“It’s a joke,” one No 10 source told The Independent. “He told people to ‘let their hair down’ and enjoy their drinks which they’d earned for ‘beating back the virus’.”

Anna Isaac www.independent.co.uk 

Downing Street staff who received fines for attending the same lockdown parties as Boris Johnson have reacted with fury after the prime minister escaped further sanctions on Thursday.

There was anger inside No 10 as the Metropolitan Police concluded its Partygate investigation, leaving the prime minister with just one fixed penalty notice (FPN) compared to some junior staff who amassed as many as five – despite insider accounts that they had attended the same events.

The full findings of Sue Gray, the senior civil servant carrying out a wider report into the scandal, are now expected as soon as next week.

Police said a total of 126 fines were issued to 83 people over events spanning eight dates between May 2020 and April 2021.

Mr Johnson’s wife, Carrie, also received just one penalty linked to her husband’s birthday party on 19 June 2020.

“It’s a joke,” one No 10 source told The Independent. “He told people to ‘let their hair down’ and enjoy their drinks which they’d earned for ‘beating back the virus’.”

They said the prime minister had participated in socialising with officials and advisers in a manner that had been regarded as an endorsement of partying after work.

“He’s a man of little or no integrity,” they added, referring to his handling of the Partygate affair.

A former No 10 official who worked there during the pandemic said that the moment an official line was issued denying parties, “I gasped at the audacity of the lie”.

A spokesperson for No 10 declined to comment.

Legal experts have suggested that Mr Johnson may have escaped fines for attending lockdown-busting parties as his workplace and home are combined within the Downing Street complex.

Covid-19 legislation, which changed numerous times during the period when the parties took place, means that Mr Johnson may have had a “reasonable excuse” in law that prevented him from being fined.

However, the police may have taken a more lenient approach in the Partygate probe, compared to other examples of enforcement.

Kirsty Brimelow QC, a human rights barrister who has represented people fighting Covid fines, told The Independent: “What I saw in cases up and down that country is that the ‘reasonable excuse’ part was never applied – police would only look at exemptions around the gathering itself.”

She added that the police’s approach in the No 10 investigation, of only issuing fines when confident of defending them in court, was different too: “FPNs would be issued if there was a reasonable belief of a breach, rather than having all the evidence shipshape if it went to court.

“The Met has applied the regulations, but applied it in a way which is setting the police a higher bar before issuing an FPN,” Ms Brimelow said.

One Whitehall source said the investigation might have been “legally correct” but it was “morally ridiculous” as given the long hours many officials worked during the height of the pandemic, “we were all living at the office”.

The sense that the investigation had revealed one rule for bosses and another for workers was shared in 70 Whitehall Place, where a fine was issued for an event on 17 December, which cabinet secretary Simon Case was aware of, sources claimed.

Mr Case, the most senior civil servant in the UK, had not suggested the event was inappropriate and chatted to attendees, they said.

The Cabinet Office did not respond to a request for comment.

There was bewilderment among Westminster critics of the PM that he had escaped with only one fine when so many No 10 staff were more harshly punished.

“Some of us don’t understand the police logic on the fines,” said one Conservative MP who has already sent a letter of no confidence in Mr Johnson. “Avoiding fines for events where staff have been fined seems extraordinary.”

Rebels were hopeful that the publication of Ms Gray’s report, expected next week, will trigger a fresh slew of letters to the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady, who must call a vote on Mr Johnson’s future if requested by 54 Tory MPs.

“Sue Gray might be a flashpoint next week,” one told The Independent. “It’s still a big moment. The fact that he hasn’t been fined again doesn’t necessarily change public anger.

“There are people who are unhappy with him over Partygate who haven’t put letters in. They’ve said they are waiting for Sue Gray. So the time is now.”

But there was a sense among some of Johnson’s critics that the absence of further fines has taken a lot of the momentum out of the drive to oust him.

They urged colleagues who have so far held back from calling for Johnson’s removal to do so if he is admonished by Ms Gray.

Still, one senior Tory MP opposed to Mr Johnson’s leadership was downbeat on the chances of her report triggering a leadership contest, arguing that the biggest point of danger will come in the autumn if Tory poll numbers haven’t improved.

“I don’t think Sue Gray is the be-all and end-all,” said the backbencher. “It’s not a judgement about parties any more – the judgement among colleagues will come in the months ahead on whether he is an election winner or loser.”

Sir Charles Walker, who previously suggested that Mr Johnson should consider his position, said on Thursday he had been “wrong” to think the PM would have to go over Partygate.

“Love him or loathe him Boris Johnson is an extraordinary politician,” the former vice chair of the 1922 Committee told the BBC’s Newsnight.

“Four months ago, people thought he was down and out. I was one of those people. And he just rewrote the script. The prime minister is going to continue at No 10.”

Close Johnson ally Conor Burns appeared to suggest that the Gray report could result in further sanctions for No 10 officials rather than Mr Johnson.

“I think when the Sue Gray report comes there will be questions to be answered in terms of accountability for others, other than the prime minister, for some of the things that happened in No 10,” said the Northern Ireland minister.

Home Office minister Kit Malthouse said it was now time to “move on” from Partygate. “I’m pleased that it’s done … I hope now we can now move on to the really pressing issues,” the policing minister told the BBC’s World at One.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the Partygate affair had undoubtedly been “damaging” for Mr Johnson and the No 10 operation.

“It was wrong, he has apologised a lot for it – and so he should – because they lost control of what was happening in Downing Street,” said the former Tory leader.

With the dust settling on the Metropolitan police’s long investigation into Covid breaches inside Downing Street, one big question remains: how did Boris Johnson escape with just one fine?

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Legal experts say it defies logic – and to many voters, it defies common sense too.

This is, however, a mystery that appears unlikely to be solved any time soon.

It’s not that the PM and his wife got off scot-free. Johnson and Carrie did break Covid laws.

Last month, they received fixed-penalty notices (FPNs) for attending the prime minister’s birthday celebration in June 2020, as did Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, who reportedly made just a fleeting appearance.

But while Johnson is known to have been at up to five other events for which FPNs have been issued, and reportedly poured drinks at one of them, he has escaped further punishment.

What appeared most anomalous, according to Adam Wagner, the Doughty Street Chambers barrister who is an expert on Covid rules, is how Johnson attended gatherings deemed to have breached the rules without himself being fined.

“We still don’t know very much about how the regulations work, because the higher courts haven’t looked at this,” Wagner said. “But generally, the decision is difficult to understand. The way the regulations are drafted is that the gathering itself has to be reasonably necessary, and the reason why somebody participates is not really relevant.”

To escape a fine, Wagner added, Johnson would have needed to provide a reasonable excuse: “But I don’t understand how you could ever reasonably attend an illegal gathering, unless you attended by accident, realised and left very quickly. I don’t see why, if the prime minister had a reasonable excuse for attending, the other people attending wouldn’t.”

One possible escape would be if the police viewed events as more than one gathering – for example as reasonably necessary for work when Johnson was there, but descending into socialising after he left. However, Wagner noted, this would appear to be contradicted by reports such as Johnson pouring drinks.

Another get-out raised by Johnson allies is the fact that Downing Street is both his workplace and home.

However, a change to Covid regulation at the end of May 2020 specifically ended being in your own home as a potential loophole.

Ultimately, without knowing what evidence the police received, it is impossible to be certain why Johnson was fined for the one event and not others.

And given the nature of the Met’s inquiry, this evidence will not be aired in public, beyond whatever necessarily anonymised summary appears in the report of the senior official, Sue Gray, next week.

It is one of the several curiosities of Partygate that it involved huge stakes, not least the political survival of a prime minister, while simultaneously being centred on what are, in strictly legal terms, relatively low-level offences.

“Yes, this was people breaking rules they had made themselves, which is important,” one criminal lawyer noted, speaking anonymously. “But at that the same time, you can very easily be fined more for parking on a double yellow line.”

The nature of the offences meant they fell into the system of FPNs, which are investigated and levied entirely by the police, with courts only becoming involved if the fine is challenged.

Having been forced into an inquiry it had not wanted to undertake by the sheer volume of material gathered by Gray, the Met’s infrequent updates were parsimonious, even opaque, even by the standards of police investigations.

While the force was at times criticised for its approach to openness, there is no obligation for someone to declare an FPN; and if they do not challenge it in court, there is no public record of one being received.

The Met did have a significant amount of evidence to go through: the team of 12 detectives had access to 345 documents, among them witness statements, emails and door logs for one of the UK’s most secure addresses, as well as more than 500 photographs and CCTV images.

However, no one suspected of wrongdoing was formally interviewed. Instead, police received 204 questionnaires filled out by people identified as connected to the gatherings.

This was another complicating factor – some people would have been notably more open and voluble with their answers than others.

“If someone was sent one of those questionnaires and they went to me, I’d say: don’t answer it,” the criminal lawyer said. “You’ve got no obligation to fill it in. You’re not under arrest. You’ve not even been cautioned. If you tell the truth, you might be fined, and if you lie, you’re potentially committing another offence. So why risk it?”

Overall, Wagner said, the lack of transparency from a police-only investigation was “unsatisfactory”.

“The reality of it is that the Metropolitan police have decided there were at least eight illegal gatherings over the course of a year,” he said. “And the prime minister appears to have attended six of them. You think about how careful other workplaces were being, and the actual people who were writing the rules were treating them with a wanton disregard.”

A more legally comprehensible outcome, he said, would have been if police had fined Johnson just for the birthday party while decreeing that the only other illegal gatherings were three others he did not attend – a Christmas party in December 2020 and the two events on the same night in April last year, the night before Prince Philip’s funeral.

“It’s right that they take a cautious approach. And if they had said the other gatherings were on the borderline, so we’re not going to act, I would have thought that was quite liberal of them, but it would have an internal logic,” Wagner said.

“But they have given people criminal penalties for a series of illegal gatherings, just not the prime minister. I think he’s lucky to have got away with it.”

Under the headline:

Tory councillor compared to Jimmy Savile kept role for three years after child sex abuse arrest

On Wednesday, the inews.co.uk carried an investigative report uncovering evidence that:

“The council knew Humphreys was being investigated for sex offences from 2016 but did nothing to prevent him continuing with his duties, which involved him coming into contact with children”

Also:

“A senior council official knew about the police investigation into Humphreys in 2016 because Devon and Cornwall Police asked him, in a formal meeting, if Humphreys’ continuing role as a councillor would bring him into contact with children, i has learned.”

And:

“A leaked memo from East Devon District Council (EDDC) chief executive Mark Williams, which was sent to all 60 councillors earlier this month, states: “An officer knew something dating back to 2016 but was under a duty of confidentiality.”

“A second councillor is also alleged to have told a fellow member that he knew Humphreys had a court hearing coming up but it is not clear if he knew details of the charges.”

The article describes the twists and turns in the history of the investigation dating back to 2004 and earlier. Only after a second victim came forward in 2015 was Humphreys arrested the following year (2016).

It describes how Humphreys spent decades positioning himself at the heart of a powerful network of local politicians and people of influence (see Exmouth Journal prints “No comment” photos). During the 2019 election campaign, Humphreys offered Sir Hugo’s successor, East Devon MP Simon Jupp, the use of a flat he owned in Exmouth where some of his crimes had taken place. Later that year, in December 2019, Humphreys was made an Alderman.  In 2021 he was convicted and jailed for 21 years.

Devon and Cornwall Police refused to confirm or deny if it was investigating other potential crimes committed by Humphreys, or whether any further victims have come forward.

Mr Williams, EDDC CEO, and the official told of the investigation into Humphreys were approached for comment.

A spokesman for EDDC said that Mr Williams will provide “a report to cabinet at the earliest opportunity to enable it to consider commissioning an independent investigation or enquiry by an appropriate independent body”.

A spokesperson for the Conservative Group on EDDC said its councillors “will fully engage with this investigation”.

This latest exposure has prompted Tim, a regular correspondent, to offer the following comments to Owl

(Given added relevance by the current suspension of an MP, arrested following allegations of rape, from parliament).

So,  David Parsley’s piece in the inews suggests that Mark Williams, CEO of EDDC, has apparently admitted to councillors that a single senior EDDC staff member knew, in 2016, that the member of his council, John  Humphreys,  was being investigated for  paedophile crimes. The EDDC officer who gained this information apparently decided against telling others on the grounds of confidentiality!

Unfortunately the inews item is now sadly subscription only so I write largely from my memory of reading it several times.

We are not told how the unnamed officer came by the information – though the suggestion would appear to be that it was from the police. The police would, I believe, only officially pass it to one of three office holders at EDDC: the CEO; the deputy CEO; or the Monitoring Officer. Does Williams include himself when he spoke of a senior EDDC officer? I think the public are entitled to know who the officer concerned was and if it came from police sources – otherwise there are even more questions..

I would also like to know more about the ‘confidentiality’ argument that was apparently put forward for taking no action. Is someone seriously suggesting that the correct course of action, when advised that a councillor is being investigated for the most serious of sexual offences is to keep silent? That officer should have been deeply worried about Humphreys offending again and against the most vulnerable; he should have known he was a school governor (it would be on his declarations of interest) and last of all, he would have known his background when there was discussion about offering alderman status. To stay silent may not be unlawful, but to me it almost rings of aiding and abetting. Am I alone in thinking we should be deeply concerned and demand the fullest of explanations for such a decision? Was nothing learned from the Saville and Harris cases?

I am aware that all too often matters can be misreported, and lose, or gain, in transmission as well as there being another side to the story – but what we know of this demands enquiry and explanation.

I may have old fashioned values but seriously, who would place ‘confidentiality’ above the risks that a free to roam Humphreys placed everyone in? I feel deeply uneasy about any council officer, council member or employee of any grade who would be comfortable with such a decision. If it was kept to the officer receiving the information well it is very short sighted for any such person to believe they were wise enough to make such a decision entirely on their own and without seeking advice from the many external quarters available. Unwise and perhaps arrogant!

But much of this is conjecture and assumes the knowledge came to the unnamed officer in the way of proper business. We need, I think, for that to be confirmed promptly.

Some of us have long suspected that one or more officers were well aware of the investigation, and a few past and present Tory councillors too. Why has it taken so long to get this  awareness by an EDDC officer even partially released? The new council and its members have been pushing for an enquiry by local Tories but it seems they are unwilling to take it on. Tory head office also has no comment I gather.

Why, on top of local efforts, has it taken a national newspaper investigative reporter to get even a basic admission out of the CEO?

I am pleased that there is a call for a full investigation as in times past one suspects a bucket of whitewash would have been ordered. But I must express concern about who might be appointed as the investigative authority. It is my firm belief, from experience, that nobody but the police can ask the appropriate questions and expect answers. ‘Private’ investigators can be readily ignored – and we already have signs that some in the local Tory party seem unwilling to cooperate – I believe the report they were asked for has never appeared.

I most firmly believe that Devon and Cornwall Police are not the force to investigate. They have already been asked about their role, yet appear to have done nothing. Their chief has made it known that he is leaving this year, and this needs resolving before he leaves. They have also been criticised by the main witness.

One candidate has been announced, with the Reform UK party being the first to name who will be standing. A post from the party on Twitter stated: “We are pleased to announce Andy Foan as our candidate in the Tiverton & Honiton By-Election. Andy was born near Tiverton, serving in the Royal Navy and RAF before becoming a pilot and flying instructor. He is standing to tackle the cost of living & to restore trust in politics.”

Source: www.devonlive.com 

Six of Devon’s Conservative MPs have voted against a Labour amendment to The Queen’s Speech to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Only Jonny Mercer for Plymouth Moor View and disgraced porn watching MP Neil Parish did not vote down the proposed amendment, which the opposition party claimed could have saved hard-up families struggling to heat their homes £600 a year. Mr Parish, having resigned over watching pornography in Parliament, was unable to vote.

(They can tuck in to their taxpayer subsidised House of Commons Members Dining Room – Owl)

Olivier Vergnault www.devonlive.com

Gary Streeter, for South West Devon, Selaine Saxby, for North Devon, Anthony Mangnall, for Totnes, Kevin Foster, for Torbay, Anne Marie Morris, for Newton Abbot, and Simon Jupp, for East Devon, all voted with the Government. Last night as MPs voted against the move by 310 votes to 248.

Earlier in the day shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband tore into Chancellor Rishi Sunak over his failure to act earlier during a heated debate in the Commons. He told the House of Commons: “The Chancellor wants us to believe that his measures in response are the best we can do. But they are not. Not by a long shot. The government ‘always try and blame someone else’ when cost of living concerns are raised.”

The shadow minister said he would have “no idea” how he would cope with soaring energy bills if he was on the basic level of Universal Credit. He added: “The truth is, they have run out of excuses, and amidst the chaos and confusion about what their position is, I think a massive U-turn is lumbering slowly over the hill. But I say this to the Chancellor: swallow your pride and get on with it.”

Mr Sunak repeated his claim that “no option is off the table” and that only if oil and gas giants do not invest their profits back into “growth, job and energy security” could the policy could be introduced. The Conservative Party rejected calls to do anything about it immediately.

As reported by the Mirror shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “Last night, every Conservative MP who voted against a windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits has sent a clear message. They will not put working people first, and they have no answer on the cost of living crisis.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Conservative MPs have chosen to side with profiteering oil and gas companies over working people. Millions are being walloped by soaring bills and prices having been left badly exposed to this crisis after more than a decade of standstill wages and cuts to social security, overseen by successive Tory governments, all the while the likes of Shell and BP are registering eye-watering profits.

“Enough is enough. The Chancellor must bring forward an emergency Budget to give households grants to help with energy bills – funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants – and immediately increase Universal Credit and the minimum wage.”

This week Owl has posted two articles critical of the government response to tackling sewage pollution. “Raw sewage in rivers to go unchecked”; and “Water giants should be made to pay for spilling sewage”.

In Monday’s edition of the Western Morning News, Defra minister Rebecca Pow, MP for Taunton Deane claimed that the government was “cracking down on those water companies that are not playing their part in delivering the clean water that the people of this country want to see”.

“We’ll crack down on sewage pollution” Minister tells WMN enforcement is a priority

ENVIRONMENT Minister Rebecca Pow has vowed to get tough on the pollution of our rivers and coastal waters and ensure water companies clean up their act when it comes to sewage discharges.

Writing in today’s WMN, Ms Pow said water quality was a top priority for the Government, which was “cracking down on those water companies that are not playing their part in delivering the clean water that the people of this country want to see”.

She argued the South West, like many parts of the country, “has long suffered from an excessive and unacceptable use of storm overflows”, and added: “I have said time and again that the amount of sewage discharge by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable. They need to raise their game and those that do not meet expectations will be held to account.”

The Government says it has reinforced its commitment to taking tough action to improve water quality. Under its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, out for consultation, water companies will face strict limits on when they can use storm overflows and must eliminate the harm any sewage discharge causes to the environment.

Water firms are investing £3.1billion in storm overflow improvements by 2025.

Since 2015 the Environment Agency has brought 48 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of over £137 million. Last year, the Environment Agency and Ofwat launched a major investigation based on evidence that some water companies in England may not be complying with their permits, resulting in excess sewage spills into the environment, even in dry periods. Some of the biggest fines were imposed last year – including a record £90 million fine for Southern Water in July for thousands of illegal discharges.

Additional action on water quality includes almost doubling the budget for Catchment Sensitive Farming. Grants support farmers to develop environmentally sustainable methods that limit the contamination of nearby bodies of water from things like manure or pesticides. The new annual budget will be £30 million, up from £16.6 million in 2020-21. This means it will cover 100% of England’s farmland, up from 40% of its current coverage, with every farmer able to access advice and support by March 2023.

Last October, South West Water defended its record after reporting 200 pollution incidents in 2020 and 42,000 discharges of sewage into waterways due to heavy rain.

Chief executive Susan Davy told the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 210 pollution hotspots had been identified for improvements.

They fail to answer questions about sex offender.

The longer the silence, the greater the reputational damage – Owl

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The Conservative Party has failed to answer questions about whether it has conducted an enquiry into a former Tory councillor who has been convicted of sex crimes against children.

Former East Devon District and Exmouth town councillor John Humphreys is serving 21 years in prison after being convicted of historic sexual offences against two boys in the early 1990s and early 2000s.

The Conservative group at East Devon District Council (EDDC) insists that any party-led enquiry into the case is a matter for the national party.

However, Conservative central office won’t say if such an enquiry has taken place.

Humphreys was originally arrested in May 2016 but it took over four years for the case to come to court and become publicly known.

A statement read out on behalf of one of Humphreys’ victims last year at a full council meeting said that Humphreys knew that the case was live between  2016 and 2021, during which time he was a councillor.

“This leaves me wondering,” said the victim in his letter, “‘who else knew and how was he allowed to carry on as usual being a councillor at Exmouth and East Devon?’

Council leader Paul Arnott (Independent East Devon Alliance and Democratic Alliance Group, Coly Valley) later wrote to secretary of EDDC Conservatives Phil Twiss (Honiton St. Michael’s), asking if the group had launched an enquiry  into the matter.  He copied senior members of the Conservative Party, including East Devon’s MPs, prime minister Boris Johnson and co-chair of the Conservative party Oliver Dowden.

Cllr Arnott says he has received no response to the letter.

At EDDC’s cabinet meeting earlier this month, councillors raised the lack of response from the Conservative Party, either locally or nationally, on the Humphreys case.

Councillor Jess Bailey (Independent, West Hill and Aylesbeare) said: “The Conservative Party must have practices and procedures around candidates, particularly when they come forward for election, that make declarations.”

Commenting on the Humphreys’s case she added: “Were those declarations not made, or were the declaration made but not true? We just don’t know. We’ve had no information from the party in the past eight-plus months.”

However, Mr Humphreys was already a councillor when he was arrested in 2016, and did not stand for election again.

Councillor Phil Twiss (Honiton St. Michael’s), secretary of EDDC Conservative Group was asked later what practices East Devon Conservatives have for candidates declaring information before elections, and whether the party, locally or nationally, has conducted an investigation into the case and, if so, why it has not been made public.

Unable to answer, Cllr Twiss said: “matters such as this and are dealt with by The Conservative Party and not the EDDC Conservative Group.”

But the Conservative Party has not answered specific questions on the matter,  including whether any enquiry has taken place, despite being asked several times.

A spokesperson said that the party was not aware of the allegations against Mr Humphreys before they became public and that at that point, Mr Humphreys was no longer a member of the party. 

The police investigation into Mr Humphreys, which started in 2016, became public when he appeared in court in November 2020, although he was a councillor until May 2019.

He had previously been questioned about offences connected to one of the teenagers in 2005 but no charges were brought.

There have been allegations that some members of the council knew Mr Humphreys was under investigation while he was still serving at the council before this was public knowledge, between 2016 and November 2020. These allegations have been categorically refuted by EDDC’s Conservative group.

A Liberal Democrat councillor, Eileen Wragg, told a council meeting earlier this month that she “certainly knew.”

In December 2019, whist under investigation, the council gave  Mr Humphries, along with severl other former councillors, the honorary title of alderman. He was stripped of the title last year following his conviction.

East Devon District Council is now establishing an independent investigation into how Humphreys came to be given the award.

After a two-year hiatus, Great Torrington Mayfair was back with a vengeance – and locals couldn’t help but make fun of disgraced MP Neil Parish.

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com

The event took place throughout last week, and crowds were in generous spirits for the event and the carnival collected more than £2,000.

The event features carnival floats and a variety of food stalls. One attendee referenced the recent controversy involving a local MP, by steering a tractor through the town with lewd references to pornography attached.

Great Torrington Mayfair celebrations (Credit : John Insull)

Former Tiverton & Honiton MP Neil Parish recently quit his role after being caught watching pornography in the House of Commons. He admitted he had twice watched porn on the Commons benches. The 66-year-old, a farmer by trade, claimed the first time was accidental after looking at tractors online, but the second was “a moment of madness”. He spoke about his achievements over the 12-years he has been an MP, what it is like to be thrust into the national spotlight and his hopes for the constituency’s future.

On the overall event, Doug Smith, chair of the carnival and Mayfair committee said: “The familiar strains from the Silver Band made everybody’s neck hair stand on end and soon we have the spectacle of the parade with our May Queen followed by Maypole dancing by pupils of Bluecoats C of E primary School. The amazing weather encouraged the large crowd and spirits were high.

“The next day saw the return of the infamous Round-the- tree race when fortunately the weather was a little more overcast to help the runners, who were cheered all round the course. Saturday was carnival day when in the evening we were treated to numerous floats and walking entrants and again a rapturous crowd enjoying a much missed event once again.

“To complete it all throughout the week we were treated to the funfair in Barley Grove carpark. My thanks to everyone who really put their backs into this year’s event. The committee, the volunteers, the participants and of course, our residents and guests.”

Britain’s water companies, guilty of polluting our rivers and seas with raw sewage, appear to have been let off the hook once again by the government.

Jawad Iqbal www.thetimes.co.uk

A system proposed by MPs to monitor the volume of human waste pumped into rivers has been rejected by ministers. It means that those running the water industry are being allowed to get away with doing far too little, too late, to tackle pollution, improve water quality and update infrastructure.

Water companies are permitted to release sewage when there is a risk of rainfall overwhelming the network but this is meant to be exceptionally rare. The reality is very different: water companies spilled raw sewage into rivers and the sea more than 1,000 times a day on average last year, according to official data. This feels routine rather than “exceptional”. The water companies gauge the frequency and length of spills but, crucially, do not measure the actual volume of sewage. They claim that volume monitoring is “difficult and expensive”.

Such claims of financial penury are hard to stomach from an industry that has collectively cut investment in waste water and sewage networks by almost a fifth in the 30 years since privatisation. Money that should have been used to improve infrastructure and tackle sewage outflows has gone, in part, into bumper pay packets for water chiefs. To take one example: Liv Garfield, chief executive of Severn Trent, was paid £2.8 million in 2020, including £1.9 million in bonuses.

The water companies are monopoly providers of an essential public service yet no one in authority seems able or willing to get a grip. Under government plans published in March, companies will be required to cut sewage spills by 40 per cent by 2040 and 80 per cent by 2050. That’s effectively a licence for inaction in the short term, but the environmental and public health crisis of contaminated waterways is not looming in the distant future — it is here now.

The Water Services Regulation Authority (Ofwat) and the Environment Agency need stronger powers to take enforcement action against companies that are failing to deliver. Regulators appear weak and ineffectual against a powerful industry that seems intent on ignoring its wider corporate responsibilities.

Companies should be prevented from paying large bonuses to executives who have failed to curb sewage discharges into rivers and otherwise fallen short on pollution targets. The directors of companies should be held legally accountable for environmental pollution. That would focus minds.

Responding to the call for “Tractor Enthusiasts”, Owl understands that Allis Chalmers is “Highly qualified for the job; still going strong with plenty of active life left” 

St Bridget home plans outline (Courtesy: Planning documents, Local Democracy Reporting Service)

A “good site for houses”

A long-established Exeter garden centre could be replaced with up to 350 new homes.

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

St Bridget Nursery at Old Rydon Lane is now closed to the public but remains in use as the company’s nursery and head office. It now sells its products through its remaining garden centre on Sidmouth Road at Clyst St Mary.

A planning application sets out how its horticultural and office buildings at Old Rydon Lane would be demolished, followed by a “phased construction” of the housing development.

It plans 62 one-bedroom homes, 87 two-beds, 138 three-beds and 59 four-bed homes built. Just over a third would be classed as ‘affordable’ – typically defined as up to 80 per cent of market rates.

Areas will be set aside for ‘habitat creation’ and water management, and electric car and bike charging points will be included, as well as the “potential” for solar panels and air source heat pumps.

At the “heart of the scheme,” is a large open space along with a “large green corridor along the southern boundary of the site, which will create a linear green space adjacent to Old Rydon Lane.”

The land, of around 13 hectares, is within the Newcourt area of Exeter which is allocated for 3,500 dwellings and 16 hectares of employment land. A significant proportion of the area has now been built on.

The development will be accessed via an improved junction between Old Rydon Lane ad the main A379 Rydon Lane, and the site will provide a new east-west route connecting Rydon Lane to the Newcourt area.

This will enable Old Rydon Lane to be downgraded to an access road for existing residents and cycle/footway, designed as “a safe and attractive multi-model connection, with a series of routes connecting to the different parts of the development.”

At the time of publication, only one person has commented on the plan, saying it was a “good site for houses” and “nice to see there are plans for 1 bed / 2 bed houses.”

Exeter City Council’s planning committee will decide on the application at a later date.

The volume of raw sewage being dumped into rivers will remain hidden after the government rejected a recommendation by MPs that water companies should be required to measure it.

A spokesman for Water UK, which represents water companies, said meeting the government’s targets for reducing pollution from sewage overflows would “require significant investment”. – Says it all – Owl

Ben Webster www.thetimes.co.uk

The companies must gauge the frequency and length of spills but their “event duration monitors” do not measure the sewage poured into waterways.

Water quality campaigners say volume monitors are essential to reveal the true impact of spills.

The environmental audit committee recommended in a report in January that water companies should be required to install volume monitors to assess discharges. The government response, published today, rejects the recommendation and repeats arguments put forward by water companies that monitoring was difficult and expensive.

Ash Smith, of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP), accused the government of allowing water companies to conceal the extent of discharges.

“Volume monitoring would show the truth about the extent and increase in criminal pollution and underinvestment,” he said. “But the introduction of volume monitors, which exist in every house with a water meter, is determined to be too difficult and too expensive.” Professor Peter Hammond, a WASP campaigner who helped expose illegal spills by water companies, said the industry feared volume monitors could result in fines. His research helped prompt the Environment Agency and Ofwat to launch an inquiry last November into suspected illegal spills by the ten water companies.

The agency said last week its initial analysis “confirmed that there may have been widespread and serious non-compliance with the relevant regulations”. The companies can release sewage into rivers in exceptional circumstances, including when heavy rain overwhelms the network. But sewage was released more than 1,000 times a day on average last year.

The government has also rejected the committee’s recommendations on cutting river pollution caused by the growth in intensive livestock units, typically involving pigs and poultry. The MPs called for a presumption against planning permission for units where they posed a risk to protected rivers.

The committee received evidence that the Wye was being choked by toxic algal blooms that might be caused by manure from intensive chicken farms being spread on farmland.

More than 20 million chickens are reared in giant sheds in the surrounding catchment area. Rebecca Pow, the environment minister, said: “We are setting ambitious targets, delivering on our Environment Act and cracking down on those water companies that are not playing their part in delivering the clean water that people want to see.”

A spokesman for Water UK, which represents water companies, said meeting the government’s targets for reducing pollution from sewage overflows would “require significant investment”.

Analysis of data published last December finds water companies have collectively cut investment in wastewater and sewage networks by almost a fifth since they were privatised.

Two parliamentary by-elections are set to be held in Wakefield and in Tiverton & Honiton on the same day next month following the resignation of two Conservative MPs.

The Tory chief whip, Chris Heaton-Harris, is expected to move the writ — a formal process effectively triggering a by-election — on Tuesday, with a vote likely in both constituencies on 23 June. www.independent.co.uk 

Time is short for anyone interested in standing for the Conservatives. They have only until tomorrow to apply and we know that the Tories are particularly seeking tractor enthusiasts. – Owl

No date yet for the byelection, the LibDems are up and running. Now it looks like the Tories have started as well.

But wait, who is this? – Owl

www.tivertonhonitonconservatives.co.uk – Campaigns

Neil Parish is involved in several campaigns for our local area.

• Two storey front extension and alterations to fenestration. Crabtree Southdown Road Beer EX12 3AERef. No: 22/0993/FUL | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension, single storey front extension, single storey side extension, conversion of the existing garage into a sunroom, conversion of loft space with a rear dormer for a habitable space. 7 Long Meadow Woodbury EX5 1JARef. No: 22/0991/FUL | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Reserved matters comprising access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for redevelopment of the farmyard at Slade Barton providing 8 new homes, replacement commercial premises and a new farmhouse farm office and ancillary buildings and a village car park and parking for existing dwellings; and associated infrastructure 20/0550/MOUT Slade Barton Payhembury Honiton EX14 3HRRef. No: 22/0989/MRES | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey rear extension. 11 Iona Avenue Exmouth EX8 3JQRef. No: 22/0994/FUL | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1 Fagus sylvatica fell and replant with Quercus rober standard The tree has extensive decay from Meripilus giganteus 147 Withycombe Village Road Exmouth EX8 3AGRef. No: 22/0986/TRE | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and demolition of existing rear sun room. 5 Rolle Barton Church Hill Otterton Devon EX9 7HRRef. No: 22/0984/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension. Pasadena Bassetts Gardens Exmouth EX8 4EERef. No: 22/0981/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey front extension, single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. 33 Woodbury Way Axminster EX13 5RERef. No: 22/0979/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of solar slate tiles, installation of 2 x air source heat pumps and associated plant equipment to Barns No. 1, 2 and 3 and the Farmhouse at Ley Farm. Ley Farm Yarcombe EX14 9LWRef. No: 22/0978/LBC | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Installation of solar slate tiles, installation of 2 x air source heat pumps and associated plant equipment to Barns No. 1, 2 and 3 and the Farmhouse at Ley Farm. Ley Farm Yarcombe EX14 9LWRef. No: 22/0977/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Single storey front extension and single storey rear extension. 22 Grove Hill Colyton Devon EX24 6ETRef. No: 22/0976/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of gazebo Tale Head Cottage Payhembury EX14 3HLRef. No: 22/0962/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing porch and replacement porch 1 Hill View Dalwood Axminster EX13 7EGRef. No: 22/0950/LBC | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Landscaping front garden to form parking area. Kingsland Castle Hill Seaton EX12 2QWRef. No: 22/0966/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey side/front extension. 76 Slade Close Ottery St Mary EX11 1SYRef. No: 22/0968/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of a single storey rear extension, which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 5.20 metres, for which the maximum height would be 3.00 metres, and for which the height of the eaves would be 3.00 metres. Lychgate House Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0RERef. No: 22/0957/GPD | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Californian Laurel – Crown reduce by no more than 1 / 1.5m to previous points. Reason: Appropriate arboricultural management. Bournville Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0RERef. No: 22/0954/TRE | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey rear extension with alteration to fenestration and part demolition. Northcote Hill Bungalow Northcote Hill Honiton EX14 9UURef. No: 22/0956/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of replacement detached single garage and demolition of existing detached single garage/shed and porch. Aram Littlemead Lane Exmouth EX8 3BURef. No: 22/0951/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Two storey side extension and addition of first floor with associated ancillary accommodation over part of existing ground floor of property. Glebe House Glebe Stables Southleigh EX24 6SDRef. No: 22/0948/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Proposed covering of existing concrete yard. Wadbrook Farm Wadbrook EX13 7ASRef. No: 22/0947/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Conversion of existing garage attic with addition of rooflights and side dormer window to form new home office. Ashdown Marley Hayes Exmouth EX8 5DHRef. No: 22/0958/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Norway Spruce – Fell to ground level. Reason: Appropriate arboricultural management. Bournville Clyst St George Exeter EX3 0RERef. No: 22/0955/TRE | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Proposed demolition of existing single storey flat roof porch structure and construction of new single storey front extension 4 High View Feniton EX14 3EGRef. No: 22/0964/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of detached garage. Higherfold Whalley Lane Uplyme DT7 3UPRef. No: 22/0965/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing porch and replacement porch 1 Hill View Dalwood Axminster EX13 7EGRef. No: 22/0949/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use or development, from business workshop/storage to private (non-business) ancillary/storage use (Sui Generis). Pegasus House King Street HonitonRef. No: 22/0931/CPE | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1-T3, Beech : Crown lift to achieve four metres clearance above ground level over garden, making cuts no more than 50mm diameter at appropriate pruning points T4, Oak : Heavy reduction to improve form after main leader failure. Reduce height by 0m, span by 2 – 4m, keeping cuts as small as possible 1 Heather Grange West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1XZRef. No: 22/0936/TRE | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Single storey rear extension and demolition of existing detached single garage. 3 Englands Close Sidford EX10 9QSRef. No: 22/0941/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Certificate of existing lawfulness to establish the use of lawful, independent and unrestricted dwelling (Use Class C3). Treaslake Farm Badger Cottage Buckerell Devon EX14 3EPRef. No: 22/0934/CPE | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Construction of new business unit (B8 storage and distribution) at combined compounds 48, 48A, 48B and 48C Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton EX5 1EWRef. No: 22/0926/MFUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Replacement single storey front porch extension with pitched roof and external steps. 20 Granary Lane Budleigh Salterton Devon EX9 6ESRef. No: 22/0928/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Local Development Order to permit up to 26,000sqm floor space for employment generating uses and ancillary, along with associated site infrastructure, earth works, access and landscaping Land Off Long Lane Clyst HonitonRef. No: 22/0914/LDO | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• New carport and garden shed Higher Leyhill Farm Broadhembury Honiton EX14 3JYRef. No: 22/0917/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of replacement barn for domestic use. Hill Mount Talewater Talaton EX5 2RRRef. No: 22/0905/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Addition of first floor with alteration to fenestration. The Workshop Longmeadow Road Lympstone Devon EX8 5LFRef. No: 22/0912/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Removal of Condition No.2 (Approved Plans) of application 21/2482/FUL. Flint House Fremington Road Seaton Devon EX12 2HXRef. No: 22/0895/VAR | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Construction of 2no. replacement front porches and demolition of 2no. existing front porches. 7, 9, 11 And 13 Brook Lane Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9PWRef. No: 22/0898/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• First floor annex with associated ground floor garage and erection of a single garage. The Headland 19 Foxholes Hill Exmouth Devon EX8 2DFRef. No: 22/0892/FUL | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Forestry building and store Sweethill Wood Woodland At Buckton Hill Off Hatway Hill Sidbury SidmouthRef. No: 22/0862/AGR | Validated: Wed 04 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

• Erection of agricultural storage building Great Loxhill Courtlands Lane Exmouth Devon EX8 5ABRef. No: 22/0852/FUL | Validated: Thu 05 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• T1, Scots Pine : Fell. The above tree has a moderate lean toward the property and has been subject to a historic failure of the main stem at approx 40m above ground level, this has left a significant wound at point of failure and therefore an entry point for disease. Vitality of the remaining tree is starting to wain with an obvious yellowing of needles and dieback of primary limbs. In the interest of safety we would like to fell and replant with the same species. 11 Warren Park West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TNRef. No: 22/0740/TRE | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Erection of farm shed. Land East Of Lilyvale HuxhamRef. No: 22/0742/FUL | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• Demolition of existing office and hardstanding and change of use to form extension to existing holiday park for the siting of 3 lodge style caravans for holiday use and 1 lodge style caravan for office and ancillary works. Pinewood Homes Sidmouth Road Rousdon Devon DT7 3RDRef. No: 22/0720/FUL | Validated: Tue 03 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision
• 1 x double sided board at top of farm drive 1.2m x 1.2m, green and white with Daisy’s Dairy logo; 2 x black and white 1.2m x 1.2m signs in the approach to South Waterhayne Farm stating “Fresh milk & milkshakes next right/left” on farm boundary South Waterhayne Farm Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9AXRef. No: 22/0530/ADV | Validated: Fri 06 May 2022 | Status: Awaiting decision

Owl believes this comment posted by “Tim” on the recent post: Exmouth journal prints “no comment” photos, deserves a post in its own right. 

From “Tim”

This extract on what the police can do with police bail (rather than court bail) is relevant and fits in with my own recollections but comes from the authoritative website of slaterheelis: https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/crime-category/private-crime/bail-what-is-it/

Quote:

Police can, however, impose certain conditions on the bail.

“Bail Conditions

If a suspect is released on bail before they are charged, the police may restrict what they can do.

For example, if a person is being investigated for assault, the police may enforce restrictions stopping them from interfering with the victim. Similarly, if the investigations involve crimes against children, the suspect may be restricted from being alone with children under the age of 18 or entering a specified radius from schools and nurseries.

Another example would be investigations of repeated theft in a shopping centre. The suspect may be restricted from entering this area. If such conditions are breached, the police have the power to arrest the suspect.”

End quote.

Thus it is rather surprising to see evidence of Humphreys apparently carrying on his ‘normal’ business whilst on police bail. I remain very concerned about many aspects that his victim mentioned, not least the allegations of threats from certain unnamed police officers as to the wisdom of not upsetting powerful people.

I find it very difficult to understand why Humphreys would have been released (on what was known as S.43 bail in my day) without conditions. He faced serious allegations and frankly , as well as protecting the public, it would be in the self-interests of the police to have bail conditions restricting his opportunities for repeat offences.

The crowd at the college must be very pleased with themselves and their selection of Mr Jupp. For all his supposed local connections it was an unfortunate choice to be left with opting for an offer of accommodation from Humphreys. Where were the family with these strong local connections?

Tory Lee Anderson, who criticised strugglers and questioned the need for foodbanks, can join his fellow MPs enjoying cheap food and drink as a perk on top of their £84,144 salaries. (up 2.7%)

Read full article www.mirror.co.uk

“Part of me has always wanted to be independent, and I’ve been quite an independent Conservative.”

Sweet dreams! – Owl

Lewis Clarke www.devonlive.com

Former Tiverton & Honiton MP Neil Parish, who quit after being caught watching pornography in the House of Commons, has told Devon Live that he will ‘probably have nightmares’ for the rest of his life. Mr Parish said in the two weeks since his resignation, he has been thinking about the ‘sheer madness’ of what he did and apologised again to his wife, who was ‘picking up the pieces’.

He admitted he had twice watched porn on the Commons benches. The 66-year-old, a farmer by trade, claimed the first time was accidental after looking at tractors online, but the second was “a moment of madness”. He spoke about his achievements over the 12-years he has been an MP, what it is like to be thrust into the national spotlight and his hopes for the constituency’s future.

He said: “I want to thank everybody for the tremendous support I’ve had in this constituency and how much of an honour it has been to represent Tiverton & Honiton for 12 years. For me, the highlights of being a member of Parliament for the area has been finally to get Cullompton Railway Station plans going when I thought for a long time it would probably never happen.

“There’s still the fight to get Tiverton High School, and I wish my successor all the very best to try and get that. Bypasses are needed in Cullompton and Axminster. We need to fight for our community hospitals at Seaton, Axminster, Honiton and Tiverton; we must ensure all these facilities are maintained. I shall look forward to watching what happens in the future.

“I hope the next candidate will fight for a new school for Tiverton as a top priority. Then, as I said, we need these bypasses and others. But if there were one thing I would say to my party, a new school for Tiverton is necessary. It would do the town a great deal of good and help raise aspirations in Tiverton. We need better education, and we need more aspiration.”

He continued: “I have worked very hard in this constituency, and I have had great support from councillors, activists and parish councils. All sorts of people have supported me, and I have enjoyed it. Of course, I have also had a great deal of support from the farming community, which I have represented extremely well in Parliament, if I do say it myself, as chair of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee.”

In an interview with the Telegraph last week, Mr Parish said he was considering standing as an independent candidate in the forthcoming by-election, of which the date is yet to be announced.

“What I want to see my own party make sure that they bring in a good local candidate, which will be good in Parliament and the constituency. Being a constituency MP is hard work, and it should be, so I don’t want just anybody foisted upon us. I haven’t made up my mind one way or the other,” he added. “I’m still taking soundings.

“I do not want to upset all the people that have been so loyal to me in my own party. If I did stand, it wouldn’t be for any other party; it would be an independent. Part of me has always wanted to be independent, and I’ve been quite an independent Conservative. The trouble is, if I was trading on the stock exchange now, I think my value would be quite low because of my actions, and I apologise again for them. That’s why probably I won’t stand, but I don’t rule anything out at this stage.”

He continued to say he will miss meeting people and being part of the community of Tiverton & Honiton now he is no longer an MP. “We’ve had some good fun over the years,” he said. “I remember The Tiverton Gazette photographed quite a large Neil Parish going down an inflatable slide and all sorts of other things.

“I’ve never been a pompous MP. I’ve always rolled up my sleeves, and we’ve had lots of good fun, and I shall miss the camaraderie. I am coming up to retirement age, I’ve probably retired a little sooner than I was expecting, but I did enjoy it. I enjoyed Parliament and notably chairing the select committee. I shall miss my friends in Parliament; we had plenty of banter.

“Of course, the ridiculous part with me is that I have blotted my copybook so terribly but behaved very well in Parliament generally. I am sure the national press were doing their best to find somebody to have a story on me, but I don’t think they could find them.”

On being the focus of a national scandal, he added: “I suppose I shall have nightmares for the rest of my life because, my God, is it something. For all my faults and sins, I managed to hold onto my temper. I made a mistake, but my goodness me, the national press are like nobody else you’ve ever come across. They’ve got a job to do, but I think it’s pretty harsh. You are, however, in politics; you put your head above the parapet, you make a mistake, and you pay the price.”

He discussed his plans for the future, adding: “I intend to build up some more farming and probably look at one or two other little business projects. That’s very much in my own gift to go on and do those. I would still like to put the knowledge I’ve gained, especially in the food, farming and environmental side, to good use.

“I also would like to work with the Farm Crisis Network charities. We had just been finishing, when I was previously the chair of the select committee, an inquiry on farmers’ mental health. The Farm Crisis Network rang me on Sunday evening when this was happening to check how I was. I very much thank them for that because one is not at one’s best place at that time.

He added: “What I would say to my national party is that whatever mistakes an MP makes, you need to try and give them a little bit of help in a crisis, not just leave them to it. I drove to Plymouth to resign, and it was all fine with Martyn Oates and my BBC interview, but it could have been very different.

“I’m not saying I would do anything stupid because I’m not like that, but I think they need to care for you a little better in a crisis. Not just looking at me as a very hot potato and hoping I’d just disappear.”

On the candidate he would like to see replace him, he said: “I am still a member of the Conservative Party. I hope to remain that. My message to voters is to be very careful. Look at the candidates, and all being well, the Conservatives will put up a good local candidate. I would ask voters to give that due consideration, and hopefully, they can still vote Conservative. I have represented them well in the past, and I hope the new representative and the Conservative Party will do the same.”