Crispin Blunt may be an idiot, but I think we should be very careful about punishing people who speak out for others, even if such speaking out seems v daft.
Well the police certainly shouldn't be involved. But he can be judged for his words.
NEW: statement from the Conservative party on Crispin Blunt’s defence of Imran Ahmad Khan;
“A jury of Mr Khan's peers has found him guilty of a criminal offence. We completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary, the jury or Mr Khan's victim.”
Reports that Russian forces may have used chemical agents in an attack on the people of Mariupol. We are working urgently with partners to verify details.
Any use of such weapons would be a callous escalation in this conflict and we will hold Putin and his regime to account.
NEW: statement from the Conservative party on Crispin Blunt’s defence of Imran Ahmad Khan;
“A jury of Mr Khan's peers has found him guilty of a criminal offence. We completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary, the jury or Mr Khan's victim.”
Tom Wenseleers @TWenseleers · 1h Nice thread on the new Omicron subvariants BA.4 & BA.5, originating in South Africa (Gauteng Province). Some of the mutations present, including L452R in the spike protein (which was present in Delta, but absent in Omicron BA.1+2), could confer a slight immune escape advantage.
NEW: statement from the Conservative party on Crispin Blunt’s defence of Imran Ahmad Khan;
“A jury of Mr Khan's peers has found him guilty of a criminal offence. We completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary, the jury or Mr Khan's victim.”
Reports that Russian forces may have used chemical agents in an attack on the people of Mariupol. We are working urgently with partners to verify details.
Any use of such weapons would be a callous escalation in this conflict and we will hold Putin and his regime to account.
If the reports are true it certainly won't stop the 'Russia would know that would lead to a response, they wouldn't be that stupid' kind of denial. Even though the Russian authorities provably could be that stupid. It's like how some people refuse to accept Russia's involvement in the Salisbury poisonings, because it was bungled, as though Russia hit squads are faultless.
With so much of the world watching and analysing Ukraine I would think you could not hide such an event for long, even if you can ensure allies and the sympathetic like India to play along.
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Weirdly I thought the omicron wave was sharply declining in the states? Edit - worldometers supports that view.
BA.2 is taking over.
Maybe, but not much evidence in the case rates, or that masks will make any difference.
Having just had covid (I assume BA2) my sense was that people STILL don’t understand the changed rules here, almost certainly because of the shiteness of government comms. It’s all - rightly - now symptoms based. If you feel poorly, stay in, otherwise carry on as normal. But lots of people don’t seem to grasp this.
In any case, I’m glad I was late to covid and thus in the no-restrictions era, because it was all over in three and a half days, a moderate cold followed by a day (but only a day) of weird exhaustion. Then gone. No issues with destroyed taste or unstoppable coughs.
Is BA2 much different to any other Omicron strain?
I had a look at the NHS guidance rules today as an acquaintance came down with the plague and we debated on txt what was going to happen.
The text is appalling. At the end of reading it I had no better idea of what someone who has symptoms or tests + should do. In fact, I had less idea. It is all over the place: stay at home, carry on, don't stay at home, keep away from vulnerables, but you can carry on as normal if you don't feel unwell, you might isolate for five days, then again perhaps it should be ten and so on and on.
Like most Omicron cases mine was mild, and a friend who is 80 has tested positive with no symptoms at all. On the other hand, a friend aged 50 was just able to stay out of hospital, and was in bed for 2 weeks feeling dreadful. He makes the point that the LFT test doesn't tell you what variant you've got - in retrospect he assumes it was Delta, which he's heard is on the rise again (is that correct?).
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
XR have succeeded quite a bit, there really have been more actions as a result of the wider environmental focus (how much down to them people will dispute), and parties have adopted much greener positions than even a few years ago. People think about it with decisions big and small.
So there has been action, and Labour would definitely take plenty of actions if they were elected. Ergo, the same old disruptive protests are not as necessary as they might have been even a few years ago, and can be treated as more of a distraction or nuisance.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
Ok are we even going to see a by-election in Wakefield? Reading the facts of the case, it doesn’t quite seem imprisonable, certainly if it’s a first offence.
Sexual assault on a child? I'd be appalled if he does not get a custodial sentence.
Crispin Blunt may be an idiot, but I think we should be very careful about punishing people who speak out for others, even if such speaking out seems v daft.
The jury sat through a trial & passed judgement on Imran Ahmad Khan. This is an intervention from a law-maker defending a convicted child sex offender.
Aside from anything else, it sends a terrible message to any victim yet to get justice in the UK - of which there are many
Perhaps a crazy comparator, but was Chris Mullins sending a terrible message when he campaigned for the Birmingham 6?
The difference was that Mullins was producing evidence about why it was a miscarriage of justice.
Blunt isn't. Not yet anyway. He seems to be objecting to the introduction of similar fact evidence at the trial - hence his reference to "lazy tropes". But this would have been decided on by the judge and there are pretty strict rules on when such evidence can be adduced. So unless the judge has got this wrong as a matter of law, it is hard to see what else Blunt has got. We'll see what else the appeal brings out.
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Nothing worse for a Labour leader than potentially winning - just means more opportunity to betray the movement.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
A jury has found him guilty of sexual assault of a 15 year old. The idea he could remain an MP is ludicrous. He won't be able to visit a school in his constituency. That would be illegal. And it was 14 years ago is hardly a defence...
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
Serbia is set to join the EU by 2025. Not sure about NATO.
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Well so far at every real Election it has done worse than even Corbyn.
If you prefer to take solace from Mid term Polls against a Government in crisis you are in for a hell of a shock come 2024 GE IMO
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Crispin Blunt’s statement defending Imran Khan is leading to a mass resignation from the APPG on LGBT which he chairs - including @RhonddaBryant@StewartMcDonald and @joannaccherry
I would have lost money betting against Peter Bottomley being a member. Blimey.
Edit - By which I mean good on him.
Maybe he just joins anything. I seem to recall a story about him joining a new APPG, which was vital because they are required to have cross party support and he was the only non Labour figure.
He's genuinely open-minded. He's by no means left-wing, but I remember him as often the only Tory willing to sign an EDM on a left-wing issue, because he happened to agree with it.
But there's also some "oh, go on then, put me down" help of the kind you describe. I was chair of an all-party group on animal experiments, and my favourite Tory, Oliver Letwin, was appointed as a shadow Minister, which would have made us non-quorate for Tories. You're not supposed to be an APPG officer and a front-bencher, but he predicted, correctly, that nobody would notice.
Most APPGs are not especially controversial - they're a common interest like waterways or adult education or fishing rather than a campaign. Some are very well organised and produce weighty reports which approach the standard of Select Committees. Many are just friendly places for people with a shared interest to talk about it.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
This view of NATO isn't exactly uncommon in Ireland:
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
This view of NATO isn't exactly uncommon in Ireland:
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Ok are we even going to see a by-election in Wakefield? Reading the facts of the case, it doesn’t quite seem imprisonable, certainly if it’s a first offence.
Sexual assault on a child? I'd be appalled if he does not get a custodial sentence.
Crispin Blunt may be an idiot, but I think we should be very careful about punishing people who speak out for others, even if such speaking out seems v daft.
The jury sat through a trial & passed judgement on Imran Ahmad Khan. This is an intervention from a law-maker defending a convicted child sex offender.
Aside from anything else, it sends a terrible message to any victim yet to get justice in the UK - of which there are many
Perhaps a crazy comparator, but was Chris Mullins sending a terrible message when he campaigned for the Birmingham 6?
The difference was that Mullins was producing evidence about why it was a miscarriage of justice.
Blunt isn't. Not yet anyway. He seems to be objecting to the introduction of similar fact evidence at the trial - hence his reference to "lazy tropes". But this would have been decided on by the judge and there are pretty strict rules on when such evidence can be adduced. So unless the judge has got this wrong as a matter of law, it is hard to see what else Blunt has got. We'll see what else the appeal brings out.
FWIW, on the reported facts, Blunt’s intervention seems deeply ill advised, and his judgment awry.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
This view of NATO isn't exactly uncommon in Ireland:
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Ok are we even going to see a by-election in Wakefield? Reading the facts of the case, it doesn’t quite seem imprisonable, certainly if it’s a first offence.
Sexual assault on a child? I'd be appalled if he does not get a custodial sentence.
Crispin Blunt may be an idiot, but I think we should be very careful about punishing people who speak out for others, even if such speaking out seems v daft.
The jury sat through a trial & passed judgement on Imran Ahmad Khan. This is an intervention from a law-maker defending a convicted child sex offender.
Aside from anything else, it sends a terrible message to any victim yet to get justice in the UK - of which there are many
Perhaps a crazy comparator, but was Chris Mullins sending a terrible message when he campaigned for the Birmingham 6?
The difference was that Mullins was producing evidence about why it was a miscarriage of justice.
Blunt isn't. Not yet anyway. He seems to be objecting to the introduction of similar fact evidence at the trial - hence his reference to "lazy tropes". But this would have been decided on by the judge and there are pretty strict rules on when such evidence can be adduced. So unless the judge has got this wrong as a matter of law, it is hard to see what else Blunt has got. We'll see what else the appeal brings out.
FWIW, on the reported facts, Blunt’s intervention seems deeply ill advised, and his judgment awry.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
This view of NATO isn't exactly uncommon in Ireland:
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
Why? Most people outside the big cities rely on driving cars.
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
Why? Most people outside the big cities rely on driving cars.
I don't think BJO needs a coherent analysis to critique Starmer.
Now if it had been Corbyn that had made what BJO considers to be conflicting statements it would have been the work of a genius.
One of the very first cases I worked on as a pupil barrister was a professional negligence case (the building of Furness Hospital in Barrow) and counsel for the other side was David Blunt, Emily's father and Crispin's brother. In another coincidence the solicitor's firm acting for the clients we were representing later merged with the firm where our own @AlastairMeeks later became a partner.
David Blunt was rather handsome and quite kind to a very junior barrister working for the opposition. I was the only woman there and my clients were a bunch of horrible and rude sexists.
So my first introduction to the Lake District was sitting in a Portakabin in a building site outside Barrow in late November as lawyers argued about whether the building was being built properly and whose fault it was.
All the commentary is clear. Russian is focussing on the East & South East. The battlespace offers good advantages to the Russians and the classic heavy firepower & manouvere forces approach they like. In short Russia does have the tools and situation in its favour, if it uses them
The East & South East campaign is, however, still a slog for Russia. Early gains haven't been followed by large breakouts but there is still a live chance of surrounding large Ukrainian pockets which could take out low10 000s of Ukrainian forces if they get trapped. The Ukrainians right now have no large scale offensive capability available and are in serious need of the battlefield heavy mobility hardware, blunt firepower and force multipliers. They have made some headway towards Kherson but that counter offensive has slowed.
Strategically the Ukrainian's stated need is 100% on the button; mobility, depth strike (artillery and aircraft) and something to take the fight to the Russian Navy in the Black & Azov Seas. The West isn't as forthcoming as they should be here. Whilst you cant just pull a tank or Mig out of mothball overnight, they have had weeks to prep and haven't used the time as well as they could. What there hasn't been firm evidence of, though they'd very remiss not to be doing it, is active arms purchases/trades from/with non involved parties or the grey market. There is only so much ex Soviet gear knocking about in Eastern Europe. You can donate certain kit like AFVs trucks etc that don't need training on, but artillery, tanks etc. all a bit particular as is their ammunition. Therefore the wider market should have some interesting buyers & trades soon if the West is serious.
Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, Ireland is still not interested in the slightest, so how about Austria? They seem to be the last of the big guns left besides Switzerland and the Russian leaning areas of the Balkans.
There's a Constitutional bar on Austria joining NATO and they have no dangerous border. They form a durable militarily neutral core to Europe with neighbouring Switzerland.
Ireland is more likely.
To expand on Ireland, some within Fine Gael have suggested a citizen's assembly to consider what role Ireland should play in the future of European defence.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
This view of NATO isn't exactly uncommon in Ireland:
The reasons why Russia withdrew from the immediate area around Kiev. Not enough progress, heavy losses. All fair explanations. They were also in serious danger of having significant forces trapped in a number of pincer movements, so got out to avoid a very high profile battlefield defeat.
The collective West is settling in for an extended campaign with publicly announced and not so public expanded training missions for Ukrainian forces, which gives you an idea of how thinking has changed. There is a clear sense that Ukraine can win this war or at least, stop Russia from winning decisively.
There is still a ground threat from the North & North West to Ukraine, be it incursions over the border, raiding forces and so on. There is also the danger of small group infiltration in the capital itself. This didn't work out in Phase 1 but the Russians love this kind of approach, its baked into their operational thinking. The wider threat also restricts redeployment to the East by the Ukrainians
Whilst the idea of the Russians shutting off sea access to Ukraine and taking control of the wider Donbas is well trailed as an objective that could allow Putin to declare success, no one should be under any illusion that, if they can break out, the Russians will somehow not drive further West & North. They will, because they can.
The previously successful approach of destroying the logistics tail is not as easy in the East & South East because the Russians properly hold territory through which they can send logistics. In the push to Kiev, they didn't secure the rear, the drove on and left contested ground behind them. The current position means tools to strike in depth are critical; aircraft, drones, artillery. You can see the pattern in terms of the requirements
The Russians are now striking donated kit in storage depots suggesting they are finding better intelligence. They have found it difficult to interdict the stuff as it enters & transits Ukraine. Apart from the fact that they have trouble finding mobile targets at night time (this is the great Russian military, everyone) the impression is that they are concerned by the NATO air screen that just sits on the borders day in and day out. So far they don't have an interest in testing it. This is important, they aren't as gung-ho as the talking heads often claim, never were. The collective West should take the hint.
The Russians, however, do learn so expect further adaptation.
There are reports tonight of a suspected chemical weapons attack by Russian forces in Mariupol. Needs questioning. Chemical weapons use has been in the military doctrine since the Soviet era and therefore its deployment would not be a surprise. The case reported, however, doesn't appear to have an overwhelming battlefield justification other than as a shock weapon. Plus there are industrial chemical plants & storage in the contested area. Better to hold off judgement.
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
Keir Starmer in April 2019: "Climate change is the issue of our time, and as Extinction Rebellion protest showed us this week, the next generation are not going to forgive us if we don't take action. There's been lots of talk, now we need action"
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
If Labour does the exact opposite of what you want it seems to go up in the polls.
Indeed. There’s a lucrative role in anti-consultancy for Owls, although he’d no doubt refuse to work with SKS.
Today's news that Keir approval rating is 11 points behind where Corbyn was at the same point in his leadership is a wake up call. Starmerites assumed that they needed to dump Jezza to win majority support. But it turns out lots of people really like him and his sensible policies
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
Russian forces kept a group of women and girls in a basement of a house for 25 days and repeatedly raped them. Nine of them are now pregnant. The police found five members of a family, including two women and a child, their bodies dumped and burned.
These orcs are fucking monsters. War criminal scum that deserve to burn in hell. We need regime change in Russia. Stop all energy purchases. Give the Ukrainians modern tanks and jet fighters. Whatever it takes for Putin to end up strung from a lamppost.
The theme is in the title - Melanchon voters weighing up what to do, not quite sure. But every single one of the Melanchon voters interviewed says that of COURSE they'll now vote for Macron. I'm used to journalists deciding their theme before they do the interviews, but this is really extreme.
I am fascinated by the inability of Sarkozy’s old party to grasp almost this whole agenda, but have no historic link to Nazis, and in fact link themselves to DeGaul. There’s clearly a French desire to vote some some of this agenda, just probably not from her.
Watching French TV last night, a surprising theme iirc was that Melanchon had specifically failed to recommend support for Macron, but had instead said a very strong NON TO LE PEN.
Crispin Blunt’s statement defending Imran Khan is leading to a mass resignation from the APPG on LGBT which he chairs - including @RhonddaBryant@StewartMcDonald and @joannaccherry
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
Did he really say that? Unbelievable choice of words.
Harrowing film from hospitals under siege in this link.
#Mariupol. The death came here under 🇷🇺 flag. Dozens of thousands civilians killed. 90% of buildings destroyed. 🇺🇦 defenders are surrounded. From the beginning we’ve been asking our partners for a chance - for tanks and jets. The world remains silent and watches genocide online. https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1513582796052307989
Zelenskyy: Russia is afraid to admit that its policy towards Ukraine is wrong. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/04/10/7338692/ …”They seized Crimea, and we are allegedly to blame. They destroyed normal life in Donbas, and we are allegedly to blame. They shot down a Malaysian Boeing, and we are allegedly to blame. They have been killing people and children on our land for 8 years, and we are allegedly to blame. They have destroyed the most powerful industrial region in eastern Europe, and we are to blame. They have ruined the lives of millions of people, and we are supposedly to blame. They have started a full-scale war against us, and we are allegedly to blame. They have already spent 2,000 missiles, countless air bombs, artillery shells, mines in Ukraine, and we are allegedly to blame. They tortured, killed on our land, and we are guilty. They deported hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, our children, but we are still to blame,"…
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
I have questions… 1-how can he call this a “miscarriage of justice” on the basis of sitting through “some of the trial”? 2- how can the verdict of an English jury be “an international scandal” with any “wider implications“? 3- what evidence could he have offered as a former Justice Minister (presumably none or he would have been called) 4- which “Victorian era” statute was relevant to the conviction? 5-why? Just why would he think this statement sensible or appropriate?
The reports of brutal rapes are widespread from every area occupied by Russia. Multiple reports: Russian soldiers gang rape Ukrainian women threatening them with guns and knives in front of their children. Among the most monstrous cases is the rape and murder of a 9yo girl by 11 Russian soldiers https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512092791735734276
What is notable if you read the linked article is the care Ukrainian authorities are taking in documenting crimes.
I’m uncomfortable with the way such reports are called Ukrainian propaganda, as the word means by definition statements that are misleading.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
I decided to stay at my hotel to eat. Well.. I didn’t really decide; I fell asleep after my beer earlier and woke up to not many options nearby. I was just in time to get into the hotel restaurant. I had to go for the set menu which worked out rather well.
Started with beef carpaccio, onions and capers. The main course was mackerel and another white fish (the lovely Italian waitress and I couldn’t work out what it’s called in English even with the help of our phones) with black rice and a creamy mustard sauce. Dessert (which I’m still eating!) is a sort of chocolate granola with roasted pear, a rich chocolate mousse and mascarpone. I’ve been washing it all down with a rather splendid bottle of local Roussillon white.
That looks like an excellent dinner
Beef carpaccio, red onions and capers. Mmm. Deliciously simple
Not sure about creamy mustard sauce AND mackerel? Two strong flavours there. But if it works it works!
The mustard flavour wasn’t overpowering at all. Just enough to notice it.
Do you mind if I ask which hotel you're staying at?
I promise not to fly over and stalk you. I just love details
You're in Banyuls, yes?
I don’t mind at all! And you’d have to be quick to stalk me - I’m leaving first thing tomorrow and haven’t decided exactly where I’m headed yet.
It’s called the Le Catalan, and yes in Banyuls. Its restaurant is Le Miradou.
Checking TripAdvisor I see it has the "traveller's choice" mark, and they are often really reliable - it means you will get something good, whatever the price bracket. And the punters love the restaurant in the feedback
I know nearby Collioure really well. We used to have weird family holidays there when I was but a lad. I loved the swim to the castle
Hmm.. There’s a restaurant called Casa @Leon in Collioure!
Reports of over a hundred thousand children forcibly deported to Russia. The reported forcible adoption would clearly breach Article II Section E of the Genocide Convention.
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
The reports of brutal rapes are widespread from every area occupied by Russia. Multiple reports: Russian soldiers gang rape Ukrainian women threatening them with guns and knives in front of their children. Among the most monstrous cases is the rape and murder of a 9yo girl by 11 Russian soldiers https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512092791735734276
What is notable if you read the linked article is the care Ukrainian authorities are taking in documenting crimes.
I’m uncomfortable with the way such reports are called Ukrainian propaganda, as the word means by definition statements that are misleading.
That’s not the definition of propaganda. It’s often used that way, and inferred as such, but it just means the organised dissemination of information, or that information itself. I want to a “Propaganda” exhibition at the British Library a few years ago and there was a whole section on the British government’s factual information campaign to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
While I’m sympathetic to the rights of MPs to question what they believe are badly wrong verdicts, they must have justification for doing so.
We need to wait for the full story to come out - Khan is reportedly seeking to appeal - but I’d be quite surprised if Blunt has not ended his career.
The reports of brutal rapes are widespread from every area occupied by Russia. Multiple reports: Russian soldiers gang rape Ukrainian women threatening them with guns and knives in front of their children. Among the most monstrous cases is the rape and murder of a 9yo girl by 11 Russian soldiers https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512092791735734276
What is notable if you read the linked article is the care Ukrainian authorities are taking in documenting crimes.
I’m uncomfortable with the way such reports are called Ukrainian propaganda, as the word means by definition statements that are misleading.
That’s not the definition of propaganda. It’s often used that way, and inferred as such, but it just means the organised dissemination of information, or that information itself. I want to a “Propaganda” exhibition at the British Library a few years ago and there was a whole section on the British government’s factual information campaign to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.
The dictionary definition: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
So you’re technically correct that it doesn’t have to be misleading, but the term carries that strong implication.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
This article makes a good point. While their their leaders are wholly complicit in, and responsible for Russian soldiers’ crimes, through both deliberate policy, and wholesale absence of military discipline, the perpetrators also have moral agency.
In the absence of moral direction from seniors, Russian soldiers made ethical decisions; they had agency. Some were shocked, and tried to help shield locals from worst of it. Too many of them chose evil. My dispatch from Yahidne, Chernihiv oblast. https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1513517606782873600
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
Crispin Blunt's sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" ...
Disgusting. Odious. Illegal. Horrific.
This is 1992-7 Redux.
All we need is a Martin Bell. Maybe to stand against arsehole Crispin Blunt.
(If my language gets fruity on this it's because I was assaulted and raped by a man as a child. They got sent down & then released at 50% of the tariff but my sentence has been a lifetime.)
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it.
And then you express a view on it
As you say, you weren't there, haven't read anything, so don't have a scoobies.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
The reports of brutal rapes are widespread from every area occupied by Russia. Multiple reports: Russian soldiers gang rape Ukrainian women threatening them with guns and knives in front of their children. Among the most monstrous cases is the rape and murder of a 9yo girl by 11 Russian soldiers https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512092791735734276
What is notable if you read the linked article is the care Ukrainian authorities are taking in documenting crimes.
I’m uncomfortable with the way such reports are called Ukrainian propaganda, as the word means by definition statements that are misleading.
That’s not the definition of propaganda. It’s often used that way, and inferred as such, but it just means the organised dissemination of information, or that information itself. I want to a “Propaganda” exhibition at the British Library a few years ago and there was a whole section on the British government’s factual information campaign to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.
The dictionary definition: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
So you’re technically correct that it doesn’t have to be misleading, but the term carries that strong implication.
Technically correct is one of my favourite kinds of correct
If we were to drop billions of leaflets over Russia telling the people what terrible atrocities their soldiers are engaged in, I’d call it propaganda
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it.
And then you express a view on it
As you say, you weren't there, haven't read anything, so don't have a scoobies.
If you read my post I was discussing what meets the threshold of “beyond reasonable doubt”, nothing else.
In my view there’s no question on balance of probabilities he is guilty. I’m just surprised you can achieve the higher standard without corroborating evidence.
But the jury has found him guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. So, unless an appeal court finds differently, he is guilty as charged.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Agree - perhaps my comment “as reported” wasn’t clear. The article mentioned no other evidence & that is all I am going on
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
Prince Andrew also infamously attacked the victim's credibility.
I seem to recall a similarly robust attack by Jonathan Aitken who said he was going to take the sword of truth to the lies with which he was smeared.
'If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today.'
In fact he was a crook, found guilty of perjury and sent to prison.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Not commenting on this case in particular, but "weak and inconsistent" would basically be my memory for an unnoteworthy event that was supposed to have occurred fourteen years ago.
Say you were alone with a child for a couple of hours one day: babysitting, or giving music lessons, or whatever. Nothing bad happened. Then, years later, the child comes out with a story. You might barely remember being with the child, because nothing happened. You can say nothing happened, because you know that is true: but it becomes harder to say what happened, because nothing noteworthy did.
I am certainly not saying this is true in Khan's case, and Blunt's been an ass, but an invented story might always be 'fresher' than a defence of innocence.
Can any of the court regulars tell me if there is any sense in the above, or can juries tell when people simply cannot remember as opposed to being evasive?
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
You may be right. I have no idea. But that’s a rather nasty insinuation unless you have evidence. You should know better than that.
I don't know. But there is something odd about his response. Happy to withdraw any insinuation.
I fully agree it’s a weird response (and IIRC he has form) - may be it’s just a misplaced sense of loyalty to a friend?
Loyalty I can understand. But this is a bit OTT.
Indeed. Against that I think he took a similar stance in the Nigel Evans case? So may be it’s just him. But it’s definitely politically unwise
Nigel Evans was found innocent. It's his comment about the offence being minor which is the really damaging part.
Agreed. It's absolutely appalling.
As a child who was violently sexually abused and raped ... there is nothing sodding "minor" about child sexual assault.
The tories have sunk to new depths. Questioning not only a jury conviction but the actual offence itself. Are Crispin Blunt and his friends hiding something in their own lives or have they just completely lost their moral and legal compass? Either way, it's clearly time to boot the tories out.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Not commenting on this case in particular, but "weak and inconsistent" would basically be my memory for an unnoteworthy event that was supposed to have occurred fourteen years ago.
Say you were alone with a child for a couple of hours one day: babysitting, or giving music lessons, or whatever. Nothing bad happened. Then, years later, the child comes out with a story. You might barely remember being with the child, because nothing happened. You can say nothing happened, because you know that is true: but it becomes harder to say what happened, because nothing noteworthy did.
I am certainly not saying this is true in Khan's case, and Blunt's been an ass, but an invented story might always be 'fresher' than a defence of innocence.
Can any of the court regulars tell me if there is any sense in the above, or can juries tell when people simply cannot remember as opposed to being evasive?
AIUI, the victim/his parents called the police at the time. It’s not one of those situations like you describe, where an allegation comes out of the blue, decades later.
Crispin Blunt's claim that sexual assault of a child is "minor on any scale" is causing some consternation amongst MPs. (And fury among others.)
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was. 2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
There is something puzzling about his statement.
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this:
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
You may be right. I have no idea. But that’s a rather nasty insinuation unless you have evidence. You should know better than that.
I don't know. But there is something odd about his response. Happy to withdraw any insinuation.
I fully agree it’s a weird response (and IIRC he has form) - may be it’s just a misplaced sense of loyalty to a friend?
Loyalty I can understand. But this is a bit OTT.
Indeed. Against that I think he took a similar stance in the Nigel Evans case? So may be it’s just him. But it’s definitely politically unwise
Nigel Evans was found innocent. It's his comment about the offence being minor which is the really damaging part.
Agreed.
Re: Nigel Evans that was exactly my point. If memory serves, Blunt was condemned for standing by him when he was accused. But he was then found innocent.
Your lowest post yet I'm afraid JJ, not that you set the bar very high.
Why is it 'low' ? I'm not defending Khan or Blunt; I'm just asking a question about the way a defendant might not be able to remember exactly what happened, if nothing did.
I see you are continuing your manners from yesterday morning.
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Not commenting on this case in particular, but "weak and inconsistent" would basically be my memory for an unnoteworthy event that was supposed to have occurred fourteen years ago.
Say you were alone with a child for a couple of hours one day: babysitting, or giving music lessons, or whatever. Nothing bad happened. Then, years later, the child comes out with a story. You might barely remember being with the child, because nothing happened. You can say nothing happened, because you know that is true: but it becomes harder to say what happened, because nothing noteworthy did.
I am certainly not saying this is true in Khan's case, and Blunt's been an ass, but an invented story might always be 'fresher' than a defence of innocence.
Can any of the court regulars tell me if there is any sense in the above, or can juries tell when people simply cannot remember as opposed to being evasive?
AIUI, the victim/his parents called the police at the time. It’s not one of those situations like you describe, where an allegation comes out of the blue, decades later.
Oh really? Another case of the police not doing their job properly at the time by the sounds of it.
Comments
I’ll wait to see what emerges before I comment further.
“A jury of Mr Khan's peers has found him guilty of a criminal offence. We completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary, the jury or Mr Khan's victim.”
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1513640164366639107
Reports that Russian forces may have used chemical agents in an attack on the people of Mariupol. We are working urgently with partners to verify details.
Any use of such weapons would be a callous escalation in this conflict and we will hold Putin and his regime to account.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1513636563405713416
Tom Wenseleers
@TWenseleers
·
1h
Nice thread on the new Omicron subvariants BA.4 & BA.5, originating in South Africa (Gauteng Province). Some of the mutations present, including L452R in the spike protein (which was present in Delta, but absent in Omicron BA.1+2), could confer a slight immune escape advantage.
https://twitter.com/TWenseleers/status/1513619229010018314
With so much of the world watching and analysing Ukraine I would think you could not hide such an event for long, even if you can ensure allies and the sympathetic like India to play along.
Keir Starmer today. Motorists were already being hammered by prices at the pump, and now millions can’t even access fuel. The government must immediately impose injunctions to put a stop to this disruption.
What a complete idiot
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-04-11/imran-khan-the-downfall-of-the-high-flying-mp-found-guilty-of-sexual-assault
Blimey!
So there has been action, and Labour would definitely take plenty of actions if they were elected. Ergo, the same old disruptive protests are not as necessary as they might have been even a few years ago, and can be treated as more of a distraction or nuisance.
Blunt isn't. Not yet anyway. He seems to be objecting to the introduction of similar fact evidence at the trial - hence his reference to "lazy tropes". But this would have been decided on by the judge and there are pretty strict rules on when such evidence can be adduced. So unless the judge has got this wrong as a matter of law, it is hard to see what else Blunt has got. We'll see what else the appeal brings out.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1513642369014509575
"an event that was minor on any scale....."
Well, one meaning of "minor" is unarguable.....
Ireland is more likely.
He won't be able to visit a school in his constituency. That would be illegal.
And it was 14 years ago is hardly a defence...
If you prefer to take solace from Mid term Polls against a Government in crisis you are in for a hell of a shock come 2024 GE IMO
But there's also some "oh, go on then, put me down" help of the kind you describe. I was chair of an all-party group on animal experiments, and my favourite Tory, Oliver Letwin, was appointed as a shadow Minister, which would have made us non-quorate for Tories. You're not supposed to be an APPG officer and a front-bencher, but he predicted, correctly, that nobody would notice.
Most APPGs are not especially controversial - they're a common interest like waterways or adult education or fishing rather than a campaign. Some are very well organised and produce weighty reports which approach the standard of Select Committees. Many are just friendly places for people with a shared interest to talk about it.
This has been enough to provoke the President into restating the case for Irish neutrality.
So there's a low-key testing of the water to see if the public are open to a debate.
https://twitter.com/ClareDalyMEP/status/1512144982316044289
SKSWNBPM
Of course, it's so simple! I can see where everyone has been going wrong for 10,000 years.
(Not that we haven't gotten better at deciding on peace, as a historical trend, but that kind of line is so simplistic it's just stupid)
@RachelReevesMP
.
@Keir_Starmer
is right.
I presume she means wing
Good range though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Ahmad_Khan
Now if it had been Corbyn that had made what BJO considers to be conflicting statements it would have been the work of a genius.
David Blunt was rather handsome and quite kind to a very junior barrister working for the opposition. I was the only woman there and my clients were a bunch of horrible and rude sexists.
So my first introduction to the Lake District was sitting in a Portakabin in a building site outside Barrow in late November as lawyers argued about whether the building was being built properly and whose fault it was.
All the commentary is clear. Russian is focussing on the East & South East. The battlespace offers good advantages to the Russians and the classic heavy firepower & manouvere forces approach they like. In short Russia does have the tools and situation in its favour, if it uses them
The East & South East campaign is, however, still a slog for Russia. Early gains haven't been followed by large breakouts but there is still a live chance of surrounding large Ukrainian pockets which could take out low10 000s of Ukrainian forces if they get trapped. The Ukrainians right now have no large scale offensive capability available and are in serious need of the battlefield heavy mobility hardware, blunt firepower and force multipliers. They have made some headway towards Kherson but that counter offensive has slowed.
Strategically the Ukrainian's stated need is 100% on the button; mobility, depth strike (artillery and aircraft) and something to take the fight to the Russian Navy in the Black & Azov Seas. The West isn't as forthcoming as they should be here. Whilst you cant just pull a tank or Mig out of mothball overnight, they have had weeks to prep and haven't used the time as well as they could. What there hasn't been firm evidence of, though they'd very remiss not to be doing it, is active arms purchases/trades from/with non involved parties or the grey market. There is only so much ex Soviet gear knocking about in Eastern Europe. You can donate certain kit like AFVs trucks etc that don't need training on, but artillery, tanks etc. all a bit particular as is their ammunition. Therefore the wider market should have some interesting buyers & trades soon if the West is serious.
What some of the commentary has missed:
The reasons why Russia withdrew from the immediate area around Kiev. Not enough progress, heavy losses. All fair explanations. They were also in serious danger of having significant forces trapped in a number of pincer movements, so got out to avoid a very high profile battlefield defeat.
The collective West is settling in for an extended campaign with publicly announced and not so public expanded training missions for Ukrainian forces, which gives you an idea of how thinking has changed. There is a clear sense that Ukraine can win this war or at least, stop Russia from winning decisively.
There is still a ground threat from the North & North West to Ukraine, be it incursions over the border, raiding forces and so on. There is also the danger of small group infiltration in the capital itself. This didn't work out in Phase 1 but the Russians love this kind of approach, its baked into their operational thinking. The wider threat also restricts redeployment to the East by the Ukrainians
Whilst the idea of the Russians shutting off sea access to Ukraine and taking control of the wider Donbas is well trailed as an objective that could allow Putin to declare success, no one should be under any illusion that, if they can break out, the Russians will somehow not drive further West & North. They will, because they can.
The previously successful approach of destroying the logistics tail is not as easy in the East & South East because the Russians properly hold territory through which they can send logistics. In the push to Kiev, they didn't secure the rear, the drove on and left contested ground behind them. The current position means tools to strike in depth are critical; aircraft, drones, artillery. You can see the pattern in terms of the requirements
The Russians are now striking donated kit in storage depots suggesting they are finding better intelligence. They have found it difficult to interdict the stuff as it enters & transits Ukraine. Apart from the fact that they have trouble finding mobile targets at night time (this is the great Russian military, everyone) the impression is that they are concerned by the NATO air screen that just sits on the borders day in and day out. So far they don't have an interest in testing it. This is important, they aren't as gung-ho as the talking heads often claim, never were. The collective West should take the hint.
The Russians, however, do learn so expect further adaptation.
There are reports tonight of a suspected chemical weapons attack by Russian forces in Mariupol. Needs questioning. Chemical weapons use has been in the military doctrine since the Soviet era and therefore its deployment would not be a surprise. The case reported, however, doesn't appear to have an overwhelming battlefield justification other than as a shock weapon. Plus there are industrial chemical plants & storage in the contested area. Better to hold off judgement.
Not least because in his furiously passionate statements Blunt failed to reveal two things:-
1. Blunt never attended the trial when the prosecution evidence was being given, only when the defence case was.
2. Khan tried to stop the press reporting details of the charges and the case.
His attack on the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner for raising concerns about women being put at risk of sexual assault if self-ID is permitted is also being brought up. Perhaps unfairly. Still coming across as someone who dismisses both child abuse and worries about other types of sexual abuse is not the best optics.
What is it about Tory MPs these days that they seem determined to set fire to their own careers?
If - as he appears to claim - he had relevant evidence that would have helped the defence, the obvious question is why the defence did not call him.
It suggests that either he did not have any.
Or it was irrelevant.
Or that he would have made a terrible witness for other reasons. If this last, I wonder what those reasons might have been.
Why - exactly - is Blunt so bothered by this man's conviction that he responds in such a way? Standing by a friend is decent. Dismissing sexual abuse of a child is most definitely not. Friendship may be one reason for Blunt's reaction. But I wonder if there is more to this than we have yet been told.
Russian forces kept a group of women and girls in a basement of a house for 25 days and repeatedly raped them. Nine of them are now pregnant. The police found five members of a family, including two women and a child, their bodies dumped and burned.
These orcs are fucking monsters. War criminal scum that deserve to burn in hell. We need regime change in Russia. Stop all energy purchases. Give the Ukrainians modern tanks and jet fighters. Whatever it takes for Putin to end up strung from a lamppost.
I think it is building on that event.
They are an opportunity for external bodies to buy influence, and get their aligned MPs to put out "Parliamentary Reports".
#Mariupol. The death came here under 🇷🇺 flag. Dozens of thousands civilians killed. 90% of buildings destroyed. 🇺🇦 defenders are surrounded. From the beginning we’ve been asking our partners for a chance - for tanks and jets. The world remains silent and watches genocide online.
https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1513582796052307989
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/04/10/7338692/
…”They seized Crimea, and we are allegedly to blame. They destroyed normal life in Donbas, and we are allegedly to blame. They shot down a Malaysian Boeing, and we are allegedly to blame. They have been killing people and children on our land for 8 years, and we are allegedly to blame. They have destroyed the most powerful industrial region in eastern Europe, and we are to blame. They have ruined the lives of millions of people, and we are supposedly to blame. They have started a full-scale war against us, and we are allegedly to blame. They have already spent 2,000 missiles, countless air bombs, artillery shells, mines in Ukraine, and we are allegedly to blame. They tortured, killed on our land, and we are guilty. They deported hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, our children, but we are still to blame,"…
To cries of 'shame' from Labour MPs, Mr Blunt, 50, said: 'It is also clear that there is a much greater strand of homosexuality than of heterosexuality which depends for its gratification on the exploitation of youth.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307304/amp/Wife-traumatised-Tory-MP-Crispin-Blunt-admits-Im-gay.html
Comments made before he came out.
He might have made a poor witness for the defence.
1-how can he call this a “miscarriage of justice” on the basis of sitting through “some of the trial”?
2- how can the verdict of an English jury be “an international scandal” with any “wider implications“?
3- what evidence could he have offered as a former Justice Minister (presumably none or he would have been called)
4- which “Victorian era” statute was relevant to the conviction?
5-why? Just why would he think this statement sensible or appropriate?
https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1513733825385451522
Multiple reports: Russian soldiers gang rape Ukrainian women threatening them with guns and knives in front of their children. Among the most monstrous cases is the rape and murder of a 9yo girl by 11 Russian soldiers
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1512092791735734276
What is notable if you read the linked article is the care Ukrainian authorities are taking in documenting crimes.
I’m uncomfortable with the way such reports are called Ukrainian propaganda, as the word means by definition statements that are misleading.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g187152-d1215984-Reviews-Casa_Leon-Collioure_Pyrenees_Orientales_Occitanie.html
The reported forcible adoption would clearly breach Article II Section E of the Genocide Convention.
Russia to fast-track adoptions of Ukrainian children 'forcibly deported' after their parents were killed by Putin's troops, authorities say
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-to-fast-track-adoption-of-deported-ukraine-orphans-kyiv-officials-2022-4
What exactly was the counter-narrative he was trying to establish?
And why was it so important to him?
There is a possible answer. You can work it out.
We need to wait for the full story to come out - Khan is reportedly seeking to appeal - but I’d be quite surprised if Blunt has not ended his career.
“information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
So you’re technically correct that it doesn’t have to be misleading, but the term carries that strong implication.
You may be right. I have no idea. But that’s a rather nasty insinuation unless you have evidence. You should know better than that.
In the absence of moral direction from seniors, Russian soldiers made ethical decisions; they had agency. Some were shocked, and tried to help shield locals from worst of it. Too many of them chose evil. My dispatch from Yahidne, Chernihiv oblast.
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1513517606782873600
Disgusting. Odious. Illegal. Horrific.
This is 1992-7 Redux.
All we need is a Martin Bell. Maybe to stand against arsehole Crispin Blunt.
(If my language gets fruity on this it's because I was assaulted and raped by a man as a child. They got sent down & then released at 50% of the tariff but my sentence has been a lifetime.)
As you say, you weren't there, haven't read anything, so don't have a scoobies.
I ask in all honesty because that was exactly how it felt in 1992-7. The fag end of an empire.
Everything external is conspiring against them but they are not exactly helping their own cause, are they? (Rhetorical)
His current position is untenable.
If we were to drop billions of leaflets over Russia telling the people what terrible atrocities their soldiers are engaged in, I’d call it propaganda
In my view there’s no question on balance of probabilities he is guilty. I’m just surprised you can achieve the higher standard without corroborating evidence.
But the jury has found him guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. So, unless an appeal court finds differently, he is guilty as charged.
I seem to recall a similarly robust attack by Jonathan Aitken who said he was going to take the sword of truth to the lies with which he was smeared.
'If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. My fight begins today.'
In fact he was a crook, found guilty of perjury and sent to prison.
THIS IS ALL SO SO REMINISCENT OF 1992-7!!!!
Say you were alone with a child for a couple of hours one day: babysitting, or giving music lessons, or whatever. Nothing bad happened. Then, years later, the child comes out with a story. You might barely remember being with the child, because nothing happened. You can say nothing happened, because you know that is true: but it becomes harder to say what happened, because nothing noteworthy did.
I am certainly not saying this is true in Khan's case, and Blunt's been an ass, but an invented story might always be 'fresher' than a defence of innocence.
Can any of the court regulars tell me if there is any sense in the above, or can juries tell when people simply cannot remember as opposed to being evasive?
As a child who was violently sexually abused and raped ... there is nothing sodding "minor" about child sexual assault.
The tories have sunk to new depths. Questioning not only a jury conviction but the actual offence itself. Are Crispin Blunt and his friends hiding something in their own lives or have they just completely lost their moral and legal compass? Either way, it's clearly time to boot the tories out.
Re: Nigel Evans that was exactly my point. If memory serves, Blunt was condemned for standing by him when he was accused. But he was then found innocent.
I see you are continuing your manners from yesterday morning.