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.
It is only Blunt who has said this. What friends are you referring to.
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.
Thanks. In which case, if the police had interviewed me near the time, I'd certainly remember the details!
Was it mentioned in court why matters did not progress at the time?
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.
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.
When you told me not to use the word 'rape'. Yes, this engenders strong emotions in me because I've been through this.
To question not only the validity of historic child abuse evidence but also the jury's verdict and (in the case of Crispin Blunt) the very viability of the offence of child sexual abuse is to descend into the chthonian depths.
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.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
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.
When you told me not to use the word 'rape'. Yes, this engenders strong emotions in me because I've been through this.
To question not only the validity of historic child abuse evidence but also the jury's verdict and (in the case of Crispin Blunt) the very viability of the offence of child sexual abuse is to descend into the chthonian depths.
When on Earth do you think I told you not to use the word 'rape' ? Please tell me, as I'm fairly darned sure that I'd never have done that. Give evidence or retract.
Given you utterly misrepresented my views yesterday morning, I'd expect you cannot. If you can, I will obviously retract and apologise.
So go on: when did I tell you not to use the word 'rape'?
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.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
Oh. In that case, I’m not sure I approve of coming back to it years later. It’s not like he came forward to support someone else making a similar allegation.
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.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
Victims of child abuse are often far too traumatised and scared, as well as lacking full adult capacity, to come forward at the time. I know this only too well. Obviously there needs to be a balance, as we know from the lies of Carl Beech it's possible to hoodwink some people.
However, the way the far right are now attempting to question a jury's conviction on a case shows the depths to which they have sunk.
The tory party is in such a mess. It's so reminiscent of 1992-7 when John Major's Back to Basics actually led to the sleaziest regime in living memory. Until now.
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.'
He might have made a poor witness for the defence.
Yes - but possibly not because of his opinions.
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.
Not sure what point you are seeking to make there - but it does sound rather nasty. My position is to respect the jury verdict. If he appeals - win or lose likewise.
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.
I don't condemn him for standing by his friends. It is how he is doing it which is questionable.
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.
When you told me not to use the word 'rape'. Yes, this engenders strong emotions in me because I've been through this.
To question not only the validity of historic child abuse evidence but also the jury's verdict and (in the case of Crispin Blunt) the very viability of the offence of child sexual abuse is to descend into the chthonian depths.
When on Earth do you think I told you not to use the word 'rape' ? Please tell me, as I'm fairly darned sure that I'd never have done that. Give evidence or retract.
Given you utterly misrepresented my views yesterday morning, I'd expect you cannot. If you can, I will obviously retract and apologise.
So go on: when did I tell you not to use the word 'rape'?
See new thread for the answer to when you told me not to use the word. Clue: yesterday morning.
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.'
He might have made a poor witness for the defence.
Yes - but possibly not because of his opinions.
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.
Not sure what point you are seeking to make there - but it does sound rather nasty. My position is to respect the jury verdict. If he appeals - win or lose likewise.
I have already withdrawn any insinuation. See my response upthread.
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.'
He might have made a poor witness for the defence.
Yes - but possibly not because of his opinions.
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.
Not sure what point you are seeking to make there - but it does sound rather nasty. My position is to respect the jury verdict. If he appeals - win or lose likewise.
I have already withdrawn any insinuation. See my response upthread.
It's an interesting theory. Why would Blunt be so bothered about attacking an accusation of child sexual assault?
It reminds me of that time Kevin Spacey went public about his phone being stolen on Clapham Common. 'Erm, what were you doing there in the early hours was the question no one dared to ask.'
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.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
However, the way the far right are now attempting to question a jury's conviction on a case shows the depths to which they have sunk.
Who, apart from Blunt, has questioned the Jury’s verdict?
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.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
However, the way the far right are now attempting to question a jury's conviction on a case shows the depths to which they have sunk.
Who, apart from Blunt, has questioned the Jury’s verdict?
List please.
Have a read down below and you'll see the insinuations against the conviction.
To which, add MPs Crispin Blunt and Sir Peter Bottomley
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.
When you told me not to use the word 'rape'. Yes, this engenders strong emotions in me because I've been through this.
To question not only the validity of historic child abuse evidence but also the jury's verdict and (in the case of Crispin Blunt) the very viability of the offence of child sexual abuse is to descend into the chthonian depths.
When on Earth do you think I told you not to use the word 'rape' ? Please tell me, as I'm fairly darned sure that I'd never have done that. Give evidence or retract.
Given you utterly misrepresented my views yesterday morning, I'd expect you cannot. If you can, I will obviously retract and apologise.
So go on: when did I tell you not to use the word 'rape'?
See new thread for the answer to when you told me not to use the word. Clue: yesterday morning.
"When you told me not to use the word 'rape'. Yes, this engenders strong emotions in me because I've been through this."
Ah, you were talking about 'raping the earth'. Which I objected to for the obvious reasons. Mentioning that in relation to your own tragic history is a bit shit.
Comments
Was it mentioned in court why matters did not progress at the time?
To question not only the validity of historic child abuse evidence but also the jury's verdict and (in the case of Crispin Blunt) the very viability of the offence of child sexual abuse is to descend into the chthonian depths.
Given you utterly misrepresented my views yesterday morning, I'd expect you cannot. If you can, I will obviously retract and apologise.
So go on: when did I tell you not to use the word 'rape'?
However, the way the far right are now attempting to question a jury's conviction on a case shows the depths to which they have sunk.
The tory party is in such a mess. It's so reminiscent of 1992-7 when John Major's Back to Basics actually led to the sleaziest regime in living memory. Until now.
Dirty broken tories.
It reminds me of that time Kevin Spacey went public about his phone being stolen on Clapham Common. 'Erm, what were you doing there in the early hours was the question no one dared to ask.'
List please.
To which, add MPs Crispin Blunt and Sir Peter Bottomley
Ah, you were talking about 'raping the earth'. Which I objected to for the obvious reasons. Mentioning that in relation to your own tragic history is a bit shit.