As my regular readers will know, I have written a number of letters to my local MP, Jackie Doyle-Price and I have always stated that I would publish her replies either as a scanned copy of her letter or as a cut-and-paste from any e-mails she sent.
Now, any real representative of the people would respond to each point, indeed each letter or e-mail, sent to them. I have now received her response and below is that response together with the leaflet she sent me.
What really gets me is the gall of the woman. How dare she send me, an articulate and fully literate man whom she sent a copy of Hansard notes (which are a full record of every word uttered in Parliament) of the mental health debate I asked her to attend, an Easy Read version of the leaflet - a version I may add meant for people with learning difficulties and extreme problems with literacy.
This shows Jackie Doyle-Price in her true colours, someone who thinks that someone with mental health issues cannot understand a well-written 'normal' leaflet. Or it could be that she was trying to make a point about my intellectual ability and comprehension skills and that is just as bad.
It also shows that she is extremely childish, dismissive of her constituents views, unfit to represent anyone in Parliament and, in my honest opinion, a complete and utter bitch.
I replied almost immediately with the following e-mail, which is reproduced here in full.
Dear Ms Doyle-Price,
With regards to your
communication dated 23rd September 2013, you said in your letter
that “I have articulated my position and have communicated that to you by
letter” and that is an erroneous statement.
Taking each e-mail in
turn, I shall show you where you error lies.
Mental Heath Debate – I stated
that you had not sent me a reason for not attending the debate in Parliament,
merely sent me a copy of the Hansard coverage.
I asked you to state why you did not attend the debate which you
haven’t.
You may have mistaken
this for the MPCA that I arranged for you to attend but I was referring to the
debate in the House of Commons last year or early this year. I hope you will now go back in your
correspondence regarding this matter and provide the answers I asked for.
MPCA – I stated that you
did not actually refer to the MPCA and instead concentrated on the WCA which
was not mentioned in my e-mail. That is
a truthful assertion on my behalf.
I asked if you worked
closely with Stephen Metcalfe as your letters were almost, but not completely,
the same. You did not answer that
question or give more than an extremely short and dismissive answer to why you
did not attend.
Syria and Human Rights Abuses in the UK – I stated my view that showing such a moral stance on Syria was wrong
when this Government was heaping human rights abuses on some of its most
vulnerable citizens. That was my opinion
and it is my right to share it with you.
I asked two questions
based on my view of your statement in the press neither of which you have
answered.
High-Cost Lenders – I stated
that you were against high-cost lenders, a positive statement of which we are
in total agreement.
I asked whether you
would petition Mr Cameron on cutting party links with Wonga.com as that company
supplies funds to the your party. I
would have thought that this is a question that you would be glad I asked given
your stance on that type of money lender.
JFK – I related to you
an interesting historical fact about John F Kennedy not accepting the wages
paid to him during his term in office as the President of the United States and
instead gave it to charity.
I made a suggestion
that you could ask Mr Cameron and his senior colleagues to do the same along
with Mr Miliband and his senior Shadow Cabinet colleagues, you did not answer
that or give your comments on that suggestion.
Bedroom Tax – I asked for your
personal views on the Bedroom Tax and you gave me no answers.
I admit that I used
the term ‘Bedroom Tax’ which is one not liked by the Conservatives but that is
the one most often used so I feel justified in using it.
MPCA Huffington Post article – I forwarded the article I saw about the MPs who did attend the MPCA
learning exercise and how much they gained from the experience.
I asked how you could
consider yourself a representative of your Thurrock constituency if you were
unwilling to represent views that differ from your own. This is a valid question to which you gave no
answer.
Gagging Bill – I asked you to
oppose the Gagging Bill and gave reasons.
You did not respond with any reasons why you would/would not oppose the
Bill.
You stated that you
observed “that the tone and volume of your correspondence is becoming
increasingly hostile and I am under no obligation to indulge it”.
I cannot see anything
about the tone that could have offended you except that we have differing
views. I asked pertinent questions and
put my view on the subjects across. I
can only assume that it is the fact that we disagree that offended you.
As for the volume of
correspondence, I explained that my mental health condition is such that I
cannot help myself from working in that way.
To further explain, however, I get extremely agitated if I cover more
than one issue in a single e-mail or letter; this is a manifestation of my
heightened anxiety and severe depression.
I cannot help it and I am, in fact, having to get someone to write this
e-mail for me based on my individual handwritten notes.
I also thought it was
a matter of courtesy to write individual e-mails so that you may use the
subject line headings as a heading for your replies to make it easier to keep
track of what you had or had not answered.
Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
The matter of the
volume of correspondence is easily answered by the fact that there were a lot
of issues that cropped up during that period that I wished to have
answered. Your colleague Stephen
Metcalfe receives more letters from a friend of mine than you received from me
and he has not taken your attitude, answering each and every letter whether the
answer is something my friend wanted to hear or not. My friend may space his letters out a little
more but the volume is considerably more.
As for you being
under no obligation to ‘indulge it’, You are actually paid to listen to the
views of your constituents and answer their questions so I cannot see what you
mean by ‘indulge it’ when all I have done is send you e-mails, albeit a lot,
stating my views and asking for answers to some questions – the very definition
of your job.
You stated that “if
you wish to have your correspondence treated with respect you should afford the
same to others”; you have a very good point there although I cannot see how it
applies in any of these cases as I have been nothing but respectful in my
letters to you. I put across my views,
which obviously annoy and offend you, but I have done nothing to warrant such a
response from you.
You state that I will
“receive no substantive reply from me to any further correspondence of this
nature”. From what I can see, I have
received no substantive reply on any of my respectfully worded letters anyway
but would like to know what you mean by “correspondence of this nature”. Do you mean any letters of any interest or
importance to me?
I humbly ask for clarification
on the phrase “correspondence of this nature” as, although I am by no means
stupid, I am at a loss to know what you are getting at with the phrase.
Regarding the letter
on your role as an MP, I’d like to
thank you for sending me the enclosed leaflet.
I have not had a chance to read it yet as I wished to get the notes
written down for my carer to type up into a single e-mail but I’m sure it will
be most instructive and that is all I have wanted from all of the e-mails I
sent to you – to find out the answers to some questions, put forward my views
and suggestions and get an idea of your views on these matters from your own
‘pen’ rather than from a biased media outlet who may spin a story in such a way
that it may be put across in the opposite way to the way you meant it.
I am very
disappointed that you feel that I have been hostile when I have not been and
that you have chosen to say that you have answered my questions when you
clearly have not. All I wanted was to
have a deeper understanding of your views and why you hold them. Clearly you are unwilling to do so.
I hope this e-mail
finds you well and that you may change your mind regarding your view of my
e-mails enough to reply.
I await any reply you
wish to make with eager anticipation.
Regards,
Myles Cook
I have also decided to take the matter up with Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps. The letter I sent him is reproduced in full below.
Dear Mr Shapps,
I am writing to you
in your capacity as Conservative Party Chairman about a matter of grave
importance regarding your colleague and my local MP, Ms Jackie Doyle-Price
(Thurrock constituency).
Over the course of
the period between 9th and 15th September this year I
sent Ms Doyle-Price a number of e-mails regarding a number of issues – some had
my views on the subject of the e-mail and one or two questions, some had a
suggestion or asked for her views on the subject of the e-mail without really
posing a full-on question. I realise
that the number of e-mails was, in some people’s eyes, excessive but I prefer
to address a single issue in a single e-mail or letter as I become agitated and
anxious if I cover more than one issue per piece of correspondence; this is due
to my mental health condition but, despite this, I am still a registered and active voter.
I received no answers to my questions, no response to
my request for her views and no reasons for her passing on or not passing on my
suggestions. What I did
receive was a very hostile letter
saying that she had “articulated my position and have communicated that to you
by letter” which is untrue. Ms
Doyle-Price did respond to a previous
e-mail prior to this period but the e-mails during this period that were
on the same subject were my reply to her previous response and I forwarded her
an interesting Huffington Post article I saw that I thought might have
interested her on the subject. The e-mails I sent during this period
covered other issues that Ms Doyle-Price refused to give a response to.
Ms Doyle-Price stated
that she was “not prepared to get into circular correspondence on these
matters. I have no need of a pen
friend.” Seeing as the correspondence I
sent all advanced the conversation I was trying to have with her or were on
subjects to which she had given no response I cannot see how they could be
considered a “circular correspondence”.
Ms Doyle-Price stated
that the tone of my e-mails was “becoming unpleasantly hostile” which is complete
nonsense as they may be strongly worded, assertive and do not share her views
but they are not hostile. She also
complained about the volume of correspondence, a subject that I explained in a
postscript on my third e-mail to her and have repeated the explanation above in
paragraph two of this e-mail to your good self.
Ms Doyle-Price stated
that she was “under no obligation to indulge” my correspondence. As she is my MP I find this attitude
disgusting as she is there to listen to the views of her constituents and pass
on suggestions to the Government on their behalf and answer questions that
cannot be answered by anyone but her, i.e. give her views. I directly asked for her personal views on a number of subjects as I wished to hear her
thoughts on those subjects without the bias that can crop up in the media. I would have thought she would have jumped at
the chance to air her views without any biased slant rather than jumping down
my throat.
She made the
assertion that my correspondence had not treated her with respect and that
therefore she was under no obligation to treat mine with any. The only comment I made that could have been
considered disrespectful was one that referred to her status as being a back
bench MP, which I believe is her status within Parliament. My
views and comments may have been strongly worded, assertive and not in line
with her views but they were never disrespectful.
She stated that I
would receive “no substantive reply from me to any further correspondence of
this nature”. Exactly what nature she is
referring to is a matter for debate but, as
I have received “no substantive reply* on any of the issues I wrote to her
about, I believe that Ms Doyle-Price is failing in her duty to me as her
constituent and her duty to her entire Thurrock constituency.
The most disgusting
part of Ms Doyle-Price’s response is that, in reply to my respectful request
for her to explain her role as an MP (as she said I had the wrong impression of
her role), she included a copy of a leaflet “You and your MP” to explain. The disgusting part is not that she sent the
leaflet but that she sent me an Easy
Read version of it, a version that is meant for people with learning
impairments. As you can tell from this
e-mail, I do not suffer with any learning impairments and I find sending an
Easy Read leaflet to someone to whom she sent pages of Hansard notes on the
mental health debate held in Parliament last year extremely offensive.
I may suffer with
mental health issues but I am not stupid and Ms Doyle-Price’s actions show her to be discriminatory, completely
oblivious to the Equality Act and rather rude.
The whole tone of her letter, dated 23rd
September 2013, was extremely hostile, extremely rude, erroneous in almost
every comment she made and extremely dismissive of me as a person and as her
constituent.
She may not agree
with the content of my letters but she had no right to treat me in this
way. I humbly request, therefore, that,
in your role as Conservative Party Chairman, you discipline Ms Doyle-Price for her actions and order her to make a
public apology to me in the Press. I
do not mind if it is only in the local Thurrock newspapers but I wish the apology to be public and not
made in such a way that it reflects negatively on me as I have done nothing
wrong except try to engage with my representative in Parliament.
I have discussed the
issue of being sent an Easy Read leaflet with the Chairman of the Basildon
& South Essex Disability Equality Forum, an independent organisation which
is a member of Disability Action Alliance and supported by Stephen
Metcalfe MP (South Basildon & East Thurrock constituency), and the
issue will be raised at the next full meeting in November.
I will also be
passing Ms Doyle-Price’s correspondence to Rethink
Mental Illness for their comments on her actions (although I have not done
so yet) which show that she is stigmatising
a mental health service user as someone of low intellectual ability and
dismissive of the views of someone with mental health issues.
I may also pass on
the details of my correspondence with Ms Doyle-Price to my local councillors
all of whom are Labour Party members and one of which is the Leader of Thurrock
Council.
As I do not wish this
issue to become a major incident, I respectfully ask that you discipline Ms Doyle-Price for her actions
(sending me details of how and when she was disciplined or, perhaps, made
public in the media) and order her to make a public apology to me in the Press
that is not made in such a way that it reflects negatively on me.
I hope that this
matter can be satisfactorily resolved in a timely manner so that I may assure
the people I have already informed or will inform of Ms Doyle-Price’s actions
that the matter can be dropped.
If you wish to read
the e-mails I sent to Ms Doyle-Price, feel free to contact me on this e-mail
address and I shall forward them on to you.
I can also supply a scanned copy of the offending reply from Ms
Doyle-Price although I’m sure her assistant could supply you with a copy.
Looking forward to
your response on this matter with anticipation.
Regards,
Myles Cook
I don't actually expect a response from Grant Shapps and, even if I do, it will probably be a whitewash of the subject that comes to nothing because when it comes to discrimination, rudeness, dismissiveness of the wishes and views of the electorate, corruption, selfishness and total childishness, the Tories really are "all in this together".
