Conservative Post Editor Claire Bullivant wrote to Labour’s Harriet Harman and her six fellow Privileges Committee members this week asking why they criticised a perfectly legitimate news campaign in their Special Report entitled: ‘Co-ordinated campaign of interference in the work of the Privileges Committee.’
In their public report, the Privileges Committee not only name Ms Bullivant but also state: “An example of selective pressure brought to bear on Conservative members of the Committee was the email campaign instigated by the Conservative Post website, urging those members to stand aside from the Committee and alleging that the inquiry was deeply flawed, biased and unfair.”
The Privileges Committee also incorrectly state the Conservative Post is an online magazine of the Conservative Democratic Organisation and infer the CDO President and Vice-President, namely Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh, were involved in the email campaign. They were not.
VIEW THE PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE FULL REPORT HERE
Editor Claire Bullivant, this week wrote to all seven Privileges Committee members asking for answers. The following is a copy of Ms Bullivant’s letter:
Dear Harriet Harman, Bernard Jenkin, Charles Walker, Alberto Costa, Andy Carter, Allan Dorans and Yvonne Fovargue,
- Why was I named in your Privileges Committee Special Report?
- Why was I not given any advance notice I was being named and a right to reply?
- Why did you say the Conservative Post is a magazine of the CDO when it is not true?
- Why are you criticising a perfectly legitimate campaign?
Please tell me why I, a private citizen, was mentioned in your Privileges Special Report? I’d appreciate a reply before the House of Commons rises for summer recess.
I’d also like you to correct an untruth where you state my news outlet, the Conservative Post is an online magazine of Conservative Democratic Organisation. It is not.
I set up the Conservative Post almost three years ago, long before the CDO was even thought about. I then launched the CDO with Lord Cruddas and David Campbell Bannerman earlier this year as a completely different entity.
Your report infers the CDO President and Vice-President, namely Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh, were involved with my Conservative Post campaign to email you. They were not.
The right to petition and campaign is one of those listed in the Bill of Rights. In fact it is a protected part of our constitution in a foundational document. Therefore as an independent news outlet, I had every right to say the Privileges Committee investigation was deeply flawed, biased and unfair, and brought both Parliament and our Party into disrepute. I also had every right to ask my readers to email some of you accordingly asking you to step down.
It was therefore a shock when I saw both your criticism of my perfectly legitimate campaign in your report and you also including my name.
I was given no notice from you I would appear in your report and no right to reply. How can this be justified? I have since been subject to a tsunami of abuse from the left.
As a private citizen and also editor of a news organisation, I believe it is legitimate to be able to criticise parliament. It is fundamental to free speech to be able to question politicians and run petitions.
Plus, you got several things wrong in your analysis of events and I also question you bringing retrospective law into Parliament. Having now spoken to various journalists across the media, I feel I am one of the few who read all the reports cover to cover, watched all the footage available and cross checked everything that was said (and when it was said on Hansard. I believe if you had too or if you had listened to one of the most eminent barristers in the land, Lord Pannick KC, you wouldn’t have found Boris Johnson guilty of anything.
I have a very clear and legally checked breakdown of everything that happened and the mistakes you made on the Conservative Post website if you would like to look.
Can it be made clear to the public who the Privileges Committee did take legal advice from?
I also ask will any MP or Lord who called on you to find Boris guilty before you finished your report also be in contempt of Parliament? What about those who declared him guilty before the report?
Surely this includes many of you.
I look forward to receiving your response.
Yours sincerely from a concerned private citizen and journalist of over 20 years,
Claire Bullivant MA
Founder and Editor, Conservative Post
