The Conservative Party has filed its defence to my claim

Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.
—Quran, [Quran 4:95

Whether or not you believe in the God of the Koran, it is clear that this verse is saying that God, if He exists, only helps those who help themselves.

The people who agree with me about most things but who dare not say so, or who dare not say so using their own names, should take note.

If all the people in Britain were prepared to defend their views through being inconvenienced or by making some sacrifice, we would all be closer getting the government we want.

It is sadly the case that hardly anyone in Britain even knows what a principle is, let alone is prepared to defend it.   The Conservative Party does not know what a principle is, or what its principles, if any, are and it is prepared to say so in open court.

It seems to me that all the problems of West stems from a complacent and stubborn refusal  to define Conservatism and state its principles.  If that had been done, we would not have had a Conservative Prime Minister force gay marriage on us and we would not be left with social conservatism being so marginalised that it is only found in the demonised Eurosceptic parties.

Statement of Facts Relied On

Statement of Grounds page 1

Statement of Grounds page 2

Statement of Grounds page 3

Statement of Grounds page 4

Statement of Grounds page 5

Statement of Grounds page 6

INDEX TO LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Claimant – Claire Khaw          Defendant – Conservative Party


Letter from Defendant to Claimant dated 20 December 2013                                 1



Thursday 20th December 2012
Dear Ms Khaw
I am writing on behalf of the Conservative Party Board to inform you that your membership of the Conservative Party has been cancelled under Part IV 17.7 of the Constitution of the Party, which states:
The Board of the Party shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall be ... responsible for ... the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion of any Party member ....
Yours sincerely
Stephen Phillips
Secretary to the Board of the Party

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 11 January 2013                                      2

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
To: Stephen.phillips@conservatives.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:41 PM
Subject: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Dear Mr Phillips

I refer to your letter dated 20th December and would be grateful if you would let me know the reason why you cancelled my membership.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw



Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 14 January 2013                                      3

From: Claire Khaw
Sent: 14 January 2013 15:18
To: Phillips, Stephen
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Dear Mr Phillips


May I hope to receive from you an acknowledgment or an answer to my question?

If it is the Conservative Party's view that I am not entitled to receive an answer then please also let me know this.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw


Email from Defendant to Claimant dated 15 January 2013                                      4

----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Stephen
To: Claire Khaw
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

The Conservative Party received a complaint and subsequently launched an investigation.  The investigation found subject matter personally attributed to you which were wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party.

The Board of the Party reserves the right to cancel the membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party member.

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 15 January 2013                                      5

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
To: Phillips, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

Yes, I gathered that I have done something which you dislike, but may I know

(a) what I have done that is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party?

(b) what are the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party?

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 16 January 2013                                      6

From: Claire Khaw
Date: 16 January 2013 17:49
Subject: The reason for the cancellation of my membership
To: "Phillips, Stephen"


I wonder if you have received my earlier email.

Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 18 January 2013                                      7

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire Khaw
To: Phillips, Stephen
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership

May I know if it is your intention not to tell me

1.  what I have done that is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party; and

2.  what are the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party?



Email from Claimant to Defendant dated 23 January 2013                                      8

From: Claire Khaw
Date: 23 January 2013 11:31
Subject: Fw: The reason for the cancellation of my membership
To: "Phillips, Stephen"


When may I expect to hear from you on this?

Letter Before Claim from Claimant to Defendant dated 6 February 2013               9 - 11

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/letter-before-claim-to-conservative.html

Letter from Defendant to Claimant dated 11 February 2013 with Key Episodes      12  - 14

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/conservative-party-allows-me-to-appeal.html

1st link referred to in Key Episodes (photo of Claimant)                            
http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/featured-stories/derek-fender-corner/828-the-big-fight-kim-gandy-vs-claire-khaw                                                                                                            15 - 16

2nd link referred to in Key Episodes  (photo of Claimant)                                                            
 http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/khaw-blimey-camerons-latest-recruit.html
                                                                                                                                    17 - 18


3rd, 4th and 7th link referred to in  Key Episodes                          
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html                                                                                                                       19  – 20

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html                                                                                                                       21 - 24

5th link referred to in Key Episodes
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html                                                                                                                   25 - 30

Transcript of what Claimant said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show                          31 - 36
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/31/care-failing-those-with-learning-disability
                                                                                                                                    37 - 38

6th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                           39 - 40
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html

8th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                        
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary                    41 – 42

9th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                           43  - 44
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/banned-from-posting-for-7-days-for.html

10th link referred to in Key Episodes                                                                         45
http://www.linkedin.com/in/1party4all

Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill                                        46 - 47
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

Claimant's Appeal dated 5th March 2013                                                                 48 - 54
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/my-appeal-against-cancellation-of-my.html

Defendant's  Dismissal of Claimant's Appeal dated 27 March 2013                         55
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/chairman-of-conservative-party-claims-i.html

Defendant's letter to Claimant dated 4 April 2013                                                    56

David Cameron's Foreword in the 2010 General Election Manifesto                       57 – 59        
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Activist%20Centre/Press%20and%20Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto2010

Claimant's Letter Before Claim dated 10th June 2013                                              60 - 63
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/letter-before-claim-for-judicial-review.html


DETAILS OF REMEDY SOUGHT

A quashing order nullifying the Defendant's expulsion of the Claimant

A mandatory order requiring the Defendant to publish a formal Statement of Its Principles

Statement of Costs page 1

Statement of Costs page 2

Statement of Costs page 3

Statement of Costs page 4

Statement of Costs page 5

Defence of Conservative Party page 1

Defence of Conservative Party page 2

Defence of Conservative Party page 3

Defence of Conservative Party page 4

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/18/hugh-muir-diary-david-cameron

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/hugh-muirs-diary-mps-chelsea-flower-show

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/it-would-be-cheaper-for-conservative.html
It would be cheaper for the Conservative Party if they just got themselves this one Conservative principle

"The Conservative Party supports the principle of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest.  The national interest includes solvency, social stability, stable prices as well as standards of behaviour and education that are considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next."

Perhaps it will eventually dawn on them, before this goes too far, that they would be better off with principles than without.  Indeed, some of them might even concede that it is better to have me inside the party than outside the party.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-the-Conservative-Party-adopt-the-principles-Claire-Khaw-recommends/480788695347743

Why I am suing the Conservative Party, in language a layman would understand

• With politicians working hard to seem amiable, it's refreshing to be reminded that they rarely leave home without the iron fist within that velvet glove. That realisation must be dawning on that horrible controversialist Claire Khaw – who was expelled from the Tory party earlier this year when party bosses discovered nasty things she had previously said about the disabled. You are not our type, the Tories said. Which seemed fair enough. But Khaw, being Khaw, went to the high court and applied for judicial review. Cue a letter from the Tory party lawyers – and it's a beauty. We "strongly advise" that you take legal advice "before taking any further steps", it says. "Your application for judicial review will fail." You can't challenge our disciplinary committee because we are essentially a "private members'" association. Even if you could, the decision was a sound one. We have to respond to your application by 22 July, they say. We will fight and we will win, and make you be liable for costs. "You have a choice. Withdraw your claim and prove that you have done so by 1200hrs on Thursday 18th July. If you do this our client will not seek to recover its legal costs from you." If you don't, on your own head be it. No surrender, says Khaw. I'd rather risk legal fees, if they are reasonable. Reasonable legal fees? She is odd, isn't she?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/hugh-muirs-diary-mps-chelsea-flower-show

It won't be a big legal bill because they are saying my claim is so crap that they just have to tell the court it is crap and the court will agree with them pronto and refuse me permission, in which case that will be the end of the matter.  If I have to pay their costs at all, then it would be for the cost of the Conservative Party instructing its solicitors to file a defence saying that my claim is utterly without merit and should not be entertained for one moment by any High Court judge in his or her right mind.  

What I am asking for is in fact really very modest. The Conservatives have no principles (or mistakenly think that their principles are contained in David Cameron's Foreword of their 2010 General Election Manifesto at http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf). I just want them to publish a formal Statement of Principles.

My theory is that the reason why Western governments are now foundering is because none of parties that are supposed to promote social conservatism - such as the Conservative Party - have a Statement of Principles.  Because social conservatism is never defended and the need for it not properly understood, extremist liberalism and feminism and their irresponsible social policies have caused social problems that will not be dealt with, let alone solved, for a few generations.

I will be suggesting to the Conservatives that they might like a principle along the lines of "The principle of the Conservative Party is to conserve the long-term national interest."

The national interest could be defined as, for example, solvency and social stability which would mean the promotion of fiscal prudence and marriage (between a man and a woman only) for social stability.

I know people will find it very difficult to grasp, but what I am suing the Conservative Party for is this:

For claiming that I have said and done things that were 'wholly inconsistent' with their aims, objectives and principles AND THEN BEING UNABLE TO TELL ME WHAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE.

To judicially review a decision of a public body you have to cite the following legal grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Grounds_for_review

I recognise that my legal action may fall at the first hurdle, because their lawyers have already claimed that the Conservative Party is not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body and are instead "a private members' association".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_on_Take-overs_and_Mergers,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc is the case that I will cite that argues that any organisation that can make decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large will be deemed to be a public body, whether it likes it or not.

This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatisation" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Cameron could not have become Prime Minister if he had not joined the Conservative Party.

Now that he is PM and proposing to legalise gay marriage, this would clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

Organisations such as

The Marriage Foundation http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Default.aspx

Christian Concern http://www.christianconcern.com/

Christian Institute  http://www.christian.org.uk/

Coalition for Marriage http://c4m.org.uk/

and anyone else who is against gay marriage and the way the Conservative Party is running this country should really be supporting me in this.

This would include UKIP and the BNP and any organisation that considers itself Libertarian eg

The IEA  http://www.iea.org.uk/

The Libertarian Alliance  http://www.libertarian.co.uk/

Adam Smith Institute http://www.adamsmith.org/

If the court is minded to favour my arguments, then it will be what lawyers call a landmark case.

I expect anyone who is a member of any political party to take an interest, because this case highlights really how powerless the individual political activist is and how likely his rights will be abused by the leaders and his cronies with impunity by his abusers.  Any complaint of ill-treatment will be treated with indifference by one's friends, family and associates because everyone hates politicians and think they deserve to suffer for presuming to tell them what to do.

They are of course claiming I am a very bad egg: an antisemite and a Nazi for one thing, and for daring to discuss controversial subjects in a way that has caused great offence to liberals and feminists.

My intention is to prove that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi and deny that I am an antisemite.  I will however put my hands up to discussing controversial subjects. One goes into politics precisely because one has a view about controversial subjects. Discussing controversial subjects and expressing controversial opinions should not be a reason for expulsion from any party, should it?

It is shocking that no political party will defend the right of any of its members when they say something liberals and feminists dislike.

I have a made a point of not saying anything that is logically, morally and intellectually indefensible, but it seems that these rules of rational discourse are unknown even to what passes for the intelligentsia in this land.

No one is interested in discussing whether something is moral, practicable or rational, only that it is offensive in this easily-offended and morbidly feminised country.

The Truth is ugly, boys and girls, and I think it is time that you were told that this is a fact of life.   Santa Claus does not exist and Mummy and Daddy (if you have one) will not be around forever to look after you and bail you out.

Surely political activists are allowed to discuss controversial subjects without being vilified and their political careers ruined, in what we fondly imagine to be a society which is supposedly free because the principle of free speech is upheld  by the state?

Is there anything at all in the Conservative Party constitution that forbids a member from discussing the disabled in terms that they or their parents might find offensive?  I rather suspect not.

Just because one is not taken out and shot for saying something found to be offensive by the easily-offended - usually women - does not mean one has free speech.   Many are easily intimidated and the threat of a much lesser punishment, such as loss of a Facebook friendship, loss of status, is usually enough.  Many men fear being considered odd by women with whom they wish to have sex and so toe the feminist line in order not to offend the women whom they hope to fuck.  Men, as we know, will do anything for sex, and telling a few lies, or, more likely, refraining from criticising feminism during courtship in order to gain sexual access to women, is easily done.

All this is enough to make self-censorship the rule in this supposedly free country.

Probably, China has more free speech than Britain.   

What I hope to achieve for social conservatives by applying for judicial review of the Conservative Party's decision to cancel my membership without giving a reason

My rather tetchy response to a solicitor who advised me to sue the Conservative Party in contract because he is yet another who does not not think the Conservative Party is a public body and may not have heard of Datafin:

"I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_for_Takeovers_and_Mergers_Ex_p_Datafin established the principle that decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Join the Conservative Party and you could become councillor, MP, a Minister of State and even Prime Minister. The administrative decisions of the Conservative Party clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

No useful purpose would be achieved by suing the Conservative Party in contract. They would simply return my £25 and send me on my way.

What I want is for them to

1. give me a reason for the cancellation of my membership 
2. amend their constitution so that they will have to give a reason to any member whose membership they cancel 
3. allow an appeal from such a decision before an impartial tribunal at which the member may have legal representation and witnesses
4. articulate and define the principles of the Conservative Party in order that the objective bystander will know they have been gone against by any member of the Conservative Party, including and especially the leader 
5. reinstate me after all the above has been done 

after it has been shown that one or some or all of the following reasons apply to the decision of Stephen Phillips, Secretary to the Board of the Party, who cancelled my membership, viz:

1. the decision-maker does not have power to make that decision, or is using the power they have for an improper purpose; 
2. the decision is irrational; 
3. the procedure followed by the decision-maker was unfair or biased; 
4. the decision was taken in breach of the Human Rights Act; or 
5. the decision breaches European Community (EC) law."

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/02/hugh-muir-diary-bnp-conservatives

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/04/hugh-muir-diary-nigel-farage-card

Public law specialist John Halford, Partner at Bindmans, has apparently not heard of the Datafin case

http://www.bindmans.com/our-people/profile/john-halford

John Halford, Public Law Specialist at top London law firm Bindmans

John Halford is a public law specialist.

As a litigator, he has focussed on judicial review work since 1993, challenging the unfair exercise and abuse of power by public authorities, human rights breaches and discrimination. He represents individuals, campaign and action groups, unions, charities, schools, professional associations and regulators, arts organisations and commercial companies – not only as judicial review claimants, but also as interested parties and interveners in cases brought by others that affect their interests or those of people they represent. He has had a number of notable successes in high profile test cases in the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and the UK Supreme Court. He has European Court of Human Rights experience at Grand Chamber level.
John is also a source of trusted advice on complex public law, professional disciplinary, regulatory, planning, EU and human rights law matters.

In the Chambers and Partners legal directory John has starred rankings (the highest awarded) in the fields of administrative and public law, human rights and civil liberties. He is also recommended for his professional disciplinary and police law work. The Legal 500 directory lists him as a leader in the fields of administrative and public law, civil liberties, human rights and healthcare. He is a past winner of a Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year award.

26 December 2012 18:48

From: Claire Khaw
To: John Halford
Subject: Is the Tory Party a public body whose administrative decisions are subject to judicial review?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html
Would Bindmans be prepared to act for me in this matter?
Claire Khaw

Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:40 AM
From: John Halford
To: Claire Khaw
Subject: RE: Is the Tory Party a public body whose administrative decisions are subject to judicial review?
Dear Ms Khaw
Political parties are not public bodies that can be challenged by way of judicial review in my view. I am sorry, but the firm cannot realistically assist you with this matter.
Yours sincerely
John Halford
Bindmans LLP


Thursday, December 27, 2012 11:06 AM
From: Claire Khaw
To: John Halford
Subject: Re: Is the Tory Party a public body whose administrative decisions are subject to judicial review?

Dear Mr Halford
I am surprised that you have not heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_for_Takeovers_and_Mergers_Ex_p_Datafin which established the principle that decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Join the Conservative Party and you could become councillor, MP, a Minister of State and even Prime Minister. The administrative decisions of the Conservative Party clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

It seems that you are now refusing to act for me because you think I am a crank precisely because I have had my membership cancelled by the Conservative Party.

Either that, or you really have never heard of the Datafin case.

Your sincerely
Claire Khaw

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/dec/19/alan-turing-pardon-shift-legal-position suggests that John Halford's political views are very PC liberal indeed.  I now accept that his political views would have it very hard for him to represent me with any degree of conviction.

If something was a crime then it was a crime.  If someone was properly convicted of a crime, then no one has any business to now insist that it should never have been a crime, as John Halford appears to be saying.  I wonder if John Halford himself is gay.

Surely being gay does not give you greater moral authority than someone who is not gay?  If John Halford is really saying that, then the last thing I would want is for him to be my legal representative, especially if he has never heard of Datafin.





HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour