BREAKING NEWS First trans MP banned from contacting ex-wife over 'distressing' WhatsApp abuse during transition and divorce
Former Conservative MP Dr Jamie Wallis, who now uses the name Katie Wallis, had reached 'breaking point' while navigating a 'high-risk stage' of the transitioning process, her lawyer said.
Wallis, now 41, sent four 'distressing' WhatsApp messages to her ex-wife Rebecca Lovell, Cardiff Magistrates Court heard today.
In them the former Bridgend MP - now living on benefits - called her a 'bitch' a 'c***' and accusing her of being mean and going out 'c***-hunting'.
Wallis also sent messages demanding £350,000 within 15 minutes and calling Ms Lovell and her father 'prejudiced'.
Today she was given a community order and issued with a restraining order banning her from contacting Ms Lovell.
Father-of-two Wallis appeared at court today dressed in a black dress, black patent shoes and carrying a black handbag.
She told the court: 'My preferred name is Katie Wallis but my legal name is Jamie Wallis.'
Wallis previously admitted harassment without violence against her ex-wife after allegations of driving by her home were removed from the charge.
The couple were together for 15 years but separated in 2020 and their divorce was finalised last year.
Prosecutor Emily Jermin read messages sent between February 15 and March 21 including one that said Wallis was hallucinating.
The court heard Wallis had made two suicide attempts while going through the transition process.
Ms Jermin said: 'The defendant was detained under the Mental Health Act and taken to Llandough hospital where she was arrested and taken to Cardiff Bay police station.'
The court heard the former Conservative politician replied 'F*** off' to most of the questioning by officers.
In her victim personal statement Wallis's ex-wife, a teacher, said she couldn't remember a day when she hadn't cried.
'The last 10 years have destroyed me,' she said.
Ms Lovell said she was living her life as an 'overstimulated adult constantly in fight or flight'.
'I fear she may harm herself or me if I don't do what she asks,' she added.
'It's hard to explain the insidious emotional abuse. I've been subject to hundreds of these behaviours.
'I lay in bed at night wondering if the threats of suicide are real or fabricated.
'I suffer profound grief every day.
'I grieve the life I could have had as well as the relationships I've lost and the moments I missed.
'I'm too exhausted to put on a front any more.'
Ms Lovell said she had installed CCTV at her home in the Vale of Glamorgan to make herself 'feel more safe'.
The court previously heard Wallis had taken a 'ton of anti-depressants' at the time of the offences and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Narita Bahra KC, defending, asked for Wallis to be given a conditional discharge on the grounds that she didn't need 'supplemental complications' in the transitioning process.
She said: 'Dr Wallis is remorseful and does not seek to excuse what occurred.
'She accepts she acted in a manner that was wrong and does not seek to minimise the effect of her actions.
'It is important the court recognises the emotional state Dr Wallis was in at the time.
'She was going through the passing phase of gender transition.
'She was suffering from mood swings, panic attacks, social isolation and a cognitive overload.
'The content of the messages are key in demonstrating that Dr Wallis, like many other transitioning to a woman, was at a high risk of an emotional breakdown.'
Wallis, who now lives on benefits, was fined £500, given a 12-month community order and ordered to take part in a 12-day rehabilitation activity.
District Judge Rhys Williams said Wallis had harassed his wife by sending her 'distressing and unwanted' messages and voice notes.
He said: 'You used unpleasant terms, swore at her repeatedly and made a demand for a significant amount of money.
'Initially you started by saying you were sorry but then posted some questions about your ex wife's boyfriend.'
The judge said a psychiatric report on Wallis at the time of the offences concluded she was suffering from an adjustment disorder.
Wallis, of Butetown, Cardiff, was given a restraining order preventing her from having any contact with her ex-wife for 12 months.
As Jamie Wallis, he was elected to the Commons in 2019, becoming the first Tory to win the South Wales seat of Bridgend since the 1980s.
Wallis became the first MP in the UK to come out as transgender three years later.
In March 2022, Wallis revealed he had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria having 'felt this way since I was a very young child' and that he wanted to transition to be a woman.
Wallis also said he had been raped and blackmailed, and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
In response, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson praised Wallis's bravery, and politicians from across the political spectrum publicly expressed their support.
Wallis did not stand for re-election last year, putting the decision down to boundary changes – and insisting it 'isn't a case of being chased out locally'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Woman hit by car in Northampton left seriously hurt
A pedestrian was seriously injured when she was hit by a car, which then struck two parked vehicles. The woman, who is in her 40s, was hit by a black Nissan Juke in Semilong Road, Northampton, at 21:20 BST on Saturday. The car then hit a Vauxhall Astra and a Saab. The woman was taken to University Hospital Coventry, Northamptonshire Police said. It has asked for anyone with CCTV, doorbell or dashcam footage of the incident to get in touch. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Storm brews over Nationwide chief executive's pay package worth up to £7m
It has been a career-defining summer for Debbie Crosbie. Three years after taking over as the chief executive of Nationwide Building Society, the straight-talking Glaswegian has become a darling of the Labour government: awarded a damehood, namechecked in the chancellor's Mansion House speech and hailed for furthering a Labour party manifesto pledge to double the size of the mutuals sector. But outside Westminster's warm embrace, a storm has been brewing. A 43% increase to Crosbie's maximum pay package, worth up to £7m per year, is due to be rubber-stamped without a binding vote by members, effectively sidelining any opposition at Nationwide's annual shareholder meeting on Friday. It has prompted outrage among campaigners who say it is the latest sign that the 140-year-old building society is losing its way. Those critics believe Nationwide, which was founded in 1884 in south London as the Southern Co-operative Permanent Building Society, has deviated from its roots. Although owned by its members, it bought Virgin Money for £2.9bn last year without asking for their approval and critics claim it is centralising power at the top while diluting the voice of its members. But the industry is backing Crosbie, recognising the 55-year-old former TSB boss's role in pulling the sector into the political limelight. 'The truth is that mutuals have often been seen as niche: a 'nice to have but not essential',' says Peter Hunt, the founder of UK-based mutuals consultancy Mutuo. Now industry bosses are hosted at No 10 summer garden parties and asked to join a government-run Mutual and Cooperative Sector Business Council. This autumn, ministers will launch a consultation on how to double the size of the sector, in line with Labour's manifesto pledge. This kind of state-level attention, Hunt says, 'has moved the dial'. It is a sign that the sector has finally recovered from a wave of demutualisations in the 1990s that turned the likes of Abbey National, Bradford & Bingley, Halifax and Northern Rock into shareholder-owned banks. It was a blow to the UK's building societies movement, which traces its history back to Birmingham in 1775 when a group of friends, desperate to get on the housing ladder, pooled their resources to buy land and building materials. But by the time the 2008 financial crisis erupted, most demutualised firms were either acquired or nationalised through state bailouts. It left survivors such as Nationwide proud of how their simpler, more risk-averse business models, focused on savings and home loans, survived the financial implosion. Seventeen years later, Nationwide is the jewel in the sector's crown, with 17 million members and £368bn in assets. It is the second largest mortgage provider behind Lloyds, with a 12.5% share of the market. 'Nationwide is a domestically systemic banking institution,' the Building Societies Association (BSA) chief executive, Robin Fieth, says. 'It gives scale and importance to the whole of our sector.' But some believe Nationwide's growth has come at the expense of its democratic roots. While building societies centre on the idea of 'one member, one vote', there has been 'a boiling frog problem', according to James Sherwin-Smith, a longtime Nationwide customer who has campaigned to join the board as a voice for members. He says Nationwide has been 'debasing … member rights … despite all the lovely positive PR that Nationwide puts out about having your say, and that they're a beacon for mutual good. When I scratch the surface of that, I do not find substance.' Fury erupted last year over Nationwide's decision to not hold a member vote over its takeover of Virgin Money, while the takeover target's own shareholders had a say. But there are other longstanding issues, including Nationwide's use of 'quick vote' options, which make it easier to back the board's recommendations rather than cast individual or dissenting votes at its annual general meeting. There are also concerns that Nationwide has retained online-only AGMs, even after Covid lockdowns were lifted, in a move that risks disenfranchising members without internet access. Meanwhile, some members say it can be difficult to get a resolution or election on the ballot, requiring 250 to 500 endorsements from members, whose contact details can be a challenge to access due to data rules. Their signatures only qualify under strict conditions and can be disqualified if their balances or loans fall below a certain level – £100 or £200 in most cases – over the preceding two years. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Edwin Fisher of the Building Societies Members Association says that while Nationwide is the biggest of the mutuals sector, it is also the 'most controversial, and has, in our opinion, the lowest standards of corporate governance'. 'They regularly churn out the line that members are the owners, but we all know that members have no say in anything,' Fisher adds, noting that if the UK faced another wave of demutualisation, Nationwide 'would be ripe' to exit. Nationwide has not expressed any intention of demutualising. But its board says banker-level pay is necessary if it hopes to compete with the likes of Lloyds and NatWest. Fisher says members only want Nationwide to compete with banks on size, but not on pay or purpose. Furthermore, Nationwide's operations are far less complex than most banks: Crosbie does not have to manage an investment bank or international operations, nor relationships with shareholders. Even after the Virgin Money takeover, it remains a much simpler operation focused on mortgages. But Hunt says it would be inappropriate to measure Crosbie and her pay against bosses at much smaller building societies. 'She's the Lionel Messi of British building societies,' he said. 'And she could play for any of the banks, so this is how they keep her in the Nationwide shirt.' The problem for democratically minded members is that the Building Societies Act may not be fit for Nationwide's size. It means that, unlike its listed bank rivals, Nationwide is not required to hold binding votes on new pay proposals, like the one that could hand Crosbie up to £7m. While it could volunteer to hold a binding vote, Nationwide has refused. When asked whether the Building Societies Association would support reforming the act, Fieth said 'it's not a measure we'd oppose' but admitted it was not 'No 1 on our shopping list'. Hunt also questioned whether members were 'equipped' to have a binding say on pay. 'If I was a member of Nationwide, how would I be equipped to know what any executive should get paid? How would I know? Just because I didn't like the number? If you had a vote on MPs' pay, I guarantee you the vast majority of the public will want them to [be paid] less,' he said. (The basic salary for an MP is £93,904.) Fieth echoed that argument, saying some members 'found it difficult' to relate to the sums involved. 'When you've got a balance sheet that's £300bn, most people can't compute that at all.' He said members should still be asking questions, but needed to keep long-term performance and innovation in mind. 'Henry Ford said that if you'd asked people what they wanted at the beginning of the 20th century, they'd have said faster horses.' Sherwin-Smith said it was the board's burden to keep members informed. 'They should educate people and let them [hold a binding] vote, but to say you're too stupid to have a say is the wrong attitude.' Nationwide declined the Guardian's interview requests, but said it regularly engages with a panel of 6,500 members and surveys 500,000 members each year. It also said members have a chance to vote to re-elect board directors every year. 'From the extensive engagement that we have with our members, we cannot see any evidence that our leading customer service, support for first-time buyers, growing market shares and record member financial value is in any way controversial,' Nationwide said. It previously said pay proposals although advisory, 'always received overwhelming member support' and that Nationwide's strong performance was driven in part by its ability to 'attract, retain and motivate talented leaders.'
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump has every right to berate the technocrats
Knucklehead or numbskull? Donald Trump uses both terms to describe Jerome Powell, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve. It depends on which day of the week it is. His attacks on Powell are now so frequent they have lost the power to shock, but imagine the horror if Sir Keir Starmer started regularly describing Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, as a nitwit or a simpleton. Or if France's president, Emmanuel Macron, were to refer to Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, as a 'nigaud' or 'crétin'. Imagine also if they let it be known that they were examining ways of ridding themselves of their troublesome monetary priests, as Trump has done in the US. The entire political and economic establishment would be up in arms and there would be mayhem in the bond markets. Yet Trump is Trump and iconoclasm comes with the territory. Trump's bark may in practice turn out to be worse than his bite. It often does. It is none the less worth considering whether in this instance he might not have a point. Looked at objectively, the unwritten understanding that presiding governments should never criticise their central banks is one of the modern world's more absurd conventions. Of course, we all know how it came about. It was part of a much wider shift in which key parts of government were removed from direct political control and vested instead with independent technocrats. Free from the need to win elections, it was argued, these arms-length bodies would do a much better job than the politicians in keeping things on the straight and narrow. In Britain, granting the Bank of England independent control of monetary policy, was very much part of the then-Labour government's attempt to sanitise itself with markets and present the UK as a trusted and stable monetary regime that had finally put its post-war inflationary past behind it. As with most other central banks, independence has been buttressed by provisions that make it virtually impossible to sack the incumbent governor except in the case of madness or misfeasance. Much as he would like to dismiss Powell, even Trump has struggled to find a way around these guardrails. The ballooning costs of renovating the Federal Reserve's grandiose Washington headquarters may be evidence of public sector waste and incompetence but it is not, on the face of it, a case of outright fraud. All the same, the lavish nature of the Fed's refurbishment touches a chord that characterises central banks as out of control, unaccountable and often just plain wrong. And now they build themselves palaces and cathedrals as symbols of the once-ruling idolatry. Admittedly, Trump's own vulgar redecoration of the Oval Office in his trademark gold chintz is in some respects just as bad, even if far less expensive. But at least Trump is elected, while Powell is a mere appointee. This in itself is causing much amusement, for in this week describing Powell as a 'terrible' chairman, Trump added that he was 'surprised he was appointed', seeming to forget that it was he who originally chose him. He soon regretted it and, by the end of Trump's first presidency, the two were barely on speaking terms.
