On Monday afternoon, I attended a hustings at my college, with Julian Lewis, incumbent Tory for New Forest East. Shortly thereafter, I tweeted that I had “just spent an hour listening to the scaremongering of a corrupt, paranoid homophobe“ – not the first time I have declared him to be such, after I first met him in the spring of 2009, just before the expenses scandal went public. Since I published this tweet, I have been contacted by several bloggers, journalists, and reporters asking for details on just what was said.
In response to the first enquiry, from Left Foot Forward, I outlined the event as I recalled it bearing in mind I did not take notes, as I was not expecting anything to come of the encounter. Whilst the statement contains paraphrasing due to lack of notes, it was written only shortly after the event, and is as accurate as can be expected, and almost any omitted details weren’t relevant to the points discussed, or relevant enough for me to remember them. As such, I disagree with Julian Lewis’ claim that what I have said was “both incomplete and inaccurate”. Although there was one thing I neglected to mention – that he said his vote against civil adoption was about the child’s rights not those of the civil partners’ (as if somehow a homosexual family is detrimental to a child’s welfare?).
In my statement, I mention that he compares the risks of homosexual sex to fighting in the armed services. A point he clarifies and confirms (so much for inaccurate?) in a response to pinknews – “When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-old into front-line situations in the Armed Forces, for example.”
To this I repeat the question asked of him at the hustings, and I invite Julian Lewis to point to scientific evidence proving that homosexual sex involves a level of risk so much greater than that of heterosexual sex, that a higher age limit should apply.
Below is a copy of the statement as sent to the Lymington Times
Brockenhurst College, on Monday, where this week all the New Forest East candidates are coming in for a Q&A session separately.
firstly, in his “presentation” on defence, he was talking about how it’s ridiculous to vote lib dem because they want to fully scrap trident and all deterrents, to which i corrected him as it’s non like-for-like replacement. he kept insisting that if we don’t have nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk, and that the liberal idea of disarmament is ridiculous. He said exclusively using cruise missiles would lead to world war 3 due to other countries believing them to be nuclear warheads when they were not.
Then, in the Q&A session, he would constantly drift off topic into areas he’d pre-prepared, such as how voting lib dem results in another 5 years of brown. how there’s only two real choices – LAB and CON. He said that coalition governments never work, pointing to 1960s Germany, and that the party in 3rd place percentage wise shouldn’t have such a large say (despite our current system still allowing those in 3rd to have more seats, as seen when the recent poll with the LD on 33% is calculated)
Questioned on his gay rights votes, he continued his claims that homosexuality/anal sex alone poses risk of HIV/AIDS, and that is why he still opposes gay sex at 16. Someone put it to him that it is no more dangerous than any sexual activity, to which he insisted on proof, but when asked to do the same – over 10 years after he already made up his mind, he said he didn’t have figures and it would have to be a project to find them. He then made a comparison that gay sex is as big a health risk as being a soldier, and that they don’t let people fight in the army until the age of majority, so why should gay sex be allowed at 16 if fighting in a war isn’t. He also said “I know it’s cliché, but… some of my best friends are gay”
When it came to expenses, and his votes against transparency and reform, he quickly spun it to suggest his private members bill that prevents the publication of MPs Addresses from FOI Requests was a good thing, and that “in this state of heightened terror” it was unacceptable to have 646 insecure addresses available to the public. He then said that the publication of his expenses (including £119 for a trouser press that he explained at the time of the scandal as needed “otherwise [he'd] be up all night ironing”, and an attempt to claim £6000 for a floor), was purely because the reporter from the telegraph had a personal vendetta against him, as the journalist had been opposing the MPs Addresses legislation Julian Lewis pushed through.
He also expressed support for the Whips Office as it presently works.
Anticipating contact from Julian Lewis’ office himself regarding the matter, I would like to say that every part of my original tweet holds true. At the hustings he was scaremongering by suggesting the only choice was Vote Tory, otherwise it’s 5 more years of Brown, as well as the claims that nuclear disarmament would potentially lead to war. He is corrupt by any standard definition, as evident through his expenses claims and opposition to increased expenses scrutiny, as well as voting against reforming Parliament to be more democratic. He is paranoid, as he claims anti-FOI legislation is a good thing due to ridiculous claims of risk of terrorism, something I’d more often expect to hear from New Labour, and strongly fought against the publication of his ‘home’ (whether it be his first home, second, or his Southampton flat) address, and he is evidently homophobic, voting against gay rights on numerous occasions, justified by shocking unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, I wonder if he’ll put forward a bill in the next parliament to increase the age of consent for sexual intercourse among the black population, given claims that they are also more likely to pass on HIV? Or would racism be one step too far for this out-of-touch politician?
