Appendix 7: Second written appeal from Lord Maginnis, 24 November 2020
Specific comments on “Bardell statement”
In a general sense this entire statement is dishonest in detail, indicates a fictitious attitude to what should be fact, is unethical in exercise and based on what I, from years of persecution by Stonewall and its members, try to ignore.
I draw attention to a comment by the Speaker in the Commons when Ms Bardell sought to make a statement about the initial issue when I was physically embarrassed by a Security Guard at the tube station entrance to Parliament. While not in a position to challenge Ms Bardell, he did say “Normally, we would not name a Member of either House in this way”22. Despite this Ms Bardell then went to the Press in order to gain further publicity. On the following day Ms Bardell, again, raised the matter in the Commons drawing the Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg into the debate on the basis of her account.23 I later spoke to him and, as when I spoke to the gentleman in command of the Security Officers, he seems to agree that he was somewhat misinformed.
Ref. para 165: I understand that insofar as Ms Bardell initiated the contact with the Huffington Post the police have decided to take “No further action”. I can’t recall who informed me about Ms Bardell’s being a lesbian or that she advertised herself publically in her Twitter bio as “A queer who doesn’t annoy” but I did furnish the Commissioner for Standards with a copy of this - I haven’t seen this clarified in the Commissioner’s judgment !
Ref. para 166: As I hope I’ve made clear, I didn’t know Ms Bardell’s sexual inclinations …. I’d never laid eyes on her nor knew of or about her until after she intervened in my disagreement with Christian Bombolo.
Ref. para 167: (4th sub) is untrue. When I arrived at the entrance Ms Bardell was already there and stepped aside as I arrived. I rang the bell and the door began to open; I stepped back to allow her priority which she refused and I entered. She must have followed me but there were several folk in the lobby and wasn’t aware of her.
I hadn’t forgotten my pass which was in my case but I couldn’t, since I have a balance problem, lean over to extract it. Ms Bardell’s statement that she noticed I had a prosthetic leg is untrue …. I do not!
As for my alleged “screaming”–I wouldn’t know how! I have a powerful old school-master’s voice! Again, the alleged exchange “you’re useless as well” when she passed me to enter parliament - she had already said, “I was granted entry to Parliament while Lord Maginnis was held behind.”
The reality was that [two other parliamentarians]; vouched for me; but were ignored by Christian Bombolo. I reported this to the Commissioner and that [one of those parliamentarians] had subsequently come to me and volunteered to give evidence on my behalf but I’ve seen no reference to this in the Report or that he was interviewed?
My health
If I may come back to the Bardell statement later let me clarify this matter. I was a Primary School teacher for 23 years–16 years a school principal and, at the same time served 1959–1965 as a Special Constable with the RUC and later 1970–1982 as a member (Sandhurst trained–Major rtd.) of the Ulster Defence Regiment - now the Royal Irish Regiment.
For over 40 years, since I was 50 years old, I have been diagnosed as diabetic (Type 2 but insulin dependent); have had 3 spinal decompressions; arthritis with a shoulder repair and a hip replacement but my main handicap is that, deriving from my diabetes I have been left with serious nerve damage (no feeling in my feet or legs below the knee). I wear two foot and leg braces which help me walk without falling but if I stop, or lose vision, or try to bend over I tend to overbalance. I’ve been examined by the Parliamentary doctor who has sanctioned the use of taxis. However, when travelling back and forth to London Airport I use the tube. However by the time I negotiate the airport and from Westminster station to the House I tend to be temporarily unsteady! I certainly could not negotiate those steps without a handrail in order to go all the way around the building to the pass office as Mr Bombolo demanded I do. I’m also a cancer survivor for the past 10 years.
Another issue that occurs to me is that in her written judgment the Commissioner removed much of the original statement by Ms Bardell. I want the Appeal Committee to be given access to that entire statement which will show that Ms Bardell literally “shopped around” for complaints against me and in so doing turned her submission into a tirade of untruths that must have influenced any reader.
For example, I was described as “someone who is frequently drunk”–I have never ever been ‘a drunk’–a fact that will be confirmed by anyone who has worked with me over the past 60+ years or, any member of staff in the Bishops’ Bar or the Lords’ Strangers. She also alleged that I started a row at a Parliamentary meeting about Turkey; that I had a house in Turkey and that I hit a police officer who intervened on that occasion. That, again, was totally incorrect. I have had a longtime interest in Turkey and the TRNC; have championed the latter’s rights and was within the last year a ‘guest of honour’ of the Turkish Law Association during a conference in Ankara.
Again, regarding my relationship with police–my service background bears evidence to the nature of that relationship; I had for some period when the Met. obtained evidence that there was to be an attempt by the PIRA on my life adjacent to Parliament been a regular invitee to Met. social events. I had previously, taken part in the parliamentary police scheme and am still a member of the parliamentary police group24 chaired by the Lord Harris.
This summary will have, I hope, revealed the nature of the Bardell intervention. I am happy to be more specific when we meet on Friday but I do feel that, without a ‘Stonewall’ initiative a comparatively minor incident would not have got out of hand.
I will also want to examine the dubious impartiality of the Commissioner.
24 The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Policing and Security