you would be:
1. Bemoaning Labour's 'culture of spin and smear' and saying it shows clear signs that "Draper-style smear and nastiness" inflitrates throughout "the new nasty party"
2. Supporting the rights of the MP to take legal action to challenge libellous allegations
Why do you think different rules apply in this case, and that it is unacceptable for Labour MPs (allegedly) smeared to seek withdrawal of said alleged smears or seek legal redress?
I seem to remember Conservative MPs threatening legal action against smears that were not (at least not by the author) published.
Were you criticising the people who were smeared in this case for making legal threats (even though the subject of the legal threat did not even publish the claims) or were you saying Frankly I find it unbelievable that anyone with a reasonable commitment to democracy and free speech could even think of defending the MP's conduct in this case.. What's the difference between the 2?
Or are you just a partisan hypocrite, making your judgements about what behaviour is acceptable based on whether the participants share your political viewpoints?
Look there are Labour MPs who can't even remember if they've finished paying their mortgage or not. Whose to say they don't lose constituents' letters.
Who do I belive, an MP or a voter? My money's on the voter.
11-21pm
"The voter".
You are a wag.
An issue nobody has mentioned - why has a 20-ish year old man got his mummy to wade into battle for him?
What an absolute bunch of losers everybody involved in this pathetic spat are.
It is a sad day indeed when tory activists are threatened simply for making up stories about their opponents. Has Jenkins no respect for tradition?
Of course in terms of Tory doublethink if the MP had not threatened legal action he would probably been accused of not challenging Clegg's allegations that he had not replied to his letters.
Of course if this example of the Conservative future feels he is being unduly bullied then ke can stand up for his principles and call the MPs bluff - or failining that he could get his mummy to right a cross letter for him.
I thought that MPs were supposed to care for their constituents regardless of their political affiliations.
This was hardly the way to persuade a young voter to change his views whereas a softly softly reaction might have won some respect and if, if, the chap had been trying to trap the MP into looking crass and bullying -it would have spiked his guns.
Don't these people have any common sense?
Don't they know how to handle people?
Can't they take a few sticks and stone?
If the answers are no then why are they in the job?
AS for the criticism of a mother rushing in -well mothers always do if they are worth the name mate its called natural instinct!
I'm thoroughly sick of people thinking they can be rude to MPs on the basis that they are MPs. Sure Jenkins overreacted but can you blame him given the stress they are all under right now? I bet he has had nothing but odiously rude emails and letters over the past week about expenses and finally snapped. To add to the sunday times' piece yesterday, I wonder how many good, hard-working MPs will quit on the basis that they're sick of having their names dragged through the mud by the generalisations of their constituents!!
I am a Conservative Councillor in Tamworth and when I caught out Brian Jenkins MP telling the council chamber mistruths - he said he was completely opposed to the Staffordshire ambulance merger, but he voted for it in the commons - I too received a similar letter threatening legal action unless I withdrew my comments- which were completely correct and backed up by his voting record. He also reported me to standards and they threw out his complaint and his appeal. He is an MP that will not be missed and thinks he can get anything he wants by pushing people around – I was just 23 when he wrote me those letters. I ignored them and he went away.
To be fair to the MP, he may have a point. Why should people be able to lie about their MPs' performance and discredit them in the media? If the letters exist and the constituent is right, let him produce them.
11-45am>
Why should people be able to lie about their MPs' performance and discredit them in the media?Indeed. Why should Conservative activists be able to (allegedly) make things up, get upset about being called up on it, and cry to the media without mention of the inconvenient fact that they are a Conservative activist.
What is the world coming to when a poor innocent Conservative activist can't smear a Labour MP without these obsessed left-wingers getting upset about the libel?
Libel Schmibel.
I think some people commenting on this are missing the point. We live in a democracy and the MP should of used more diplomatic means to reason before becoming aggressive and attempting 'legal redress'. As mentioned above the MP should of used the medium in which the topic was originally addressed - the local paper - I am then sure the student would of responded and and provided the required evidence; a copy of the letter as proof of postage is neigh impossible.
The MP's a s**t and a fool of the first water. His heavy-handed reaction tells us all we need to know about his party's knee-jerk attitude to free speech it doesn't like: it will happily use money and power to crush it, rather than lift a finger in rational response.
IanW
The MP's a s**t and a fool of the first water. His heavy-handed reaction tells us all we need to know about his party's knee-jerk attitude to free speech it doesn't likeIanW - so you believe that asking someone to retract an (allegedly) libellous allegation that has obvious potential to cause damage is a supression of free speech?! Not only that, it wasn't an alleged libel by an ordinary voter- it was an alleged political smear by an active Conservative activist and member of Conservative Future who has dishonestly pretended not to be throughout this.
Do you think it is ok to libel someone with impunity? Or is that only the case when the person being libelled does not share your political views?
Do you not think suing for libel is a tad OTT. Why didnt he write to the paper?
Iain,
Do you not think suing for libel is a tad OTT. Why didnt he write to the paper?But he's not suing for libel is he?
He has offered Mr Clegg the chance to publicly retract the allegations and apologise if they are false.
Only if he fails to do this and continues with the libel will legal action be taken.
Isn't the private correspondence approach that Mr Jenkins has engaged in a reasonable path?
I don't remember you taking this attitude about people publicly threatening libel regarding the unpublished (by Labour at least) Draper/McBride smears. Maybe there's a difference - though I suspect that a libel case would be more successful if Mr Jenkin's version of events is true.
One more thing - why did you fail to mention that Mr Clegg was a Conservative activist and member of Conservative Future in the article? Maybe you didn't know (as I know you are an honest and honourable man), but maybe it would be wise to update the story given the emergence of these facts.
Surely you must see that there is at least grounds for doubt of Mr Cleggs story given his affiliation to the local and national Conservative party, and it would surely be wise to hold off when calling Mr Jenkins "a prat" and "bullying" until the full facts emerge.
Given that any M.P. can make ANY allegation in Parliament without consequence really ought to concentrate Mr. Jenkins' mind on the over-reaction.
If the kid didn't receive a letter, then he didn't receive a letter. But what is libellous about pointing out that the M.P. voted one way and made public statements to give the opposite impression ?
It will be interesting to see if the other three reply to the boy's mother.
I once wrote to Mr. Blair having heard him live make a statement and pointed out that, as Prime Minister and being interviewed as such, it wasn't a statement that he should make or a subject he should comment on as Prime Minister. I DID get a reply - from a party apparatchic - which enclosed a transcript of the programme showing that he didn't say what myself and several aquaintances actually heard him say.
So she shouldn't expect much.
@gongdonkey
If this activist/MP swapped political allegiences I'm quite sure you wouldn't be so relaxed about libel.
But what is libellous about pointing out that the M.P. voted one way and made public statements to give the opposite impression?Nothing. And that is a fair point for Conservative Activists looking to unseat their local MP to make.
However, this isn't the only thing that was said and not what the MP is looking for a retraction and public apology for is it?
What is libellous is (not suggesting this is the case - at the moment it is the word of a Labour MP versus a Conservative Activist who dishonestly hid this fact when complaining):
a) Claiming they had written to an MP when they hadn't
b) Claiming an MP didn't reply when they didn't even receive the letter
c) Claiming they never receive a reply to correspondence from the MP when the MP had in actual fact replied to 2 of their previous letters
What if the Conservative Activist Mr Clegg is found, in addition to dishonestly hiding their role as a local Conservative activist, to have lied about having written to Mr Jenkins and lied about never having received replies to letters when the facts emerge?
Will your opinions change?
What about Conservative MPs threatening legal action against Labour smears? Will you be bemoaning their actions? Or basking in the glow of your hypocrisy?
one wonders who paid for the "legal advice"
Anonymous - there's nothing hypocritical I can see in my stance (especially as I'm not a supporter of any political party). Same goes for any M.P. of any party persuasion. It just isn't on.
Threatening with Messrs Sue, Grabbitt & Runne is a favourite stance of many a bully especially alongside a timescale which leaves little leeway to respond.
True hypocracy is having the benefit of Parliamentary privilege to speak freely regardless of accuracy and then using threats of legal action to deny it to others. It was a simple exercise to clear up any misunderstandings without legal recourse.
No-one should run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
He never written to the MP about Gaza nor did he receive replies on Gaza.
"Very pissed off at false allegations in the local newspaper"?
Anonymous you are either an idiot or an MP if you think a complaint to the paper about a local MP justifies legal threats of this kind.
I don't think MPs should ever threaten to sue their constituents unless accused of serious criminality or immorality. Not answering a letter is neither.
It is usual to start legal actions with a conciliatory approach, request for a correction and an apology.
The information that the writer is a student sitting finals is relevant, just as it would be if he was a timid old lady, a chronic depressive or whatever. If you fire off letters intended to frighten people whom you don't know, you may well do more harm than you intend.
He never written to the MP about Gaza nor did he receive replies on Gaza.Well, that's what Mr Clegg claims anonymous.
Though what I can't get my head around, if this version of events is true, is why Mr Jenkins would mention that his office records show he responded to 2 previous letters in PRIVATE correspondence. Surely you see that is somewhat far-fetched? Why would Mr Jenkins do this? In anticipation of the letter being leaked? I doubt that.
This is at the moment entirely about the word of Conservative Activist Mr Clegg versus the word of Labour MP Mr Jenkins. As Mr Clegg chose to go to the press without making the important fact he was a Conservative Activist clear to try and make as much political capital out of this as he could, and seems to be telling a far-fetched tale that he has never written or received a reply re Gaza, I think that Mr Jenkins version of events rings truer at the moment. But we don't know yet.
I hope the facts emerge soon and all who've reported on this will publicly retract things they have said if they are wrong.
Anonymous you are either an idiot or an MP if you think a complaint to the paper about a local MP justifies legal threats of this kind.* MP allegedly gets libelled.
* MP asks for public retraction and apology for alleged libel
* MP notes that legal action will follow if there is no retraction of alleged libel
This is not a letter from lawyers is it? So not a particularly scary legal threat is it? All he needs to do is retract any false claims.
I'm sure CCHQ and the Conservative Party will stand behind him if he wants to contest.
Do you think that MP's should allow activists from other parties looking to unseat them publicly libel them with impunity?
It is usual to start legal actions with a conciliatory approach, request for a correction and an apology.Did you read the letter? That's exactly what the MP did.
The information that the writer is a student sitting finals is relevantYes, because all students sitting their finals are allowed to libel people with impunity aren't they? I forgot that important part of libel law. Thanks for correcting me.
And the fact they are a member of Conservative Future and a Conservative activist is not hey?
If they didn't want any hassle they should not have allegedly made things up to smear their MP.
Dear Anonymous,
What planet do you come from? Your contributions do not help the "Let's Love Jenkins and See His Side of the Story" movement. But yes, they will get this incident talked about. Are you absolutely sure that is what you want?
Dear Shame Again
What planet do you come from?
Let's look at the facts of the story:
* A Conservative activist writes to the local paper (without letting readers know he is a Conservative activist) complaining that he wrote to Labour MP, didn't get a reply, and never gets replies, and also making a few party political points
* Labour MP writes private letter to Conservative activist, saying that a) he did not receive a letter re Ghurkas; b) he has previously replied to 2 letters from the Conservative activist re Gaza; and c) if the Conservative activist does not retract statement and publicly apologise, he can expect legal action to be taken
* Conservative activist cries off to the papers - again, not making the role he plays for the Conservative Party apparent
Surely you can see this is the word of a Conservative activist (who likes to hide this fact when talking to the media) against the word of a Labour MP and his office staff.
Wise to wait for facts to emerge before calling the MP a "prat" or a "bully" surely?
To me this could quite plausibly be reported as "Libelled MP asks for apology over Conservative 'dirty tricks' campaign" if you wanted to spin it another way with the facts we have.
Why is the article not making clear that Mr Clegg is a Conservative Activist? Surely it is a highly relevant fact?
It is well recived in Tamworth that Warren Clegg is Conservative; furthermore, if you search the Herald website all the stories Clegg has written are concerning military matters or Anti-Labour.
The Mail on Sunday must of had a copy of the original article which implies that he doesn't agree with Labour. Thus they must of chosen to omit the fact.
If you look further up to Cllr Pritchard's post he claims Jenkins tried the same bullying tactics on him.
So there is evidence out there that the aforementioned MP has used totalitarian tactics to intimidate the younger generations on several occasions. It is possible that he has tried it before but they didn't speak out.
Concerning political opinions of constituents - you should reply to all constituents.
In my own view it is irrelevant what has happened.. I do feel that MPs should not threaten the people they represent as this undermines democracy and free speech.
It is well recived in Tamworth that Warren Clegg is ConservativeIs it? What are you basing this on? Is he a local Tamworth celebrity?
And anyway, it's not knowledge to Mail on Sunday readers, nor to readers of Iain Dale's blog.
The fact Mr Clegg is a Conservative activist should discount the spin being placed on this that "a poor innocent student is being bullied".
It would also give additional grounds to suspect whether Mr Clegg is being truthful in all of this - after all, he has a clear motive to smear Mr Jenkin's name in the local press.
If you look further up to Cllr Pritchard's post he claims Jenkins tried the same bullying tactics on him.I can't comment on the truth of what he says. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong.
So there is evidence out there that the aforementioned MP has used totalitarian tactics to intimidate the younger generations on several occasionsEvidence = Cllr Pritchard says? And two elected politicians arguing is a bit different now isn't it?
Concerning political opinions of constituents - you should reply to all constituentsMr Jenkins says he replied to the 2 previous letters Mr Clegg sent him, and that he had received no correspondence re Ghurkas. Mr Clegg says he didn't (and denies writing the 2 aforementioned letters). The truth is not yet clear.
The only evidence is Mr Clegg said he wrote a letter which was ignored and that this was a regularly occurence on the one side, and Mr Jenkins is willing to go to court to fight this allegations if they are not withdrawn on the other
I do feel that MPs should not threaten the people they represent as this undermines democracy and free speech.This wasn't a heavy-handed lawyers letter was it? It was private correspondence asking for an apology to be made and the statements Mr Clegg made to be retracted, noting that if Mr Clegg refused to retract libellous statements, he can expect the law that prevents people being libelled to be utilised by Mr Jenkins. Do you disagree with libel law? Or only its use by people whose political viewpoints you disagree with?
A lot of anonymous contributors out there... I can't imagine who they might be. Its simple: MPs should not threaten constituents over such ridiculous matters. A more measured response would show some tact and gravitas. If you fell strongly, vote him out, that's the answer which given his thin majority looks a dead certainty... That removes him from a position where he can bully and then he will begin to understand the more immediate concerns we all face today.
MPs should not threaten constituents over such ridiculous mattersOr - as you are in effect saying:
Conservative activists should be able to smear and libel their opponents with impunity.
Your argument is weak, hence why you attack the person making it.
The world is full of indignant anonymous comment.
OK here we go...
I said:"MPs should not threaten constituents over such ridiculous matters".
Anon said: "Or - as you are in effect saying:
Conservative activists should be able to smear and libel their opponents with impunity.
Your argument is weak, hence why you attack the person making it."
My point is simple, he should be more robust, not so faint hearted. Take it on the chin and rise above if it is not true, dismiss it. Not issue threatening letters but be more engaging. He has made it a story by being so aggressive. No one really cares about a soon to be ex MP in a marginal they have never heard of. And that would have remained the case if he had been more restrained in his response and avoided the temptation to get legal-no doubt advised by some mediocre solicitor in a very small firm. Did you advise him? Perhaps you are him, we shall never know Anon.
Anon said: "Your argument is weak, hence why you attack the person making it."
It would appear his response has been disastrous. He made it into a national with a big headline and has evoked much criticism in both the printed press and online. My argument was spot on and has has been proved. If it appeared that I was attacking the man I apologise, I am sure he 'means well'. I was attacking his stupidity.
Why are you so keen on using mercenaries from impoverished countries to fight 21st century wars for us?
Of course Jenkins isn't concerned about the substance of the letter - his hypocrisy with respect to the Gurkhas and to the post offices - hardly surprising as he doesn't have a leg to stand on there.
Oh no, it's the shocking "MP fails to answer letter" accusation which sends him OTT.
Well his smokescreen has (if one can) backfired!
Oh no, it's the shocking "MP fails to answer letter" accusation which sends him OTT.Isn't that damaging?
MP repeatedly doesn't answer questions from constituents.
Combined with other smears from Conservative Party members (yes, you Mr Pritchard) in Tamworth (as exposed by Unity on Liberal Conspiracy
here and hereit is something worth fighting. I'm sure Mr Jenkins wants a public apology and retraction rather than a court case.
I'm smearing??? I am a public face who is contactable and known - not "Anonymous" like you "Anonymous".
I have the letters from Jenkins saying he will sue me unless I retract my comments when I caught him out for being less than truthful to a chamber full of councillors, press & public. And as he didn’t sue me, despite repeated letters, so I must be correct.
– Anyway surely it is Jenkins who is smearing his own name by being so foolish or bloody-minded (take your pick – either works for me)
It’s easy to say what you like on a blog – but not so when you make your identity known…
…because you have to factual!
And as he didn’t sue me, despite repeated letters, so I must be correct.Or not worth suing.
The facts are there in the links and speak for themselves.
Post a Comment