Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Not the sharpest tool in the Tory box – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited April 17 in General
imageNot the sharpest tool in the Tory box – politicalbetting.com

Even the strongest supporters of jury trials accept that sometimes juries get it wrong. Or, rather, the prosecution and defence cases and/or the conduct of the trial were so poor that the jury could not help but come to the wrong (guilty) verdict. So there is nothing wrong – if you believe that a miscarriage of justice has occurred – to campaign for its overturning. If people, including MPs, had not done this – many infamous miscarriages of justice (from Stefan Kiszko, to the Birmingham 6 to, most recently, hundreds of sub-postmasters) would have remained unchallenged. Nor is there anything dishonourable in standing by a friend. Unwise and insensitive maybe. But not necessarily dishonourable.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 12
    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 12



    It's a stupid phrase to use [...] it diminishes real rape

    Yesterday morning, JJ
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,002
    Indeed
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Thank you for this excellent thread Cyclefree.

    This topic brings up a lot of deep emotions for me. But it should for us all even if we haven't personally experienced the horrors of child sexual assault or rape.

    p.s. Please can Leon keep posting triumphalist messages about Boris? Every time he does the tories manage to press another self-destruct button.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    edited April 12
    FPT:
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    edited April 12
    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    List please.

    Which MPs or members of the Conservative Party have criticised the Jury’s verdict, apart from Blunt?

    The CCHQ response has been:

    The Conservative Party has issued a statement stating that Khan, who has said he will appeal his conviction, was found guilty by his peers and that "we completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary".

    On Tuesday morning, a Tory source told the BBC: "Crispin's views are wholly unacceptable. Following exchanges late last night, we expect the statement to be retracted first thing this morning.”..

    Following the verdict, the Conservative Party said Khan had been "expelled with immediate effect", meaning he will for now sit in Parliament as an independent.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61075923
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712
    Morning all - a brief off-topic if I may. yesterday we had a bit of two and fro about the reasons for the hell queues on the M20. The Powers that Be put out the lie that it was P&Os fault, something simple to disprove by the half-empty ships leaving as noted by DFDS themselves.

    Anyway, the customs computer was fixed yesterday, P&O are still not sailing yet the queue is now dissipating. Why? Because the official line was a lie to distract from Brexit being the cause.

    Anyway, we are about to welcome a brexit dividend. TV news reports on Twitter from the Netherlands and Spain interviewing their drivers who were illegally imprisoned on the M20 by kent police. Why illegally? Because they were instructed to remain in their cabs at all times, regardless of driving hours. Truckers not being allowed out of their cab to crap in a bush appears to be the final straw for many. "never coming here again", "we can choose where we work" and "bye bye" verbatim quotes from dutch drivers.

    Why do we do this to ourselves?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    The Guardian
    Mirror
    New Statesman
    Independent

    Daily Mail

    Conservative ex-Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has been slammed by all sides of Westminster after he leapt to the defence of Tory MP Imran Ahmad Khan and described his conviction for sexually assaulting a boy, 15, as an 'international scandal' and 'dreadful miscarriage of justice'.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10709151/Ex-Justice-Minister-DEFENDS-sex-offender-Tory-MP-Imran-Ahmad-Khan.html
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    List please.

    Which MPs or members of the Conservative Party have criticised the Jury’s verdict, apart from Blunt?

    The CCHQ response has been:

    The Conservative Party has issued a statement stating that Khan, who has said he will appeal his conviction, was found guilty by his peers and that "we completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary".

    On Tuesday morning, a Tory source told the BBC: "Crispin's views are wholly unacceptable. Following exchanges late last night, we expect the statement to be retracted first thing this morning.”..

    Following the verdict, the Conservative Party said Khan had been "expelled with immediate effect", meaning he will for now sit in Parliament as an independent.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61075923
    I expect there will now be something of a furore over the Tory Party covering all this up. The family of the victim are on oath saying they approached the party over this man and were ignored. the party of course deny this ever happened...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    List please.

    Which MPs or members of the Conservative Party have criticised the Jury’s verdict, apart from Blunt?

    The CCHQ response has been:

    The Conservative Party has issued a statement stating that Khan, who has said he will appeal his conviction, was found guilty by his peers and that "we completely reject any allegations of impropriety against our independent judiciary".

    On Tuesday morning, a Tory source told the BBC: "Crispin's views are wholly unacceptable. Following exchanges late last night, we expect the statement to be retracted first thing this morning.”..

    Following the verdict, the Conservative Party said Khan had been "expelled with immediate effect", meaning he will for now sit in Parliament as an independent.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61075923
    I expect there will now be something of a furore over the Tory Party covering all this up. The family of the victim are on oath saying they approached the party over this man and were ignored. the party of course deny this ever happened...
    Yes, that and more detail on how the conviction was corroborated in the Guardian today.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/11/tory-mp-imran-ahmad-khan-guilty-sexually-assaulting-boy-15

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    With the operation of mobile crematoria in Marioupul, and the mass deportations to Russia, including many children, we may never know the scale if the casualties in what was a city of 350,000.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/11/ukraine-last-marines-defending-mariupol-running-out-of-ammunition
    ...The surviving marines are now holed up in the Azovstal iron and steelworks next to the port.

    “The enemy gradually pushed us back. They surrounded us with fire, and are now trying to destroy us,” the marines posted. The “mountain of wounded” amounted to nearly half of the brigade, they added, with those “whose limbs are not torn off” continuing to fight.

    Their infantry soldiers had all been killed. The “shootings battles” against the Russians were now being conducted by artillerymen and anti-aircraft gunners, as well as radio operators, drivers and cooks. Even musicians from the orchestra were fighting, they said.

    The desperate last bulletin came as Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Russia had “destroyed” Mariupol. “There are tens of thousands of dead...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.

    So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.

    I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    Good morning everyone. Totally O/t but a new experience beckons for OKC today; attending a Quaker funeral. Apparently it's very different from the NW European funerals he's more used to attending. Too often, these days, too.

    On topic it's very odd that Blunt has issued such a strong statement. One can regret that a colleague or friend has been found guilty. One can, privately preferably, say that one doesn't believe the accuser, or that the accuser has exaggerated. But 'an international scandal'; seems a bit OTT.

    It is good though, to see that the Conservative party now has faith in our judiciary and the courts after the remarks thrown about late in 2019.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,883
    edited April 12
    Local election leaflet - just Labour so far. Massive, so they must have plenty of cash to spend.

    Go big on CoL, say it is both SNP and Tories.

    Go on potholes on the reverse (but don't mention the danger to cyclists, which is weird given part of the country I live in). Must be a national one as lot of stuff is not relevant to my LA.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    An unfortunate typo.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,712

    When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.

    So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.

    I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.

    As if that will make a difference. The previous Tory MP was bonkers as well. I do feel sorry for these places where they have mouth-foamers imposed on them. Dover's Elphicke saga being another example. Mr is a bad'un, here's his wife as replacement. She gets properly het up denying Brexit despite the wrath of her constituents not being able to get to work due to the chaos of the customs computer fiasco. But they will still trot out and vote Tory...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    The Elphicke case, and its aftermath, show that unwise interventions in aid of disgraced colleagues, even post conviction, are not unusual.
    https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/09/character-references-in-elphicke-court-case-should-be-public-judge-says
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,662

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    This is what he said - https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1513648564689375238?s=21&t=A7goiI85ZLJ4xW-JnAbjwA.

    To my mind he needs to make it absolutely clear that he does not think that sexual abuse of a boy is " minor on any scale". It is an appalling thing to say.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    NEW: Crispin Blunt has deleted his statement following late-night exchanges with the whips.

    Tory source: “Crispin’s views are wholly unacceptable.”


    https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1513771035446980609
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    An unfortunate typo.
    Ooops yes. dad = day....

    That was unfortunate. My parents were, and are, wonderful.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    He may not be the sharpest tool in the Tory box but he’s certainly one of the largest ones.

    And that’s in a very strong field of competition as well.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    Or resign from the party
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    edited April 12
    Cyclefree said:

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    This is what he said - https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1513648564689375238?s=21&t=A7goiI85ZLJ4xW-JnAbjwA.

    To my mind he needs to make it absolutely clear that he does not think that sexual abuse of a boy is " minor on any scale". It is an appalling thing to say.
    It's an attitude that was common in the 1970s.
    To hear it still expressed, by an MP, is disturbing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    Or resign from the party
    Doesn’t need to be either/or. He wouldn’t be much loss to Tory politics.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    ydoethur said:

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    Or resign from the party
    Doesn’t need to be either/or. He wouldn’t be much loss to Tory politics.
    I hope his constituency sack him
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    I know one Tory MP who strongly approves of Crispin Blunt's statement.

    Rishi Sunak.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    edited April 12

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    Good morning everyone. Totally O/t but a new experience beckons for OKC today; attending a Quaker funeral. Apparently it's very different from the NW European funerals he's more used to attending. Too often, these days, too.

    On topic it's very odd that Blunt has issued such a strong statement. One can regret that a colleague or friend has been found guilty. One can, privately preferably, say that one doesn't believe the accuser, or that the accuser has exaggerated. But 'an international scandal'; seems a bit OTT.

    It is good though, to see that the Conservative party now has faith in our judiciary and the courts after the remarks thrown about late in 2019.

    And the statue-bothering case, too, where the Tories fell over themselves to decry the jury system.

    I will not say, have a good day, but perhaps that is not the right expression for a funeral; still, it will be interesting.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    What to you guys think about Smarkets' "Vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson triggered by CP MPs before next election" market?

    Currently trading on the buy side at 1.72 "Yes" 2.18 "No" (104% book).

    I would have expected the prices to be the other way round.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    Stocky said:

    What to you guys think about Smarkets' "Vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson triggered by CP MPs before next election" market?

    Currently trading on the buy side at 1.72 "Yes" 2.18 "No" (104% book).

    I would have expected the prices to be the other way round.

    Those odds are a reflection of "how likely is it that BoZo will fuck up again?"
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    I don't know; it was on the wall. As toddlers cannot read, perhaps it was for the parents to be familiar with it?

    Whatever, I think it's good that kids are taught such things.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,256
    Scott_xP said:

    Stocky said:

    What to you guys think about Smarkets' "Vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson triggered by CP MPs before next election" market?

    Currently trading on the buy side at 1.72 "Yes" 2.18 "No" (104% book).

    I would have expected the prices to be the other way round.

    Those odds are a reflection of "how likely is it that BoZo will fuck up again?"
    Sure but he can fuck up as often as he likes as long as no more that 14.99% of his MPs get their pens out.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,739
    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 388

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
    The sad truth is that most people who know those who turn out to be sex offenders are surprised by it. Look at the reaction to the Rolf Harris case. The fact it wasn’t the verdict he was expecting doesn’t mean anything.

    At least it was a reasonable comment on the outcome.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
    In other words, despite Heathener’s characteristic smear, Bottomley explicitly supported the Jury’s verdict.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    edited April 12

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,749
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
    The sad truth is that most people who know those who turn out to be sex offenders are surprised by it. Look at the reaction to the Rolf Harris case. The fact it wasn’t the verdict he was expecting doesn’t mean anything.

    At least it was a reasonable comment on the outcome.
    The scale of abuse of all types (domestic, sexual, etc) is so large that the chances are we all will know someone who has been abused in the last couple of years. And we probably don't know about the abuse.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
    In other words, despite Heathener’s characteristic smear, Bottomley explicitly supported the Jury’s verdict.
    Only grudgingly. And with a smear. "I the Tory Backbencher MP know so much better than the Enemies of the People, and the People themselves in the Jury Box." Better left unsaid.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,138
    Drugs were definitely what you had to say "no" to when I was in school.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,010
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    This is what he said - https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1513648564689375238?s=21&t=A7goiI85ZLJ4xW-JnAbjwA.

    To my mind he needs to make it absolutely clear that he does not think that sexual abuse of a boy is " minor on any scale". It is an appalling thing to say.
    It's an attitude that was common in the 1970s.
    To hear it still expressed, by an MP, is disturbing.
    An attitude still pretty common in the 1980s given the blessed Margaret’s protection of Peter Morrison.

    One of the more startling parliamentary moments of the last few years was Blunt’s stout defence of the use of poppers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    Imran Khan's brother is a QC and criminal prosecutor himself. Blunt's brother is also a barrister. If there are grounds for an appeal I suggest he checks with them first
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983

    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124

    Now he has sobered up?

    Tweeting whilst pissed is still not the reaction you would expect of your elected member.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited April 12

    When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.

    So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.

    I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.

    Crispin Blunt of course originally got his seat after Sir George Gardiner was deselected for being a Eurosceptic rebel and defected to the Referendum Party. In that 1997 campaign Sir George campaigned with a donkey he called Crispin

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3590923/Cringing-at-Crispin.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114
    HYUFD said:

    Imran Khan's brother is a QC and criminal prosecutor himself. Blunt's brother is also a barrister. If there are grounds for an appeal I suggest he checks with them first

    Quite sensible advice. Shame it is too late now for Mr Blunt to get his brain in gear before switching on his mouth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    Tough Quordle today...

    Daily Quordle 78
    7️⃣9️⃣
    4️⃣8️⃣
    quordle.com
    ⬜🟩⬜🟨⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
    ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
    ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜ ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
    🟨🟩🟩🟨🟨 ⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

    🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
    🟨⬜⬜🟨⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜ 🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
    🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
    ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    Since 1974 Reigate residents have been represented by Sir George "buttocks clenched on the fence" Gardiner, and Crispin Blunt.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,030
    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    That’s a lot of knives!

    Mind you, we have a thriving group who are taught to use swords, and now I come to think about it a rifle range…
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,883
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but youn children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    At Uni I was advised that the "no means no" campaign was as much to do with cementing a social norm as directing men to ensure they get consent.

    I think that's smart - it would be very difficult to stand by and let your friend behave inappropriately now that it's so ingrained in everyone. And women (if they didn't already) now have a very clear understanding of what is not acceptable, and that they are quite within their rights to kick off if something happens.

    That last bit is a bit patronising, possibly, but important - I watched the second part of the Savile doc on Netflix last night and it struck me how he literally assaulted people on camera and the women/girls could only attempt to laugh it off. I'd hope the new norm would either stop it happening in the first place, or give people the confidence to call people like that out.

    Whether it should start with children is another question - by the time someone is 18, it might already be too late.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    If a crime has been committed, then clearly calling the police should be quite the opposite of a 'last resort'.
    In this particular case, though, there was no compelling evidence of any such thing.

    Neither the police nor the education union come out of this at all well - but while the union statement is foolish in the extreme, it does also indicate a complete and not unjustified breakdown in trust of the police.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591

    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124

    Now he has sobered up?

    Tweeting whilst pissed is still not the reaction you would expect of your elected member.
    Not that it’s remotely an excuse, but that did cross my mind too when I read the somewhat hysterical statement in the first place - “tired and emotional” - but then again “in vino veritas” so Mr Blunt may at least have revealed what he really thinks….
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,455
    Pulpstar said:

    Drugs were definitely what you had to say "no" to when I was in school.

    Absolutely. And keep saying no until you’ve bargained them down to a sensible price.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,883

    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124

    Now he has sobered up?

    Tweeting whilst pissed is still not the reaction you would expect of your elected member.
    Not that it’s remotely an excuse, but that did cross my mind too when I read the somewhat hysterical statement in the first place - “tired and emotional” - but then again “in vino veritas” so Mr Blunt may at least have revealed what he really thinks….
    He definitely wasn't drunk for the statement on his website.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    Really?

    It seems quite reasonable to me that calling the police into school should be the last resort. It doesn't mean banning them, just that it should not be done lightly.

    I dont recall the police coming into my schools (all comprehensive) other than for the occasional assembly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    I don't think it does. Explaining to young children that they don't have the ability to consent is a lot more complicated a concept to get across than telling them that they can say no to an adult.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,326
    edited April 12

    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124

    Now he has sobered up?

    Tweeting whilst pissed is still not the reaction you would expect of your elected member.
    Not that it’s remotely an excuse, but that did cross my mind too when I read the somewhat hysterical statement in the first place - “tired and emotional” - but then again “in vino veritas” so Mr Blunt may at least have revealed what he really thinks….
    "What they really think" is the last thing MPs should be revealing if they want to continue in elected office.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    The UK has repeatedly been singled out as a key enemy on Russian state TV

    Here "retired foreign intelligence officer" Dmitry Yepishin describes the UK as the "main engine of the whole anti-Russia project"


    https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1513536254410956813
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but youn children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    At Uni I was advised that the "no means no" campaign was as much to do with cementing a social norm as directing men to ensure they get consent.

    I think that's smart - it would be very difficult to stand by and let your friend behave inappropriately now that it's so ingrained in everyone. And women (if they didn't already) now have a very clear understanding of what is not acceptable, and that they are quite within their rights to kick off if something happens.

    That last bit is a bit patronising, possibly, but important - I watched the second part of the Savile doc on Netflix last night and it struck me how he literally assaulted people on camera and the women/girls could only attempt to laugh it off. I'd hope the new norm would either stop it happening in the first place, or give people the confidence to call people like that out.

    Whether it should start with children is another question - by the time someone is 18, it might already be too late.
    12 is probably an appropriate age, arguably even 10. I am not knocking the idea of consent at all. The last trial I did involved girls of 15 and 16 pressured into sex acts by social norms and teasing in front of classmates. The boy was convicted. But for infants? Its wholly inappropriate.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,482
    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
    And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.

    As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?

    Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:

    What's happening to pay? My regular chart

    Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.

    Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels
    https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc

    Pay growth is currently being driven by finance and ICT
    https://t.co/uYQmS2kET5
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,030
    Anyway, I’m sitting by a hospital bed waiting to be called down to theatre for a biopsy.

    Different to my previous ops in that there was a Covid questionnaire to answer and everyone is wearing masks, but the NHS does not seem to have completely collapsed.

    Having said that the ward is half full.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394
    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    I think I've mentioned this on here before, but a few years ago a kid pulled a knife on the daughter of a friend of mine in the classroom. When his wife got to the school, the police hadn't been called, so she did.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,883
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    If a crime has been committed, then clearly calling the police should be quite the opposite of a 'last resort'.
    In this particular case, though, there was no compelling evidence of any such thing.

    Neither the police nor the education union come out of this at all well - but while the union statement is foolish in the extreme, it does also indicate a complete and not unjustified breakdown in trust of the police.
    Someone needs to turn the police off/on again . They (and us) have forgotten what they exist to do.

    I still don't get why they are allowed to record non-criminal hate speech (or whatever it is).

    V

    Crime in schools is still crime. It's mirrors when the NUS considered banning police from campuses.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Eabhal said:

    Tory sources say they are expecting an imminent retraction from Crispin Blunt - tweet has already been deleted.

    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513774031870341124

    Now he has sobered up?

    Tweeting whilst pissed is still not the reaction you would expect of your elected member.
    Not that it’s remotely an excuse, but that did cross my mind too when I read the somewhat hysterical statement in the first place - “tired and emotional” - but then again “in vino veritas” so Mr Blunt may at least have revealed what he really thinks….
    He definitely wasn't drunk for the statement on his website.
    That he wrote that sober is an even more alarming prospect…..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    Anyway, I’m sitting by a hospital bed waiting to be called down to theatre for a biopsy.

    Different to my previous ops in that there was a Covid questionnaire to answer and everyone is wearing masks, but the NHS does not seem to have completely collapsed.

    Having said that the ward is half full.

    Fingers crossed for a positive outcome, or rather, a negative result.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983

    The UK has repeatedly been singled out as a key enemy on Russian state TV

    Here "retired foreign intelligence officer" Dmitry Yepishin describes the UK as the "main engine of the whole anti-Russia project"


    https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1513536254410956813

    Given everything we have read about the conduct of Russia these past weeks, we should wear that with pride.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Stocky said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Stocky said:

    What to you guys think about Smarkets' "Vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson triggered by CP MPs before next election" market?

    Currently trading on the buy side at 1.72 "Yes" 2.18 "No" (104% book).

    I would have expected the prices to be the other way round.

    Those odds are a reflection of "how likely is it that BoZo will fuck up again?"
    Sure but he can fuck up as often as he likes as long as no more that 14.99% of his MPs get their pens out.
    I misread your penultimate word and thought you were stipulating the tolerable maximum of sexual misconduct in the party
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    I don't think it does. Explaining to young children that they don't have the ability to consent is a lot more complicated a concept to get across than telling them that they can say no to an adult.
    It is of course entirely your choice but if you love Daddy.....
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    Although the consistency of the phrase through childhood into adulthood is helpful - it’s a fundamental principle of sexual freedom
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 1,883
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but youn children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    At Uni I was advised that the "no means no" campaign was as much to do with cementing a social norm as directing men to ensure they get consent.

    I think that's smart - it would be very difficult to stand by and let your friend behave inappropriately now that it's so ingrained in everyone. And women (if they didn't already) now have a very clear understanding of what is not acceptable, and that they are quite within their rights to kick off if something happens.

    That last bit is a bit patronising, possibly, but important - I watched the second part of the Savile doc on Netflix last night and it struck me how he literally assaulted people on camera and the women/girls could only attempt to laugh it off. I'd hope the new norm would either stop it happening in the first place, or give people the confidence to call people like that out.

    Whether it should start with children is another question - by the time someone is 18, it might already be too late.
    12 is probably an appropriate age, arguably even 10. I am not knocking the idea of consent at all. The last trial I did involved girls of 15 and 16 pressured into sex acts by social norms and teasing in front of classmates. The boy was convicted. But for infants? Its wholly inappropriate.
    Fair - I just think there's a legitimate argument that "no means no", in very general terms around all physical stuff (eg play fighting) could start quite early. Get the idea stuck.

    I can't really remember whether primary schools teach other rules/ethics at that age though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Stocky said:

    What to you guys think about Smarkets' "Vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson triggered by CP MPs before next election" market?

    Currently trading on the buy side at 1.72 "Yes" 2.18 "No" (104% book).

    I would have expected the prices to be the other way round.

    Those odds are a reflection of "how likely is it that BoZo will fuck up again?"
    Sure but he can fuck up as often as he likes as long as no more that 14.99% of his MPs get their pens out.
    I misread your penultimate word and thought you were stipulating the tolerable maximum of sexual misconduct in the party
    There are too many dicks on display in the PCP as it is!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    Cyclefree said:

    Blunt has deleted his tweet and statement.

    Now he needs to retract them.

    This is what he said - https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1513648564689375238?s=21&t=A7goiI85ZLJ4xW-JnAbjwA.

    To my mind he needs to make it absolutely clear that he does not think that sexual abuse of a boy is " minor on any scale". It is an appalling thing to say.
    He said that *one particular incident* of the sexual abuse of a boy was minor on any scale. That is a completely different statement from your version of it. Let's not throw logic out of the window, shall we, no matter how indignant we are?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sometimes I think the NEU are the stupidest things on the planet.

    Child Q: Police going into schools should be last resort, teachers say
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61073813

    What happened to that girl who was illegally strip searched was undoubtedly disgusting and should see criminal prosecutions follow.

    But are we really saying that the police shouldn’t be allowed into schools to investigate crimes? Actual crimes, including serious breaches of the law? Speaking as somebody who teaches in a school where we have an average of one knife or drug case a fortnight I think that would make bad worse. Especially for their victims.

    What would be more useful and would have prevented the disaster in this particular case is to have specialist officers who are trained to deal with adolescents, including the laws around their safeguarding. Which would not be difficult to achieve and would help everyone not least the children themselves.

    But no, let‘a just ban the police from schools, a la ‘defund the police tactics’ Stateside.

    Idiots. I’m so glad I turned in my membership of that union.

    Really?

    It seems quite reasonable to me that calling the police into school should be the last resort. It doesn't mean banning them, just that it should not be done lightly.

    I dont recall the police coming into my schools (all comprehensive) other than for the occasional assembly.
    When my daughter was three, they had a policeman come in and talk to the class.

    "And what did he talk about?" Asked my wife
    "He said what you should do if you got lost" said my daughter
    "And what did you say?"
    "I told him I'd seen his grandmother in Tesco"
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,326

    Anyway, I’m sitting by a hospital bed waiting to be called down to theatre for a biopsy.

    Different to my previous ops in that there was a Covid questionnaire to answer and everyone is wearing masks, but the NHS does not seem to have completely collapsed.

    Having said that the ward is half full.

    Better than it being half empty.

    Good luck with it all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    Anyway, I’m sitting by a hospital bed waiting to be called down to theatre for a biopsy.

    Different to my previous ops in that there was a Covid questionnaire to answer and everyone is wearing masks, but the NHS does not seem to have completely collapsed.

    Having said that the ward is half full.

    Hope it goes well for you and the results are benign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited April 12

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
    And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.

    As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?

    Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:

    What's happening to pay? My regular chart

    Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.

    Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels
    https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc

    Pay growth is currently being driven by finance and ICT
    https://t.co/uYQmS2kET5
    Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.

    Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation apart from in finance and IT due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114
    Graun feed reporting on General Dannatt in Sky News interview:

    "European Union countries have been pretty open on accepting Ukrainian refugees. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has put together – despite all the rhetoric from the government – a pretty complicated system.

    The form-filling is very onerous. It would be much better if a family only had to make one application. Typically, it’s a mother, and one or two or three children filling in an application. But we’ve got a situation whereby even a two or three year old child has to have a separate application and answer quite ridiculous questions asking what sort of former employment they have been in, and have they been involved in the armed forces."

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
    And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.

    As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?

    Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:

    What's happening to pay? My regular chart

    Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.

    Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels
    https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc

    Pay growth is currently being driven by finance and ICT
    https://t.co/uYQmS2kET5
    Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.

    Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
    Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
    Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
    I don't think it does. Explaining to young children that they don't have the ability to consent is a lot more complicated a concept to get across than telling them that they can say no to an adult.
    It is of course entirely your choice but if you love Daddy.....
    Hence you “always have the right to say no - even to a family member or someone you love”
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    “I think he’ll walk,” said one Tory MP, who speculated that Sunak’s Richmond constituency “will have a new MP pretty soon.”

    They added: “He isn’t going to be PM now and it shows just how shallow his support was. He was the front-runner because everyone thought he’d win, not because he was popular in the party.”

    Others, however, say it’s far too soon to write Sunak off — but even they want the embattled chancellor to learn hard lessons from the political bruising he’s taking.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnsons-heir-apparent-rishi-sunak-comes-unstuck/
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed reporting on General Dannatt in Sky News interview:

    "European Union countries have been pretty open on accepting Ukrainian refugees. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has put together – despite all the rhetoric from the government – a pretty complicated system.

    The form-filling is very onerous. It would be much better if a family only had to make one application. Typically, it’s a mother, and one or two or three children filling in an application. But we’ve got a situation whereby even a two or three year old child has to have a separate application and answer quite ridiculous questions asking what sort of former employment they have been in, and have they been involved in the armed forces."

    Patel should be sacked for her inability to make the scheme work
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed reporting on General Dannatt in Sky News interview:

    "European Union countries have been pretty open on accepting Ukrainian refugees. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has put together – despite all the rhetoric from the government – a pretty complicated system.

    The form-filling is very onerous. It would be much better if a family only had to make one application. Typically, it’s a mother, and one or two or three children filling in an application. But we’ve got a situation whereby even a two or three year old child has to have a separate application and answer quite ridiculous questions asking what sort of former employment they have been in, and have they been involved in the armed forces."

    Patel should be sacked for her inability to make the scheme work
    I thought she had been complaining about it?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed reporting on General Dannatt in Sky News interview:

    "European Union countries have been pretty open on accepting Ukrainian refugees. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has put together – despite all the rhetoric from the government – a pretty complicated system.

    The form-filling is very onerous. It would be much better if a family only had to make one application. Typically, it’s a mother, and one or two or three children filling in an application. But we’ve got a situation whereby even a two or three year old child has to have a separate application and answer quite ridiculous questions asking what sort of former employment they have been in, and have they been involved in the armed forces."

    Patel should be sacked for her inability to make the scheme work
    I thought she had been complaining about it?
    Patel is ultimately in charge of the scheme
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,799
    DavidL said:

    One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':

    P rivates are private
    A lways remember your body belongs to you
    N o means no
    T alk about secrets that upset you
    S peak up, someone can help.

    https://www.nspcc.org.uk/keeping-children-safe/support-for-parents/pants-underwear-rule/

    This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.

    What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
    'No means no' is much more appropriate than 'never means never' imho. Clear and accurate.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,496

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Heathener said:

    1st.

    This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.

    Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.

    It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
    And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.

    As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?

    Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:

    What's happening to pay? My regular chart

    Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.

    Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels
    https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc

    Pay growth is currently being driven by finance and ICT
    https://t.co/uYQmS2kET5
    Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.

    Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
    Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
    There have been three major shocks to the economy in the last few years - brexit, covid and war-induced price rises. They all imply a downward adjustment in living standards, at least temporarily. 'Pay rising at half the rate of inflation' is a symptom of that adjustment. It may be toxic for any government as you say, but there's not much that can be done about it.

  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,701
    The latest Opinion Way poll shows why Mélenchons voters are so important to both sides .

    Macron leads Le Pen 54% to 46% in the overall second round vote .

    The Mélenchon voters support breaks 27% to 21% for Macron with 53% abstentions .

    In 2017 that was 60% to 10% with 30% abstentions .
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.

    Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    By the way, contyrary to what some of us thought yesterday, the recall process, if triggered by court action, does not (according to the Guardian) kick in until all appeals have been exhausted, so the potential by-election is some way off.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,569

    FPT:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    ping said:

    tlg86 said:

    ping said:

    Nigelb said:

    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
    What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
    He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
    Yes, Bottomly is unusual amongst Conservative MPs in having more intelligence than your average house plant.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,255
    edited April 12

    There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.

    Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...

    It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.

    And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
This discussion has been closed.