Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
This means FA. A Tory Minister hands are expected to reach those parts. Non story.
1) There was no power dynamic between Hartley Brewer and Michael Fallon so far as I am aware. He is a politician, she is a journo - not particularly a defence correspondent which would satisfy the point, albeit stretched. 2) They are both adults. 3) It was at a party conference dinner, that is outside work time and no doubt the booze was flowing. 4) Are we really going to go on a witch hunt for clumsy flirting ? Hartley-Brewer is obviously not phased by the incident and dealt with it there and then in a fitting manner.
The only person Fallon should be explaining this incident to is his wife !
Sounds about right - and the Sun didn't choose to run the Fallon story above the rest: it's simply that he made a statement last night. Implicitly labelling him a 'sex pest' on the basis of this single incident seems a bit of a stretch (though the idea of dough faced Fallon as a serial knee fondler does leave one feeling a bit queasy...).
Anyhoo, explaining economics is not what I came here to do. Whilst we all turn into freelance arbiters of the moral worth of other people, China is about to turn 20% of humanity into prisoners in a Black Mirror episode. For real. By 2020. And there is no escape. Holy shit.
Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
This means FA. A Tory Minister hands are expected to reach those parts. Non story.
The “victim” agrees - happened once, 15 years ago, she told him to get lost, he did - and he has behaved correctly ever since - as she points out, including “over enthusiastic flirting” with “sexual harassment” demeans the latter which is much more serious.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Not that 'odd'. If it's a whips' list, then it wasn't intended for publication, and they might well have thrown everything in there irrespective of how serious/unserious it might be. And after all, if the Fallon (non) story can make the front page, they wouldn't want to miss anything out, just in case.
There is no point worrying about Farage. He is a small fish.
More to the point, very probably knows nothing useful, and in any event couldn't be pressured in the same way as a US citizen. Investigators tend to go after small fish - like Papadopoulos - who can lead to larger ones.
Fallon touching a woman's knee 15 years ago is hardly the Profumo Scandal.....if that is the best the tabloids have - sending an assistant to Ann Summers and an aging Tory warhorse touching a knee Tory HQ will be sleeping well tonight......
This means FA. A Tory Minister hands are expected to reach those parts. Non story.
The “victim” agrees - happened once, 15 years ago, she told him to get lost, he did - and he has behaved correctly ever since - as she points out, including “over enthusiastic flirting” with “sexual harassment” demeans the latter which is much more serious.
It's only a story because Fallon outed himself last night. Press attention will move on rapidly - to those who have less reason to be comfortable about talking...
Confirms my view yesterday about the WSJ oped: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-risks-republican-lawmakers-run-by-remaining-silent/544382/ Here’s your problem, senator: The Trump political and legal strategy is about to get very radical. This weekend, after months of hesitation and distraction mongering, The Wall Street Journal editorial page ran a column advocating the end-the-probe, pardon-everyone position. It also mobilized an array of high-toned op-ed contributors—acclaimed intellectuals, well-known lawyers—in support. Fox News will amplify the argument, your constituents will be mobilized to support it—and you will be trapped...
1) There was no power dynamic between Hartley Brewer and Michael Fallon so far as I am aware. He is a politician, she is a journo - not particularly a defence correspondent which would satisfy the point, albeit stretched. 2) They are both adults. 3) It was at a party conference dinner, that is outside work time and no doubt the booze was flowing. 4) Are we really going to go on a witch hunt for clumsy flirting ? Hartley-Brewer is obviously not phased by the incident and dealt with it there and then in a fitting manner.
The only person Fallon should be explaining this incident to is his wife !
Sounds about right - and the Sun didn't choose to run the Fallon story above the rest: it's simply that he made a statement last night. Implicitly labelling him a 'sex pest' on the basis of this single incident seems a bit of a stretch (though the idea of dough faced Fallon as a serial knee fondler does leave one feeling a bit queasy...).
Indeed. He can only be indicted for his appalling taste.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Not that 'odd'. If it's a whips' list, then it wasn't intended for publication, and they might well have thrown everything in there irrespective of how serious/unserious it might be. And after all, if the Fallon (non) story can make the front page, they wouldn't want to miss anything out, just in case.
As for the spelling, this is the stupid party....
Presumably, stuff that's consensual but embarrassing gives the whips a hold over recalcitrant MP's.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Not that 'odd'. If it's a whips' list, then it wasn't intended for publication, and they might well have thrown everything in there irrespective of how serious/unserious it might be. And after all, if the Fallon (non) story can make the front page, they wouldn't want to miss anything out, just in case.
As for the spelling, this is the stupid party....
Presumably, stuff that's consensual but embarrassing gives the whips a hold over recalcitrant MP's.
Quite - sit them down and take a firm grasp of the knee....
To move the story on, Fallon is now 65 and looking a bit jaded, we are certainly in need of a reshuffle etc not to mention Garnier's embarrassment - is T May actually able to do a reshuffle as such or is she stuck with what she's got? If there is dirt on Boris for example can he make a fuss if moved to Party Chair? Interesting as there was a lot of talk 5-6 weeks ago that a reshuffle was on the cards (young blood etc) but I am not sure TM can actually conduct one given the dynamics of party at present.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Indeed - and the fully redacted stuff may be worse. The other point is that the way these stories work is like a dam breaking, one seemingly minor allegation can crack the dam and lead to more accusations pouring out - for the simple reason that once something's on the record and has either been admitted or at least not denied, then if that person is a serial offender (and no one's saying Fallon is, but others according to the spreadsheet are) then other alleged victims no longer fear going on the record with accusations as they can't be dismissed out of hand - and editors are much happier to publish. The balance of power shifts as bringing a libel case becomes much more awkward. Also, if one minister is put through the wringer for a relatively minor accusation the demands to out others who have allegedly done far worse will grow.
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
And yet we know what John Mcdonnell said about Esther McVey in the 2010 election and I've yet to say anyone acknowledge it on here.
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
But MPs who have harassed women have broken the law, and may have done so on the job - which, along with more minor inappropriate behaviour (e.g. the minister for dildos) in the workplace, would be grounds for a sacking (or resignation).
So far, unless I have missed something, no MP has been accused of sexual harassment.
The Minister for Dildos was guilty of a serious misjudgment (which probably warrants his resignation as a Minister).
Fallon is guilty of nothing.
Jared O'Mara comes across as a hugely unpleasant embarrassment, and If I were Corbyn, I'd want to get rid of him. I'd withdraw the whip permanently.
Even in cases of MPs having affairs with their Parliamentary assistants, most of the known cases seem consensual. John Prescott's affair was an ugly episode, but the woman in it seemed to be happy banking cash from the tabloids. Dennis Skinner had an affair with his research assistant, left his wife and lives with her. In neither case was the behaviour laudable, but it wasn't harassment either.
I am ready with the burning logs, but where are the harassers?
None of this behaviour is remotely comparable to Weinsten who seems to have practiced sexual harassment on a truly industrial scale. It is Hollywood, the actors, the directors, the movie produces and the entertainment industry, that should be under much more focus.
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
These days I'd expect the first several months to be spent on the pension arrangements for new directors.
A Brexit agreement with the EU would need to be enshrined in law and be subject to scrutiny and a vote by MPs and peers, ministers have conceded.
Until now Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have insisted that parliament will only be given a “take it or leave it” vote on the overall deal, without the need for primary legislation.
But behind the scenes ministers have accepted that their stance is untenable and the government will have to implement key elements of the withdrawal agreement directly into British law.
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
These days I'd expect the first several months to be spent on the pension arrangements for new directors.
And of course the severance package.
In connection with which, see the remarkable story of the pay-offs at Caerphilly Council.
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
These days I'd expect the first several months to be spent on the pension arrangements for new directors.
And of course the severance package.
In connection with which, see the remarkable story of the pay-offs at Caerphilly Council.
Saw it, IIRC, in Private Eye. Ridiculous waste of Council Taxpayers money.
So let me get this straight, White House has some problems, leaders of Catalonian region flee to Belgium and Fallon is the main topic?
All politics is local I suppose.
Ahem - by definition most stories featuring belgium are pretty much second rate - it goes with the territory.
Fallon is the topic because harassment - and the possibility if its affecting the stability of the government is not unnaturally of some interest to a political betting site, as well as the national press.
Fallon made himself news yesterday evening - and given his previous in terms of news management (remember his various election campaign interventions), it's not impossible, though a little cynical, to imagine he's doing it as news management. The JHB story (without Fallon's name) has been public for a long time, and this was quite a good opportunity to make it public at minimal cost to himself while taking a day's press attention from more serious cases.
Good for her. One of the few pieces of grown-up thinking I have seen today. She is absolutely right.
She's tweeted it, so it's definitely her. Can you believe it, JHB the voice of reason...
Her letter is a big moment in this issue.
It will be dismissed by the usual suspects from the Outrage Brigade.
If this Fallon incident is all there is then the whole 'issue' is a non-issue. But look again at the redacted Tory spreadsheet. That implies there's a whole lot more serious allegations to come.
Indeed - and the fully redacted stuff may be worse. The other point is that the way these stories work is like a dam breaking, one seemingly minor allegation can crack the dam and lead to more accusations pouring out - for the simple reason that once something's on the record and has either been admitted or at least not denied...
I didn’t see as many accusations of a ‘witch hunt’/criticism of the allegations when it was Jared O’Mara last week. As soon as it’s become about Tories, now it’s an overreaction.
And yet we know what John Mcdonnell said about Esther McVey in the 2010 election and I've yet to say anyone acknowledge it on here.
Theres a piece about it - and Labour's misogynist tendencies - in the Times this morning.
The idea that this is the problem of a single party, or confined to political parties, is ridiculous.
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
A Brexit agreement with the EU would need to be enshrined in law and be subject to scrutiny and a vote by MPs and peers, ministers have conceded.
Until now Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have insisted that parliament will only be given a “take it or leave it” vote on the overall deal, without the need for primary legislation.
But behind the scenes ministers have accepted that their stance is untenable and the government will have to implement key elements of the withdrawal agreement directly into British law.
DD and BJ can be discounted. If such big names were likely candidates they'd be at least a 25% chance. JRM is possible, especially now the membership has shrunk back to the reactionary septuagenarian core, but seeing what one off comment did for Leadsom, it's likely that he'll be considered too risky. So that leaves Rudd, Patel and various faceless men in suits. I'd plump for one of the former, but you could be in for a good payday if you plump for the right one of the latter.
DD and BJ can be discounted. If such big names were likely candidates they'd be at least a 25% chance. JRM is possible, especially now the membership has shrunk back to the reactionary septuagenarian core, but seeing what one off comment did for Leadsom, it's likely that he'll be considered too risky. So that leaves Rudd, Patel and various faceless men in suits. I'd plump for one of the former, but you could be in for a good payday if you plump for the right one of the latter.
The membership will never elect a Remainer like Rudd and I doubt Patel would get to the final two with MPs, so actually it is hard to see past DD and BJ unless younger members get promoted to big Cabinet jobs. JRM has a chance if he gets to the members but is more likely a future opposition leader than next PM.
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
Some would say having an affair while your partner was giving birth was reasonably high on the sleazy stakes. But men and women don't always see things the same.
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
That's Parkinson's Law, yes
Sadly, its true as well. On councils officers know this and fill reports with vacuous detail in order to send gullible councillors off on a tangent.
I guess this is at the back of truly awful decisions of which Grenfell Tower is just a current obvious example.
It is also the ONLY point of Westminster Hall debates in the House of Commons
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
I have been to literally hundreds of committee meetings, and that is dead on. People do their best, and are well intentioned, but some things are just the way they are,
The way our bureaucracy works I'm shocked it would take as little as 5.
4.5 years out of the 5 is coming up with a new logo for the system.
Doesn’t Professor Parkinson, who after all published one of the few sensible and readable books on the art of managing, say that people on a Committee spend most time on things within their comprehension and leave out the big stuff? IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
That's Parkinson's Law, yes
IIRC the generic Parkinson’s law states that work expands to fill the time available for it. The example I quoted was a example of spin-off.
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
Some would say having an affair while your partner was giving birth was reasonably high on the sleazy stakes. But men and women don't always see things the same.
Really doesn’t seem as though there was a high-quality relationship there in the first place.
A Brexit agreement with the EU would need to be enshrined in law and be subject to scrutiny and a vote by MPs and peers, ministers have conceded.
Until now Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have insisted that parliament will only be given a “take it or leave it” vote on the overall deal, without the need for primary legislation.
But behind the scenes ministers have accepted that their stance is untenable and the government will have to implement key elements of the withdrawal agreement directly into British law.
I can't see how thats practical. If the MPs throw out any pre-negoiated parts of an agreement, then it's all thrown out. The EU aren't going to let MPs change the deal.
DD and BJ can be discounted. If such big names were likely candidates they'd be at least a 25% chance. JRM is possible, especially now the membership has shrunk back to the reactionary septuagenarian core, but seeing what one off comment did for Leadsom, it's likely that he'll be considered too risky. So that leaves Rudd, Patel and various faceless men in suits. I'd plump for one of the former, but you could be in for a good payday if you plump for the right one of the latter.
The membership will never elect a Remainer like Rudd and I doubt Patel would get to the final two with MPs, so actually it is hard to see past DD and BJ unless younger members get promoted to big Cabinet jobs. JRM has a chance if he gets to the members but is more likely a future opposition leader than next PM.
Good point about Rudd, of course, though her Remainerism might not matter too much if/when Brexit is a done deal. My hunch is that at most one out of BJ and DD will make it to the final two, and that whoever the other candidate is will win the members' vote. I'm not a fan of PP, but she could be the one, unless a man with the skills (if not the direction) of David Cameron comes to the fore.
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
Some would say having an affair while your partner was giving birth was reasonably high on the sleazy stakes. But men and women don't always see things the same.
Really doesn’t seem as though there was a high-quality relationship there in the first place.
Perhaps not but the consequences have effectively ruined her life.
JHB surely does women a disservice by claiming a man putting his hand on a women's knee against her will is not sexual harassment.
Surely the point is that between consenting adults flirting can go further than one party is happy with, and if when they tell the other to foxtrot Oscar - they do - then no lasting harm has been done - apart possibly to the reputation of the over enthusiast. On the other hand where there is no true consent - because of a power relationship - or where the rejection is ignored we’re in very different territory altogether?
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
Some would say having an affair while your partner was giving birth was reasonably high on the sleazy stakes. But men and women don't always see things the same.
Really doesn’t seem as though there was a high-quality relationship there in the first place.
Perhaps not but the consequences have effectively ruined her life.
Well, she shouldn't really have accused the bloke of being an abuser. Thats on her.
I see various lefties are now begining to moan about things like kneegate being conflated with more serious incidences.
You can't have it both ways. Either 'everything' is sexual assult worthy of being exposed or it isn't.
Well, maybe, but the public (and the law) will have a lot more to say about rape than about knee-fondling.
I don't think it's mainly a leftie issue. Clearly any kind of unwanted contact is undesirable but occasionally will happen due to misread signals. Persistent such contact is harassment, and it becomes really serious when it turns into assault and particularly if one of the parties concerned has physical, career or other power over the other. The knee pat with someone not employed by the patter seems really trivial stuff which JHB is rightly shrugging off, and it does a disservice to the more serious allegations to make it a front-page story.
I'm not sure that any of us really disagree about most of this?
I loathe these witch hunts. I know lots of sleazy people who have never done anything as career wrecking as putting their hand on anyonyone's knee or making a pass at a 14 year old boy at a drunken party.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
If she lied over something that serious, then the answer is fairly obvious, are we all agreed here?
Some would say having an affair while your partner was giving birth was reasonably high on the sleazy stakes. But men and women don't always see things the same.
Really doesn’t seem as though there was a high-quality relationship there in the first place.
Perhaps not but the consequences have effectively ruined her life.
Well, she shouldn't really have accused the bloke of being an abuser. Thats on her.
Comments
Implicitly labelling him a 'sex pest' on the basis of this single incident seems a bit of a stretch (though the idea of dough faced Fallon as a serial knee fondler does leave one feeling a bit queasy...).
As for the spelling, this is the stupid party....
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-risks-republican-lawmakers-run-by-remaining-silent/544382/
Here’s your problem, senator: The Trump political and legal strategy is about to get very radical. This weekend, after months of hesitation and distraction mongering, The Wall Street Journal editorial page ran a column advocating the end-the-probe, pardon-everyone position. It also mobilized an array of high-toned op-ed contributors—acclaimed intellectuals, well-known lawyers—in support. Fox News will amplify the argument, your constituents will be mobilized to support it—and you will be trapped...
IIRC he suggested the discussion on a new nuclear reactor would take 5 minutes and a bike shed for the staff 35.
The Minister for Dildos was guilty of a serious misjudgment (which probably warrants his resignation as a Minister).
Fallon is guilty of nothing.
Jared O'Mara comes across as a hugely unpleasant embarrassment, and If I were Corbyn, I'd want to get rid of him. I'd withdraw the whip permanently.
Even in cases of MPs having affairs with their Parliamentary assistants, most of the known cases seem consensual. John Prescott's affair was an ugly episode, but the woman in it seemed to be happy banking cash from the tabloids. Dennis Skinner had an affair with his research assistant, left his wife and lives with her. In neither case was the behaviour laudable, but it wasn't harassment either.
I am ready with the burning logs, but where are the harassers?
None of this behaviour is remotely comparable to Weinsten who seems to have practiced sexual harassment on a truly industrial scale. It is Hollywood, the actors, the directors, the movie produces and the entertainment industry, that should be under much more focus.
Until now Theresa May and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, have insisted that parliament will only be given a “take it or leave it” vote on the overall deal, without the need for primary legislation.
But behind the scenes ministers have accepted that their stance is untenable and the government will have to implement key elements of the withdrawal agreement directly into British law.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-deal-will-only-be-legal-after-a-vote-of-mps-26pw6tdlk
In connection with which, see the remarkable story of the pay-offs at Caerphilly Council.
Fallon made himself news yesterday evening - and given his previous in terms of news management (remember his various election campaign interventions), it's not impossible, though a little cynical, to imagine he's doing it as news management.
The JHB story (without Fallon's name) has been public for a long time, and this was quite a good opportunity to make it public at minimal cost to himself while taking a day's press attention from more serious cases.
The idea that this is the problem of a single party, or confined to political parties, is ridiculous.
A friend of mine who was a well known model had a child twelve years ago. Shortly after the child was born her partner had an affair and she left him. She was so upset she denied him access so he took her to court. The court gave him limited access so she reported him to social services for sexually abusing the child now aged two. Social security only allowed him access with a third party present so they could observe his behaviour. This lasted almost a year.
They have now been in an acrimonious dispute for 12 years. They've been to court hundreds of times and she's now almost bankrupt. His trump card is that she falsely accused him ten years ago and the result is she's not believed and he now has equal custody and can make the important decisions many of which make her life near impossible.
Which is the sleazy one?
https://mobile.twitter.com/tom_watson/status/925268802497122304
I guess this is at the back of truly awful decisions of which Grenfell Tower is just a current obvious example.
It is also the ONLY point of Westminster Hall debates in the House of Commons
However even then London would still be comfortably the biggest financial centre in Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604#comment_128555785
You can't have it both ways. Either 'everything' is sexual assult worthy of being exposed or it isn't.
I assume you are referring to the list of prospective Prime Ministers?
https://www.theguardian.com/global/shortcuts/2017/oct/29/how-the-actual-magic-money-tree-works?CMP=share_btn_fb
NEW THREAD
I'm not sure that any of us really disagree about most of this?