So I write a letter to my MP...

[SiM]

Remember guys this is publicly viewable, no registration required... and its quite high up in a google search, so don't write what you don't want him or his supporters to see

[TAKTAK]

Someone should update this page

I would, but I don't know how to make a new sub section...

i was actually in the process of doing it earlier......... but then i had to go out

edit: im doing it now.........
need to make it non biased though

edit2: i'm rubbish at this ..... my attempt is done (badly)

[mycarsavw]

G4Z, just got round to replying here - you know my views already

If you haven't already, one outlet who would be very interested is Private Eye - http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pages.php?page=contact&

[G4Z]

Well I had listen and yet again he went on about how 'abusive' my letter was and dodged the issues. I will listen again and type upa full transcript so that I can really pull him to bits. I have to work tomorrow so I might just call up radio Newcastle and see if I can get a spot on Monday morning.

[G4Z]

Here is the transcript, bit rough around the edges but you get the gist.

When your in office should you always rise above rude comment or should you in the case of Tyne bridge MP David Vlelland fight back when replying from abusive letter from a constituent

Ron Beadle : Well its a great pity isn't it that he ended the letter the way he did, it seemed to me from what I have heard that the main body of the letter was find but the last sentence... which goes into another area really. Its taste its vulgar and it probably in a sense pleased the letter writer
that his own comments had drawn blood.

Mike Parr : Good morning

David Clelland : good morning

Mike Parr : I think a lot of people are quite taken aback by this?

David Clelland : Are they really? Well I have had emails and letters in both directions. Let me just point something out to you, I don't like being talked down to and I am sure you don't either Mike
and when someone acuses me of stupidity, having no concience, not representing my constituents and having no principals, blindly voting with the party and not thinking for myself I do get a bit techy. But you know we have to put up with these things
My constituent made 2 substantive points, I dunno if you have seen the letter or if many people have. 1, he objected to the fact that I supported giving the police extra powers to detain suspects this is the 42 day thing. Well I think on that I am
in touch with my electors nad he is not, I think most of my electors would support that. The second point he made that he opposed to the clauses in teh criminal justice bill, he opposes the clauses dealing withe xtreme pornography.
he said that he thought these were wrong a breech of freedom etc etc. these are clauses which are not intended to ban the sort of thing you get off the top shelf in the newsagents or even the adult channels
late night on television but extreme pornography, violent pornography including indeed child pornography and paedophilia. Well again most of my constituents would agree that it should be outlawed I think I am in touch with them and he is not. If he had left it at that I would
have just wrote to him and told him what my views were and how I thought we differed. However your commentary there from the previous caller talked about teh last sentence and I am afraid the sting was in the tail of his letter too.
Because in a very sort of chest prodding manner he told me that he was gonna keep an eye on my voting record and unless I sort of shape up and start voting according to his views I could kiss his vote goodbye
Well I am afraid that is when the geordie came out in me and I told him what he could do with his vote.

Mike Parr : But David, I get that all the time you see in fairness, I mean you know sort of in the public gaze as well and people will often say look, you know, I dont agree with what you say I am gonna be keeping a close eyeon you and if your ratings don't improve, if you don't get your act together I am not gonna listen any more and I have to rise above it

David Clelland : yes, on the radio of course you could as I would but this is a letter between me and him and he was the one who decided to release the correspondence to the media and the press not me

Mike Parr : Do you get a lot of offensive correspondence?

David Clelland : Oh yes you do, and I dont make a habbit of answering in this way, but I thought it was particularly offensive the views he put across about teh 2 issues he raised and despite the fact he was keep telling me
I am out of touch with the electorate I think on those 2 issues in particular I am in touch with the electorate. But there was just this sort of threat that somehow his was gonna go else where, well it can go else where, if he
thinks there is someone gonna stand for election on those two issues supporting his views and they are gonna get elected, well fine. Why doesn't he do it himself?

Mike Parr : When you wrote this letter back, did you expect it to appear in the press?

David Clelland : Well, not normally, but if it does it does, it was his decision not mine

Mike Parr : Did it shock you and upset you when it did turn up in the paper

David Clelland : Not particularly, I am quite willing to defend my corner

Mike Parr : We got Ron Beadle here who is Liberal Democrat councillor in gateshead who I think wants to have a word

Ron Beadle : David, im gonna surprise you I think your absolutely right

David Clelland : Thank you very much

Ron Beadle : and I don't think it will damage you at all, I think politics lacks people who actualy say what they think. The suspicion about all of us just following the party line and we're not just targets people can
attack all the time who will never respond so I disagree with your 42 days as you would expect but in terms of your response it was honest and blunt and good on you.

David Clelland : Well I appreciate that thank you

Mike Parr : We need a bit more of this do we?

Ron Beadle : yes I think so, I think one of the real suspicions people have about politicians is that they are lying all the time and that I think David clearly on this issue is not and anything that does that is refreshing
people should say what they think.


Mike Parr : David good to talk to you

David Clelland : Thank you Mike

So, what do you all reckon?

I really fancy responding to that on the radio...

[dave87]

Not quite the political dynamite some were making it out to be, however I'm sure he'd be on the back foot in any reasoned debate.

[schmunk]

TAKTAK, your spelling is not so good. Also, MPs and Cllrs are different. Finally, it's clear from G4Z's transcript that Mr Clelland does not make any substantive accusation of G4Z being pro-child pornography.

I've fixed the wiki for you

[G4Z]

No but he implies that I am against a bill banning child pornography.

As far as I am ware that bill has nothing to do with CP, and its illegal anyway so why on earth would he mention it if not to tag me with the label?

[G4Z]

Relevant clauses in that bill here : http://www.publications.parliament.u...6-51.html#j400

Can't see any mention of child pornography...

[schmunk]

Having finally read page one of this thread from home, rather than at work where I can't see the scan of David Clelland's letter, I now struggle to see what all the fuss is about. I would have written a similarly annoyed letter if confronted by a Daily Mail style rant attacking me personally. Other than the final sentence, which in itself is hardly shocking, the letter is a well-written defense of a very reasonable position, and I would argue that it shows less arrogance than the letter to which it replied.

[schmunk]

Relevant clauses in that bill here : http://www.publications.parliament.u...6-51.html#j400

Can't see any mention of child pornography...

You have him there - child pornography's already illegal - e.g. http://www.publications.parliament.u...06067.i-i.html.

I'm not sure what the real fuss is about the 'possession of extreme pornographic images' legislation anyway. If you read the description of what constitutes an 'extreme' image:

(6)
An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a)
falls within subsection (7), and

(b)
is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a)
an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b)
an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c)
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d)
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),


and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

It doesn't cover anything that a reasonable person would want to possess.

[G4Z]

That is not entirely the case, there are people out there who like to have people whip them and stamp on their balls and all manner of things. As far as I am concerned people should be free to do and view whatever they want so long as its all consensual.

under this legislation possessing any of that will get you in bother.

[schmunk]

That is not entirely the case, there are people out there who like to have people whip them and stamp on their balls and all manner of things. As far as I am concerned people should be free to do and view whatever they want so long as its all consensual.

under this legislation possessing any of that will get you in bother.

Simple solution - less viewing, more doing.

[G4Z]

yeah, and if you want to take a picture of said doing for posterity that makes you what... a criminal?

[directhex]

the letter is a well-written defense of a very reasonable position

which part of labour policy for the past five years or so is reasonable?

[Saracen]

.....

It doesn't cover anything that a reasonable person would want to possess.

Well, the problem is in interpretation.

For a start, as has been pointed out, there's nothing in there in relation to child porn .... the creators, purveyors and customers of which could be condemned to the deepest circles of hell for all I care. So it appears that Mr Clelland is either mischaracterising the legislation for sensationalist purposes, or doesn't understand the legislation he's voting on. I'm not sure which is worse. Where's the relevance in that to child porn?

But secondly, so much in that legislation is wide open to interpretation, and the risk is that the courts won't interpret it as the legislators intend.

For instance, s6(2) requires it to be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

In whose judgement? And by what standards? Who decides .... a porn producer or a modern day Mary Whitehouse? A liberal '60s free-love advocate or a puritanical clergyman? Each of those are likely to have a very different standard about what is either grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene.

Then, there's the sense of what s.7 means when it says ".... portrays, in an explicit and realistic way ..."

Okay, so if it "portrays" in a "realistic way" a given image, then it's clear that it does not refer to just photographs of actual acts that might fit the given criteria, but ones that simply portray it in a realistic way. It could all be mere play-acting. And if so, is it wrong?

Suppose, for example, that in this day and age of gritty, realistic film making, a Hollywood producer makes a film of the style of Silence of the Lambs, but instead of it being about a serial killer, it's about a sexual predator. Would possession of a copy of that film be covered by the quoted sections of this act? It looks like it to me.

But then, para 2 requires that the image be both "extreme" and "pornographic". Again, it begs the question, who defines "pornography"? A Mary Whitehouse fan?

I have no interest, personally, in what would by my definitions be extreme pornograhy. It's ... well, sick. But .... that doesn't mean I like the notion that our elected representatives are passing legislation that could, depending entirely on subjective interpretations of very vague phrases, be used to criminalise me for possessing a mainstream Hollywood movie, just because it offends the puritanical streak of whoever is entrusted with interpreting loose legislative phraseology.

If this legislation was about images that DID involve serious physical harm, that might be different ....though perhaps very hard to prove. But by opening it up to things that merely portray it, the scope widens. Perhaps Silence of the Lambs should be banned too .... after all, it entails some pretty explicit imagery that appear to involve serious physical injury.

All of which, in my view, means that the average person in the street is quite entitled to be concerned at where our representatives are drawing the lines about what, as adults, we can or can't watch or possess without being criminalised.

G4Z raised the issues of whips. Personally, that does nothing at all for me, and anyone trying to use one on me better be prepared for me to use "reasonable force" to defend myself. But if other like playing with whips, and many do, it's not my job, or that of MPs, to say that they can't, or that they can't photograph themselves doing it.

There are, I'm given to understand, people that indulge in auto-asphyxiation as a way of heightening .... erm ... pleasure. Suppose I was into that (and I'm NOT, before anyone says it), and set up a photographic set that appears to show that. It might be 100% safe, it might involve zero danger to anyone and it might be a picture taken of myself or my partner for our own private purposes, but it portrays, in a realistic way, an act that threatens a person's life.

It harmed nobody. It could have harmed nobody. It was a private picture. Yet, by the look of that legislation, it criminalises me. And it could potentially send me to jail for several years.


Finally, I have one point to make. The Criminal Justice Bill in which the extreme pornography sections appear does, indeed, ALSO contain clauses on child pornography. But, Mr Clelland, they're different sections.

The letter from your constituent referred specifically to to the potential criminalising of large numbers of people over the extreme pornography sections. It did NOT either object to the Bill as a whole, or to the child porn provisions.

So perhaps, instead of getting on your high horse and then misrepresenting the complaint on the radio (if the draft transcript provided in this thread is accurate), you ought to properly read the actual issues.

As I said at the start, you can condemn child pornographers to eternal damnation and you'll get my support in doing it. That does NOT give you carte blanche to be a self-appointed moral guardian of what the rest of us do or don't get kicks from. If it involves consenting adults, and if it does not involve serious injury but just involves a depiction of something, then it's none of your business what we all do in our bedrooms.

I have no interest in anything I could perceive being classified as extreme pornography by that Bill, but it's just one more place where our freedoms and rights are being nibbled away at.

If you want legislation of this type, it ought to be framed as tightly as possible to achieve what it needs to achieve to protect people, and not in a vague and catch-all way as those provisions are.


Just for clarity, I'll repeat here the section of the letter to Clelland that raised these issues, with a bit of bold emphasis added by me.

Also just a note on that extreme pornography law, I want to say that is one of the worst bits of legislation I have ever heard of and if you voted for it, you voted for making millions of normal law abiding people criminals. In my opinion if any law makes a substantial chunk of the population criminals overnight then it is a bad law, after all how do you describe 'extreme' how do you define what constitutes 'damage to genitals' so if somebody videos a genital piercing they are now liable to be prosecuted? Not saying any of this is my bag, I don't have anything to fear from this law but I just do not understand why anybody should have the right to prohibit consensual sexual behaviour at all,
least of all a bunch of old puritans in parliament.

G4Z seems to be saying exactly the same thing as I am. It's not that he's into extreme porn. It's that he thinks this is very bad law. And for much the same reasons. And yet, when he writes to his MP to express (albeit in rather emotive terms that I wouldn't have used) his representative's response is not to address the points raised, but to throw a huff that his constituent could possibly have a view without having been elected, let alone actually maybe have a valid point.

Mr Clelland could have looked past emotive language and addressed the substantive points. He could have explained why he voted as he did and explained why he supported legislation that he did. He could even have engaged with his constituent, explored the meanings and maybe even learned something. But, by his reaction, it seems he doesn't care whether his constituent may have a point or not. His childish response shows a playground mentality and the lack of the maturity we have a right to expect from our representatives. Instead of ignoring the emotive language and rising above it to address the perfectly legitimate issues, he threw a tantrum.

Look at the response to the 42 day issue.

Incidentally, it is also my belief that the majority of my constituents support the government over the 42 day issue - as regrettable that it is that such measures are necessary in the times in which we live.

Well, wasted opportunity there too.

He could have explained :-

- why the measures were necessary
- why he believes that the majority of his constituents support the government.

Instead, he just states it as his belief.

He may be right. Maybe the majority of his constituents do support it. But regardless of that, he has a constituent taking the trouble to write to him that is clearly not a supporter. Does he not owe that constituent an explanation of his reasons for supporting and voting for it. Because, regardless of whether most of his constituents support it or not, it was, as a fact, a VERY contentious issue that was supported by a wide range of prominent people but also not supported by a wide range of prominent (and expert) people.

It is a legitimate matter for serious concern to all of us. Yet he responds to a letter from his constituent about it just, essentially, by saying he believes he's right. And that, frankly, is an attitude and phrase increasingly common from both our Prime Minister and his ministers. They say "It's right that ..... <insert current policy position>". Rarely do they explain why it's right, or justify the position that it is right just because they say it is.

Frankly, Mr Clelland, it's like this. You are a representative of the people, and as a professional one with many years experience, ought to be able to rise above such pettiness and address the substantive points raised by your constituent. And if you had, who knows, you might have made your case and gained both his respect and his vote.

Instead, you reacted in a wholly unprofessional way, and as a result, we have a media circus about whether your letter was justified, when it should be about the issues, be it 42 days or extreme porn provisions in the CJB.

A sad performance for a "professional". If you can't deal with your temper better than that, God help us if you ever attain a position of real power.