"You refuse to listen to us"

V Wolf's latest comment to Dr. Sarah Wollaston - not posted on her site - highlights the candidates hypocrisy of saing one thing in public, and ding another behind the scenes:

"A further comment, prompted by hearing of her recent conversations on BBC Devon about 'trust'. Posted at 11.58 29 April. "It is a great frustration to me that you are painting yourself as a new kind of politician at the same time as refusing to engage in debate about issues which many of your constituents feel very strongly about. You have repeatedly refused to answer our legitimate questions. We are being silenced by 'The Moderator' and you refuse to listen to us, let alone represent us in parliament. You appear to be a person who is bent double under the forces of the Conservative party that are guiding you into this dead end. You describe a wave of hostility toward you, yes, this hostility grows when you abuse your power in this way."

11 days of silence and action.

11 days later I'm still waiting.

In the meantime a growing number of local voters and people across the country, concerned that the Tories are the same party at heart, have joined the call for answers.

The People's Republic of South Devon's report at http://bit.ly/PRSDarticle
has been read by over 130 people so far, and has provoked some great comments.

It's time for Dr. Wollaston to answer the questions.

Who Is The Moderator?

Another day, another batch of censored posts!

After the previous two comments [see last post] were censored by Dr. Sarah' website last night, Gareth Wolf and Teresa Grimaldi posted the following:
"Post already deleted from site.
Question. Why has my question from two hours ago already been removed from the site? Teresa Grimaldi"

"Where's the post?
I just asked a question a few hours ago. Why has my post been taken down? Dr. Wollaston is ignoring the electorate.
Gareth Wolf"

They were removed, and this morning Teresa Grimaldi posted this:
"Constituency views
T Grimaldi
Are you committed to taking into consideration the views of your whole constituency?"

The Moderator replied:

"As a former GP, Dr Sarah Wollaston is well known to have a particularly open mind to the views of other people. The Moderator would like to draw your attention to the last sentence on the Blog Rules Page http://www.drsarah.org.uk/about/blog-rules :- "Any attempts to resurrect a closed subject, especially under another guise, will be firmly rejected.
- The Moderator"

I posted this, though they have now installed a sign that pops up saying "your post will appear shortly" so they'll probably not show it:

"My original subject postings have outstanding questions Dr. Wollaston has not yet answered. The Modedator has also removed links to a blog that shows links to national newspaper reports and an Amnesty International report about the issue we are discussing.

How, then, can The Moderator say that it is closed? The Moderator is taking down comments often hours after they have been posted - Is Dr. Wollaston aware of the calls for her to answer the questions, or are the posts being censored before she is told about them?

This leads to a few questions:
Who is The Moderator?
What constitutes a 'closed issue'?
What is the process of censoring comments?
What is the name and position of the person who decided to host Dr. Sarah's statement "I am committed to taking the views of the whole constituency into account and promise to listen and be open to arguments." on the exact same page as a forum in which comments are being removed with no notice given, no reason given and not even a note from The Moderator to users saying comments were removed?"

Growing calls for answers

Today two new posts to Dr. Sarah's blog have been added:

"Law and justice
Teresa Grimaldi
I would like to ask the question again to Dr Sarah- Why was the investigation into the party's allignment to Law and Justice launched?"

"Censorship
Gareth Wolf

I cannot understand why Dr Sarah Woolaston is refusing to engage in an open debate. The tag 'offensive' has been wrongly applied to what is in fact evidence in support of the argument outlined in previous postings. 'We the people' should be allowed to make up our own minds. We are not going to be taken for mugs. This is the 'Big Society' trying to hold politicians to account.
If this is the degree to which we can expect to do that, should the Conservatives win, then it is deeply unsatisfactory."

Source: http://www.drsarah.org.uk/chatmap [at of 19.51, Saturday 24th.4.10]

Suppressing debate

In public meetings, Dr. Sarah sells herself on the idea that she is "honest" and "fresh" - a "new" kind of politician. In reality Dr Sarah is suppressing debate by censoring comments on her website and refusing to answer legitimate questions.

In the last few days two comments have been removed from Dr. Wollaston's 'chatmap' including this one:

"Could we see the links to the aforementioned blog please so that we can decide for ourselves whether it is offensive? I ask this because I have observed two very reasonable comments being deleted from this thread today - both of which were requesting clarification on very specific points, and ought to have been fairly straightforward to deal with."

and one from someone supporting me by repeating the questions we want answers to, asking why her inoffensive comments were removed.

Why was the investigation into the party's alignment to Law and Justice launched?
Why was the investigation covered up?
Why was Edward McMillian-Scott MEP expelled from the party without notice or reason?

Dr. Wollaston also needs to explain what "the slide towards federalism" means.

This is an issue of substance that Dr. Sarah is failing to address. By censoring comments she has exposed herself to be worse than Anthony Steen ever was.

It's time to stop the spin and answer the questions.

CENSORED!

The Tories have not changed. My follow up comments and the comments from a supporter - both asking questions Dr Wollaston refuses to answer - have been removed from her website.

This is a prime example of Cameron's style over substance. By censoring my comments and closing down free speech, the Tories are now acting like the homophobic Law and Justice party they are aligned with in Europe.

Dr. Wollaston must answer the questions:
Why was the investigation into the party's allignment to Law and Justice launched? Why was the investigation covered up? Why was Edward McMillian-Scott MEP expelled from the party without notice or reason? Dr. Wollaston also needs to explain what "the slide towards federalism" means.

Source: http://www.drsarah.org.uk/chatmap [See 'Alleged Homophobia']

She must also think about the implications of her actions. Why set up a debate function on a website if you can't handle difficult questions?

She is simply not fit to serve as MP for Totnes.

Waiting for answers

Thank you to the support posted on Dr Wollaston's website, calling for answers. The comment states I am "inviting response from a candidate in his constituency who has declared "I am committed to taking the views of the whole constituency into account and promise to listen and be open to arguments." Why then are his questions are met with the statement "This subject is now closed"? I will repeat the questions as I myself wish to hear answers. Why was the investigation into the party's alignment to Law and Justice launched? Why was the investigation covered up? Why was Edward McMillan-Scott MEP expelled from the party without notice or reason? Please can Sarah Woolaston explain what "the slide towards federalism" means?"

Source: http://www.drsarah.org.uk/chatmap/[see 'Alleged homophobia']

"This subject is now closed"?

Today on Dr. Wollaston's discussion forum the following message appeared under my reply to her message:

This subject is now closed. The Moderator has amended the previously offensive caption and has removed details of links to an offensive blog. Otherwise all the entries in this thread remain as original.
- The Moderator

I have replied, although I don't expect them to publish it:

"This subject is now closed"? There are questions Dr. Wollaston has yet to answer. Is she censoring the questions of Totnes voters in the same way the Conservatives covered up the internal investigation into Law and Justice?

If Dr. Wollaston thinks there is "no doubt" that the conservatives have changed, she must answer these questions: Why was the investigation into the party's allignment to Law and Justice launched? Why was the investigation covered up? Why was Edward McMillian-Scott MEP expelled from the party without notice or reason? Dr. Wollaston also needs to explain what "the slide towards federalism" means.

Source: http://www.drsarah.org.uk/chatmap [See 'Alleged Homophobia']

No Doubt?

Here is Dr. Wollaston's reply, recieved Sunday 18th April:
Dear Mr Harrison


Here is my reply to your posting on my website:


"There is no doubt that the Conservative Party has changed, and that includes its attitude to gay rights. David Cameron has supported civil partnerships and the Equality Bill – and apologised for Section 28 during the 1980s.


"I will repeat my exact words at the Totnes Hustings..and you are welcome to check at 49 minutes into the recording; ’I would not have joined the Conservative Party if I was not convinced that it was fully committed to equal rights’...‘ I would never have signed up to a Party that was homophobic’.


"We have three openly gay members of the Conservative front bench, and many more in the wider party. Does Mr Harrison presume that they would be in the Conservative Party if it were homophobic? If only Mr Harrison were to get his facts straight, he would recognise that I am actually on the same side! Perhaps he will even have the decency to withdraw his offensive remarks, but I am not holding my breath.


"I was honest with the audience that I am not an expert on Polish political parties, and I feel that most people prefer honesty to bluster. As to the specific questions raised, I do not support the banning of gay pride marches. The Conservatives joined the ECR grouping in order to stop the slide towards federalism. I completely reject any suggestion that this supported homophobia."


Sarah Wollaston


Here is my reply to her:

There are strong doubts in people's minds about whether the Tories have changed their attitude to gay rights.


The LGBTory founder recently stated she'll vote Labour due to Chris Grayling's B7B remarks. This points to discomfort with the Tory rank and file attitude to gay rights:


"I became disillusioned after meeting one too many people in that party who were not like what the leader was saying the party was about. If you make a comment like [those made by Mr Grayling], you should be out. This isn't a question of party lines – it is disgusting. I don't like doing this to Mr Cameron. I like him, but the insides of his party are not what the people are led to believe."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/08/chrisgrayling-gay-rights


The cover-up over the internal report about Law and Justice,[ http://bit.ly/Toryreport ] which Woolaston has not addressed, is a major issue for me.

Also, crucial to all of this is MEP Edward McMillian-Scott. He was expelled from the Tories after standing against Law and Justice's Kaminski.
Extract: "The row over McMillan-Scott blew up last year when he stood as vice-president of the European parliament against Kaminski, who was Hague's choice."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/14/tory-euro-attack-mcmillan-scott


Explaining his reasons for joining the Lib Dems, Edward McMillian-Scott says:"I have also tried to reach an amicable political solution at all levels within the party, to face a stone wall. It culminated in a letter last weekend from the party which my lawyers, Russell Jones and Walker – the best in their field – say makes clear that David Cameron has no intention of giving me a fair hearing, scheduled for next Thursday. My lawyers say my expulsion was unconstitutional, disproportionate and against natural justice. So I have withdrawn from that process and resigned from the party."
[...]
"It was wrong of Cameron to associate with MEPs who have extremist pasts in his new European alliance. Next Tuesday, his associates in Latvia will no doubt join, as usual, in commemoration of the role of the Waffen SS during the war. His partners in Poland will continue to voice their opinions on the vile anti-Semitic Radio Maryja and preach homophobia. Cameron says he is against extremism at home, yet he encourages it in Europe. I fear that many Conservatives want to leave Europe, not lead in Europe. Instead of challenging that from within I look forward to doing so from another political base."
Source: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Edward-McMillanScott-After-my-unjust.6148963.jp?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Regarding Law and Justice, he writes:

"No doubt my successful stand for re-election last July as European parliament vice-president against the "official" candidate from Poland's Law and Justice party, Michal Kaminski, put forward by Cameron's controversial new group, caused him some discomfiture. But the campaign of vilification against me when I explained my reasons – that Kaminski had a recent antisemitic, homophobic and racist past – was so bizarre that it began to attract attention.

Indeed, Toby Helm in this newspaper was the most attentive. He had been present at the national commemoration in July 2001 of one of the most notorious massacres of the second world war in Nazi-occupied Poland. At Jedwabne in July 1941, more than 400 Jews were rounded up by their Polish neighbours and herded into a barn where they were burned.

At the time of the apology, Kaminski was the local MP and he made it his business to organise opposition to the commemoration. He denies this now, as he denies so much else of his easily discovered past, using the Nick Griffin defence: "If I said it then, I would not say it today."

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/14/edward-mcmillan-scott-tories-euroscepticism

Taking these issues into account, Dr. Wollaston's statement that "There is no doubt that the Conservative Party has changed, and that includes its attitude to gay rights." is simply not true.

If Dr. Wollaston thinks there is "no doubt" that the conservatives have changed, she must answer these questions:
Why was the investigation into the party's allignment to Law and Justice launched?
Why was the investigation covered up?
Why was Edward McMillian-Scott MEP expelled from the party without notice or reason?
Dr. Wollaston also needs to explain what "the slide towards federalism" means.

There are serious doubts about the Tory's support of Law and Justice, and an MEP that dared defy the party line was expelled "without notice or reason" [ http://www.emcmillanscott.com/8.html ]

Rather than attack me, she should research her own party's nefarious bullying tactics and consider whether she can continue as the Conservative PPC for Totnes.

Name and address supplied.

Where does Dr Sarah Wollaston stand on Law and Justice?

Today I sent the following email to Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Totnes, and to my local paper, the Totnes Times.

I will publish Dr Wollaston's reply in full when I receive it.

~

Dr Sarah Wollaston,

I was in the audience for last night's hustings in Totnes and was struck by your answer concerning Poland's Law and Justice party. As the questioner stated, this party has a record of homophobia. You first denied this (leading the questioner to yell out "its on the record") and then you staked your own personal credibility on the issue, stating that you would never have joined the Conservatives if you knew they were aligned with parties that held such views. I then yelled from the front row "look into it."

I imagine you are too busy/not interested to look into it, so I've looked into it for you. Law and Justice are one of a number of far right parties David Cameron has struck a deal with. I focus on Law and Justice here as they were the party specifically mentioned by the questioner and yourself at last night's hustings.

Law and Justice was established in 2001 by the Kaczynski twins Lech (who died tragically in the plane crash last Saturday, 10th April,) and his brother Jaroslaw, the current party chairman.

Amnesty International, in a report last year titled "Poland: LGBT rights under attack" state:

Amnesty International are concerned about a climate of intolerance in Poland against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, characterised by the banning of public events organised by the LGBT community, openly homophobic language used by some highly placed politicians, and incitement of homophobic hatred by some right-wing groups. We also note with concern the recent abolition of the government office responsible for promotion of equal treatment for sexual minorities."

Here is the link: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10290

Further extracts:

"When he refused for the second year running to authorize the Equality Parade in Warsaw in May 2005, the then mayor of the city, Lech Kaczynski of the Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc) party - who was later elected the President of Poland - held that such an event would be "sexually obscene" and offensive to other people's religious feelings.
The improvised parade still took place on 10 June, gathering more than 2,500 participants. Less than a week after that, the mayor authorised the so-called "normality" parade, during which members of the All Polish Youth reportedly demonstrated on the streets of Warsaw and shouted slogans inciting intolerance and homophobia. In September 2005, a Warsaw court ruled that the mayor's decision to ban the Equality Parade was illegal."


The public outcry of the Conservative Party aligning themselves with Law and Justice is well documented:
From The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5418173/European-elections-Polands-controversial-Law-and-Justice-Party.html
Extract:
"Its critics regard the party as homophobic owing to both the Kaczynski's apparent opposition to gay rights. When Warsaw mayor, Lech, who is now Poland's president, banned a succession of gay pride marches, while his brother said homosexuality would lead to the "downfall of civilisation"."


The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/02/david-cameron-alliance-polish-nationalists

Extracts:

"In government from 2005-2007, the Kaczy´nskis' PiS formed a coalition with extremists and ultra-nationalists, conducted witchhunts of opponents, pursued deeply illiberal policies and was turfed out of office as a national embarrassment."

"Cameron is ditching two decades of Conservative co-operation with the mainstream centre-right Christian democrats in the parliament, the European People's party (EPP) – to the fury of centre-right grandees in Europe – on the grounds that it is dominated by European federalists and supporters of the Lisbon treaty which the Tories oppose. "Cameron's campaign has been to take his party back to the centre in every policy area with one major exception: Europe," said EPP leader Wilfried Martens, a former Belgian prime minister. "I can't understand his tactics. [Angela] Merkel and [Nicolas] Sarkozy will never accept his Euroscepticism.""

The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6289822.ece

Extract:

"David Cameron’s new allies in Europe are set to include a homophobic Polish party...Poland’s Law and Justice Party has been criticised for its opposition to gay rights [...]"

What is less well known is that your party ignored an internal report into Law and Justice:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/11/conservatives-report-extremist-polish-allies

Extracts:

"David Cameron forged his controversial EU alliance with rightwing Polish politicians despite a secret report by his own party which warned that they had homophobic and nationalistic tendencies, senior EU figures have told the Observer.

The report, drawn up by Tory officials in 2007, concluded that the Conservatives should be wary of a link with the Polish Law and Justice party (PiS) because its members were on the far right, with some tending towards antisemitism.

...

Edward McMillan-Scott, the former Tory MEP who was expelled from the party after raising concerns about Kaminski and Law and Justice, said: "I knew the report existed but I never saw it. I took my party at its word at the time when it said that it would not sign up with those from the wild fringes of European politics. But I was wrong.""

Last night you publicly stated that you would not have joined the Conservative party if you knew they were aligned to homophobic parties. They are. I expect you to publicly explain your position in light of these facts, through the pages of the Totnes Times (CCd into this email) and in public comments during campaigning leading up to Election day. I feel deceived by your answer last night and feel you let yourself down by giving the churlish "I would never have joined..." answer, allowing you to move on without expressing your own views.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Why do you think David Cameron has aligned himself with Law and Justice?

2. Do you condone or support the banning of gay pride marches, and why?

You are guilty of either ignorance or dishonesty. I've written this email in the hope that you were unaware of the depths of Law and Justice's homophobia, and unaware of your party's secret internal report advising against alignment. I hope you were ignorant because the alternative is that you very knowingly lied to the electorate last night. Whatever the case, you now know. Knowing the facts, if you have any integrity you will withdraw your candidacy and make a public statement outlining your opposition to David Cameron's alignment with Law and Justice.

I look forward to receiving your full reply soon,

Name and address supplied.