Tim Calvert

Disgraced former Tory MP Harvey Proctor, worked with the Times to publish this disgusting headline. Given what has now come to light, it is in fact HE who has done the thing he accused Nigel of. What a depraved man. He must apologise now.

Mr Yusuf, For the avoidance of doubt, I pleaded guilty in 1987 to an offence of gross indecency under laws that discriminated against homosexual men. The age of consent was then 21 for gay men & 16 for heterosexuals. Those discriminatory offences no longer exist. Also, the individual who was 17 was ‘wired for sound’ by Robert Maxwell’s paper. He said on the tape he was over 21. Unfortunately, there was a lacuna in the law in 1987 which provided heterosexuals with a defence. If heterosexuals believed those they had sexual relations with were of consensual age, & the jury believed this, then they could find the accused not guilty. No such defence pertained to homosexuals. If the younger person was under 21, the offence was committed. I did not realise this lacuna in the law existed until my lawyer, Sir David Napley, informed me. I then told him immediately I would plead guilty. Parliament has since recognised that these laws were unjust. Under the so-called “Alan Turing law”, people convicted of consensual homosexual offences under repealed legislation can have those convictions disregarded & pardoned as part of righting historic wrongs. Also, what I did was neither gross nor indecent. It was done in private and between consenting adults. I have never hidden any of this. What you are doing is attempting to weaponise a historic conviction under discriminatory laws to discredit me because you disagree with my views, & blind loyalty. That is your choice. My point remains unchanged: politicians should respect the police’s request not to speculate during a live murder investigation. Personal abuse is no answer to a principled argument. You are free to criticise me, & to answer a principled argument with personal abuse & character assassination - however unbecoming - but personal vilification is no substitute for civil debate. Ann Widdecombe believed in decency, free speech & the rule of law - which is why she stood by me and offered me practical, private & public support throughout my ordeals. I rather think she would have expected better.

Mr Yusuf, For the avoidance of doubt, I pleaded guilty in 1987 to an offence of gross indecency under laws that discriminated against homosexual men. The age of consent was then 21 for gay men & 16 for heterosexuals. Those discriminatory offences no longer exist. Also, the individual who was 17 was ‘wired for sound’ by Robert Maxwell’s paper. He said on the tape he was over 21. Unfortunately, there was a lacuna in the law in 1987 which provided heterosexuals with a defence. If heterosexuals believed those they had sexual relations with were of consensual age, & the jury believed this, then they could find the accused not guilty. No such defence pertained to homosexuals. If the younger person was under 21, the offence was committed. I did not realise this lacuna in the law existed until my lawyer, Sir David Napley, informed me. I then told him immediately I would plead guilty. Parliament has since recognised that these laws were unjust. Under the so-called “Alan Turing law”, people convicted of consensual homosexual offences under repealed legislation can have those convictions disregarded & pardoned as part of righting historic wrongs. Also, what I did was neither gross nor indecent. It was done in private and between consenting adults. I have never hidden any of this. What you are doing is attempting to weaponise a historic conviction under discriminatory laws to discredit me because you disagree with my views, & blind loyalty. That is your choice. My point remains unchanged: politicians should respect the police’s request not to speculate during a live murder investigation. Personal abuse is no answer to a principled argument. You are free to criticise me, & to answer a principled argument with personal abuse & character assassination - however unbecoming - but personal vilification is no substitute for civil debate. Ann Widdecombe believed in decency, free speech & the rule of law - which is why she stood by me and offered me practical, private & public support throughout my ordeals. I rather think she would have expected better.

Harvey, You pled guilty to paying a 17 year old boy for sex. When you were 39. This is “disgrace”. Given you claim to have “nothing to apologise for” I feel compelled to inform you:  *this conduct is still illegal today*. You went to your party’s client press to condemn Nigel - who was also grieving for Ann - for asking questions that are now totally vindicated.  All to score a cheap party political point. This is “depraved”.