I think it’s pretty clear something more has happened re Fallon than just him feeling JHB’s knee (as bad as that is). I can’t believe anyone at this stage really believes he resigned over that single incident.
It is hard to believe, but until we find out anything more, surely it is wrong to assume in the complete absence of evidence? At best we have reports he could not confirm there would not be similar knee touching reports. It's fair, therefore, to speculate there is more to it, but is it 'pretty clear'? Should we not at least wait for actual accusations to emerge before we assume guilt? There's no reason him resigning should prevent accusations from coming forward.
We don’t have a complete absence of evidence though. It’s been reported that Fallon couldn’t deny that there were more incidents, and that a group of female MPs also made allegations, and there were some reports from the whips office as well.
None of that is on the record or independently confirmed. It may or may not be true - we just don't have the evidence for it at this stage.
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
I think it’s pretty clear something more has happened re Fallon than just him feeling JHB’s knee (as bad as that is). I can’t believe anyone at this stage really believes he resigned over that single incident.
It is hard to believe, but until we find out anything more, surely it is wrong to assume in the complete absence of evidence? At best we have reports he could not confirm there would not be similar knee touching reports. It's fair, therefore, to speculate there is more to it, but is it 'pretty clear'? Should we not at least wait for actual accusations to emerge before we assume guilt? There's no reason him resigning should prevent accusations from coming forward.
We don’t have a complete absence of evidence though. It’s been reported that Fallon couldn’t deny that there were more incidents, and that a group of female MPs also made allegations, and there were some reports from the whips office as well.
None of that is on the record or independently confirmed. It may or may not be true - we just don't have the evidence for it at this stage.
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
The interviews with real life serial killers, based upon real interactions, is the best bits.
I don't know if you are aware who the creeky guy at the start of each episode is. If not go search ADT killer...
I don’t see how the allegations not being on the record/independently confirmed, or is knowing the nature and number of the allegations has to do with anything. The reality is, the reporting by journalists suggests that there were other incidents, and that that is the reason why he resigned. Tom Newton Dunn was pretty much saying exactly this on the DP today.
I think it’s pretty clear something more has happened re Fallon than just him feeling JHB’s knee (as bad as that is). I can’t believe anyone at this stage really believes he resigned over that single incident.
It is hard to believe, but until we find out anything more, surely it is wrong to assume in the complete absence of evidence? At best we have reports he could not confirm there would not be similar knee touching reports. It's fair, therefore, to speculate there is more to it, but is it 'pretty clear'? Should we not at least wait for actual accusations to emerge before we assume guilt? There's no reason him resigning should prevent accusations from coming forward.
We don’t have a complete absence of evidence though. It’s been reported that Fallon couldn’t deny that there were more incidents, and that a group of female MPs also made allegations, and there were some reports from the whips office as well.
None of that is on the record or independently confirmed. It may or may not be true - we just don't have the evidence for it at this stage.
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
The interviews with real life serial killers, based upon real interactions, is the best bits.
I don't know if you are aware who the creeky guy at the start of each episode is. If not go search ADT killer...
That is Mindhunter - which I am also watching. Two similarly titled and themed shows.
I think it’s pretty clear something more has happened re Fallon than just him feeling JHB’s knee (as bad as that is). I can’t believe anyone at this stage really believes he resigned over that single incident.
It is hard to believe, but until we find out anything more, surely it is wrong to assume in the complete absence of evidence? At best we have reports he could not confirm there would not be similar knee touching reports. It's fair, therefore, to speculate there is more to it, but is it 'pretty clear'? Should we not at least wait for actual accusations to emerge before we assume guilt? There's no reason him resigning should prevent accusations from coming forward.
We don’t have a complete absence of evidence though. It’s been reported that Fallon couldn’t deny that there were more incidents, and that a group of female MPs also made allegations, and there were some reports from the whips office as well.
None of that is on the record or independently confirmed. It may or may not be true - we just don't have the evidence for it at this stage.
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
The interviews with real life serial killers, based upon real interactions, is the best bits.
I don't know if you are aware who the creeky guy at the start of each episode is. If not go search ADT killer...
That is Mindhunter - which I am also watching. Two similarly titled and themed shows.
Oh woophs, misread. I shall have to check out Manhunt.
The so called allegations look pretty tame to me. He's perhaps guilty of being a silly old fool.
This is all getting out of hand.
If this is all our MPs are guilty of, they're much more innocent than I thought.
The allegations look a lot more serious than Fallon with alleged sexual assault and text messaging with accusations that Corbyn's Office did nothing with it in 2016
The failure of the Party to act following a serious accusation is probably worse than actual acts.
It's unfair to both accuser and accused. It's perfectly possible for something innocent to be swept under the carpet only for it to emerge a while later in a new form. A proper and full investigation at the time, along with advice where appropriate (e.g. 'don't let lone women into your hotel room, you fool') might have proven innocence.
A little anecdote about knee-touching: a uni friend of mine was taking her driving test. She was very nervous, and was in a small car she had only driven a couple of times. The examiner comes out, and she thinks he is a little dishy. He gets in, they do the preliminaries, and he asks her to drive off. She starts the engine, checks all the mirrors, and tries to get it into first gear.
It doesn't go. She moves the gearstick again, and it moves, but the car stlll isn't in gear. She looks over and realises she had had her hand on the examiner's knee, not the gearstick.
He didn't fail her for some reason, and as she thought she had failed, she lost her nerves and passed.
(I've seen a similar scene in a comedy since then, so I guess it isn't unheard of).
oooh. Driving test anecdote.
I took my test after learning from zero on one of those intensive 5 day courses. The test was in a town I'd never been to before (Wigan IIRC) that happened to have a slot available. I thought it was pretty unlikely i'd pass, but gave it a go anyway.
5 mins in - and on a dual carriageway, the examiner randomly announced that the speed limit on this road was 40. I looked at the speedometer & I'd been doing 50.
I assumed that meant i'd almost certainly failed and my nerves evaporated. The rest of the test was fine and I was really relaxed, treating it as driving practice. To my surprise I passed. He explained the 40 sign was obscured by foliage and I was driving safely with the rest of the traffic, so no fail.
I think it’s pretty clear something more has happened re Fallon than just him feeling JHB’s knee (as bad as that is). I can’t believe anyone at this stage really believes he resigned over that single incident.
It is hard to believe, but until we find out anything more, surely it is wrong to assume in the complete absence of evidence? At best we have reports he could not confirm there would not be similar knee touching reports. It's fair, therefore, to speculate there is more to it, but is it 'pretty clear'? Should we not at least wait for actual accusations to emerge before we assume guilt? There's no reason him resigning should prevent accusations from coming forward.
We don’t have a complete absence of evidence though. It’s been reported that Fallon couldn’t deny that there were more incidents, and that a group of female MPs also made allegations, and there were some reports from the whips office as well.
None of that is on the record or independently confirmed. It may or may not be true - we just don't have the evidence for it at this stage.
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
The interviews with real life serial killers, based upon real interactions, is the best bits.
I don't know if you are aware who the creeky guy at the start of each episode is. If not go search ADT killer...
That is Mindhunter - which I am also watching. Two similarly titled and themed shows.
Oh woophs, misread. I shall have to check out Manhunt.
I heard about both on a YouTube video where someone had made the same mistake - so I checked them both out! Glad I did. Makes a change from my usual re-watching of The West Wing
I don’t see how the allegations not being independently confirmed, or is knowing the nature and number of the allegations has to do with anything. The reality is, the reporting by journalists suggests that there were other incidents, and that that is the reason why he resigned. Tom Newton Dunn was pretty much saying exactly this on the DP today.
That's a remarkably cavalier attitude to take if any of us care about a) the truth of what is going on at Westminster and b) what can be done about it.
As an example, if it turns out one of the 'incidents' is him outright groping someone then it is in fact hugely important whether the allegation is independently confirmed, since otherwise he'll have gotten a pass because given his first admission with no other details on other 'incidents', people will assume any other incidents are similar in nature when in fact it is more serious. As another example, if there were reports these incidents involved parliamentary staff, or even fellow MPs in more junior roles, it adds an even more serious dimension of him using his powerful position to behave inappropriately. As another example, did these incidents take place recently and he's never learned his lesson, or did he have 3 incidents 15 years ago and he's regretted it ever since?
You'd be happy for the other allegations to remain hushed up since he has already resigned, in essence, and we'd learn nothing about how bad a person he really is? Is he a bad man who's resigned at the first hint of bad things getting out, or is he mostly a decent man who on a few occasions, as he put it, fell short of proper standards?
Apparently you don't want to know because he's already resigned? What will we have learned if we don't know what further allegations exist, whether they are admitted, and what that says about the culture at Westminster?
Never mind I guess. Out of sight, out of mind, and let's just assume too much or too little based on one confirmed incident and assumption more is there based on resignation - when the 'more there' could be a number of things, which if there is more there specificity is rather important.
And if there is in fact a deal I'll bet the commission will apologise and get right on with telling them to transfer back.
Well yes: this is the problem the UK government has always had.
Say, "we will get a deal no matter what the cost," and get clobbered by the EU.
Say, "we will never take a bad deal, and no deal is fine with us," and watch pharma, auto and finance companies freeze all UK investment for two years.
The correct solution is to prepare for no deal, while saying how much you want a deal. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Basically, the complete opposite of the current British approach, which seems designed to drive business out of Britain and land us with an enormous bill.
I don’t see how the allegations not being independently confirmed, or is knowing the nature and number of the allegations has to do with anything. The reality is, the reporting by journalists suggests that there were other incidents, and that that is the reason why he resigned. Tom Newton Dunn was pretty much saying exactly this on the DP today.
That's a remarkably cavalier attitude to take if any of us care about a) the truth of what is going on at Westminster and b) what can be done about it.
As an example, if it turns out one of the 'incidents' is him outright groping someone then it is in fact hugely important whether the allegation is independently confirmed, since otherwise he'll have gotten a pass because given his first admission with no other details on other 'incidents', people will assume any other incidents are similar in nature when in fact it is more serious. As another example, if there were reports these incidents involved parliamentary staff, or even fellow MPs in more junior roles, it adds an even more serious dimension of him using his powerful position to behave inappropriately. As another example, did these incidents take place recently and he's never learned his lesson, or did he have 3 incidents 15 years ago and he's regretted it ever since?
You'd be happy for the other allegations to remain hushed up since he has already resigned, in essence, and we'd learn nothing about how bad a person he really is? Is he a bad man who's resigned at the first hint of bad things getting out, or is he mostly a decent man who on a few occasions, as he put it, fell short of proper standards?
Apparently you don't want to know because he's already resigned?
I don’t see it as ‘cavalier’ at all. In terms of establishing why he resigned we don’t have know about the precise nature of the allegations yet, simply that more allegations existed. We now do know that other allegations existed. That’s my point: that it is wrong to believe that he only resigned on the back of the JHB allegations and that there had to be more. In order to verify that, the minimum we need to know is that more allegations existed.
I also didn’t say that I wanted allegations hushed up nor that I didn’t want to know, don’t know where you got that from. Your argument appears to have gone off into wider power structures in Westminster as opposed to just simply why he resigned. You didn’t have to write an epistle to me.
The correct solution is to prepare for no deal, while saying how much you want a deal. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Basically, the complete opposite of the current British approach, which seems designed to drive business out of Britain and land us with an enormous bill.
How can the government unilaterally prepare for no deal in any meaningful way? The idea you floated previously of sending in the diggers to build customs facilities in Northern Ireland while saying we're committed to no border infrastructure is beyond farcical.
He is said to have told Andrea Leadsom, who complained of cold hands: “I know where you can put them to warm them up”.
A source close to Sir Michael said: “He categorically denies saying something as appalling as he knows where she could warm her hands.”
How odd - because the usually sensible MissApocalypse was just saying how because he had resigned admitting other failings, it didn't matter what allegations were, and yet here we are with an allegation which he is apparently denying. So we cannot just assume that any allegation made was accepted as being true by Fallon.
Now, that doesn't mean he is innocent. Perhaps the claim is true. But it would seem it is the case that we cannot assume he is admitting to any allegation made after all (let alone allegations we don't even know the content of)
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I was making a mental list today from 10 years in *council* politics in just *one* authority and just in my *own* party's group. Stuff known about by the Whips but covered up included Housing Benefit Fraud, abuse of council photocopiers to produce election leaflets, public comparisons of homosexuality to drug addiction and support for the death sentence for homosexuality, deliberate use of false paedophilia allegations against opponents, answer machine messages being left threatening to burn peoples houses down, cases of Champagne being accepted to change Taxi Licensing decisions. That's just a basic list and doesn't even include Planning decisions....
I myself was repeatedly groped ( a hand put on my crotch and aggressively rubbed ) by a sitting councillor when I was a council candidate.
What you have to remember is #1 Whips actually like this stuff as it gives them and the party a huge amount of power over people. #2 Quite how tribal parties are the desire to defend the tribe. #3 Quite how valuable incumbents are unless they contaminate the brand. Getting folk elected is expensive and you don't throw away incumbents easily. #4 That parties are very largely voluntarily organisations run on a shoe string.
On the other hand I've seen a young gay candidate deselected without any due process whatsoever simply on the basis of completely unsubstantiated rumours from an opposition party. The rumour being cottaging. When someone wants rid of you internally these claims can be very useful even if they reek of homophobia.
So the question is Cui Bono from covering a lot of this stuff up ? The answer is quite a few people. And the stakes at Westminster are 1000 x higher.
The problem with the new Fallon comments is that it's impossible to judge when it's completely divorced from its context. One of my best friends is kind of off-the-wall, and I could imagine him making a joke along the lines of "I know where you could warm your hands up", in an ironic and obviously jokey way - but his women friends all know that that's his personality so wouldn't feel threatened or intimidated by it. I would imagine that if he were to say comments like that to a woman he didn't really know (which, as far as I know, he doesn't), they would not be as happy about it.
Whether Fallon meant the comment in that spirit, and whether he had a familar enough friendship with Leadsom for that kind of joke to be appropriate, is another question.
I don’t see it as ‘cavalier’ at all. In terms of establishing why he resigned we don’t have know about the precise nature of the allegations yet, simply that more allegations existed. We know do know that other allegations existed. That’s my point: that it is wrong to believe that he only resigned on the back of the JHB allegations and that there had to be more. In order to verify that, the minimum we need to know is that more allegations existed.
I also didn’t say that I wanted allegations hushed up nor that I didn’t want to know, don’t know where you got that from. Your argument appears to have gone off into wider power structures in Westminster as opposed to just simply why he resigned.
Because the story that has just broken is a key example of why your attitude made no sense - allegations existed, but he has apparently denied them, so we would have been wrong to accept them as true merely because he resigned, or that there must (must being the key word) be others of a similar nature. I don't think you want allegations hushed up - why would you, that would be absurd - but that that could be an unintended consequence because you demonstrated no care as what the allegations were before taking his resignation as proof of their veracity, and you are treating the probability that there is more there as a certainty, when apparently maybe other incidents are quite different in nature, and deserve different levels of condemnation.
That he has done something more seems probable. That doesn't mean any of the additional allegations made are at all true, in fact if his resignation is to do with there being other incidents as reported, it might be they are incidents no one has even alleged of him yet.
And I went off into he wider power structures because this isn't really about Fallon, it's about making sure men (and women, although let's be honest it will probably mostly be men) who have behaved inappropriately stop doing so, and that means condemning them when we need to, but we need to know to what degree we condemn them. And in the interests of fairness we cannot assume certain guilt when we don't even know what kind of allegations are being made yet.
We now have another allegation toward Fallon - is the lewd comments what he was referring to and why he resigned? In which case anyone who assumed further 'incidents' was more JHB incidents was wrong. Not all incidents are equal after all. But his admission of more incidents, if this is what he meant, then an assumption it was knee grabbing was premature, yet it was wrong to hold off on assuming he had done more knee grabbing?
As it is I expect there was more, since he is denying this story but did still resign, but I'm at least keeping an open mind.
The correct solution is to prepare for no deal, while saying how much you want a deal. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Basically, the complete opposite of the current British approach, which seems designed to drive business out of Britain and land us with an enormous bill.
How can the government unilaterally prepare for no deal in any meaningful way? The idea you floated previously of sending in the diggers to build customs facilities in Northern Ireland while saying we're committed to no border infrastructure is beyond farcical.
No, it's eminently sensible.
I'm not proposing building fortifications, or stringing up barbed wire. I'm proposing a few buildings where the N1 and the A1 meet by Jonesborough. And maybe similar in Middletown, Aughnacloy, and Clones.
@kle4 and the usually sensible Mr kle4 appears have a bee in his bonnet and gone off in on a tangent. If you read my post you know that I said that reports stated that there had been other allegations and that Fallon could not deny that there had been other incidents. I don’t see how Fallon denying the Leadsom allegation refutes that - it just means he denied that particular allegation, not just he’s denied them all.
I also didn’t ‘assume’ that he was admitting to any allegation. If you read my previous post, it wasn’t an assumption but based off of reports - see the video I posted if you wanted an example, by the same journalist from the article you are quoting incidentally. Given the fact that you’ve just spent the last few minutes denying the extent we can know other allegations exist, and now that they do....(well, we already knew from earlier on today).
The problem with the new Fallon comments is that it's impossible to judge when it's completely divorced from its context. One of my best friends is kind of off-the-wall, and I could imagine him making a joke along the lines of "I know where you could warm your hands up", in an ironic and obviously jokey way - but his women friends all know that that's his personality so wouldn't feel threatened or intimidated by it. I would imagine that if he were to say comments like that to a woman he didn't really know (which, as far as I know, he doesn't), they would not be as happy about it.
Whether Fallon meant the comment in that spirit, and whether he had a familar enough friendship with Leadsom for that kind of joke to be appropriate, is another question.
It is context / delivery and also I think if it a pattern of behaviour (and after been told hey shut it). Everybody can say something that sounds bad, but if people inform you that isn't ok and you never do something similar again, it is time to move on. However, if you just ignore it and continue to come out with similar material over a period of time, then there is an issue.
To me that was the issue with the Right Dishonourable Member for Sheffield Hallam. Him posting some yucky stuff on forums years ago, whatever. Showing a consistent pattern of it, including the same behaviour in person in the past year then takes it into a different territory.
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I stand by it. To greet the most unpopular Prime Minister in the world giving huge offense to a large section of your own population is crass in the extreme. Spacey in contrast was in a tight corner and said 'guilty and sorry. Shoot me!'
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I stand by it. To greet the most unpopular Prime Minister in the world giving huge offense to a large section of your own population is crass in the extreme. Spacey in contrast was in a tight corner and said 'guilty and sorry. Shoot me!'
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I stand by it. To greet the most unpopular Prime Minister in the world giving huge offense to a large section of your own population is crass in the extreme. Spacey in contrast was in a tight corner and said 'guilty and sorry. Shoot me!'
Spacey didn't say guilty, he tried to spin it. And of course we know hear allegations that it was far from an isolated incident many many years ago.
I was making a mental list today from 10 years in *council* politics in just *one* authority and just in my *own* party's group. Stuff known about by the Whips but covered up included Housing Benefit Fraud, abuse of council photocopiers to produce election leaflets, public comparisons of homosexuality to drug addiction and support for the death sentence for homosexuality, deliberate use of false paedophilia allegations against opponents, answer machine messages being left threatening to burn peoples houses down, cases of Champagne being accepted to change Taxi Licensing decisions. That's just a basic list and doesn't even include Planning decisions....
I myself was repeatedly groped ( a hand put on my crotch and aggressively rubbed ) by a sitting councillor when I was a council candidate.
What you have to remember is #1 Whips actually like this stuff as it gives them and the party a huge amount of power over people. #2 Quite how tribal parties are the desire to defend the tribe. #3 Quite how valuable incumbents are unless they contaminate the brand. Getting folk elected is expensive and you don't throw away incumbents easily. #4 That parties are very largely voluntarily organisations run on a shoe string.
On the other hand I've seen a young gay candidate deselected without any due process whatsoever simply on the basis of completely unsubstantiated rumours from an opposition party. The rumour being cottaging. When someone wants rid of you internally these claims can be very useful even if they reek of homophobia.
So the question is Cui Bono from covering a lot of this stuff up ? The answer is quite a few people. And the stakes at Westminster are 1000 x higher.
That all sounds far more entertaining than Hertsmere Borough Council.
I remember Kelvin Hopkins being an 'expenses saint' not so long ago and getting a swing to him when others did not. Seems an age ago tonight.
BBC saying he was reprimanded and then promoted to the Shadow Cabinet. Big questions over whips office and Corbyn's in 2016
He was also one of only 8 Labour MPs to have defied the whips and voted with the government on the EU withdrawal bill. Presumably just a confidence that he is one of a tiny handful of pro Leave Labour MPs - perhaps they feel less need to protect him?
As you say if it was serious why did the Labour Party do nothing about it at the time - their seeming sweeping it under the carpet does not look good.
I disagree with the thread header. Apart from enraging some backbenchers, exactly what difference does this make? All the same reasons for leaving TMay in place are still there. They need her to get through Brexit, take any hits from it, and pass the baton on to the next person.
Before Fallon fell on his sword, no one else was going to be Defence Sec, and afterwards no one else is going to be Defence Sec. Basically nothing has changed.
I do tend to agree. PM promotes a loyal Cabinet member - hardly a ground-breaking move.
Except, quite simply, he is totally incompetent to fill this important position. No experience as a minister, and more crucially, military experience of any kind.
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I stand by it. To greet the most unpopular Prime Minister in the world giving huge offense to a large section of your own population is crass in the extreme. Spacey in contrast was in a tight corner and said 'guilty and sorry. Shoot me!'
The problem with the new Fallon comments is that it's impossible to judge when it's completely divorced from its context. One of my best friends is kind of off-the-wall, and I could imagine him making a joke along the lines of "I know where you could warm your hands up", in an ironic and obviously jokey way - but his women friends all know that that's his personality so wouldn't feel threatened or intimidated by it. I would imagine that if he were to say comments like that to a woman he didn't really know (which, as far as I know, he doesn't), they would not be as happy about it.
Whether Fallon meant the comment in that spirit, and whether he had a familar enough friendship with Leadsom for that kind of joke to be appropriate, is another question.
People play politics. Even outside of politics, people play politics.
Not sure how many people rememember this, but I commented a few weeks ago about an incident several years ago where a female colleague made a completely spurious allegation about me, that was thankfully proven untrue by a totally reliable third party who had witnessed the entire event.
She was willing to utter a bare-faced lie to see me get fired, to get my job for herself.
I will freely admit that my view on a lot of the recent sex-pest-mania has been coloured by the false and disproven accusation made against me, but I will never forget the moment that a colleague was willing to go to the extremes of the allegations she made in order to remove me as a rival. Had there not been a witness I would have been f***ed, career wise, probably for good. All on the basis of one person's desire to have my job.
I am therefore inclined to apply the principle of "cui bono" in all cases and avoid judging a soul until the facts are in.
I don’t see it as ‘cavalier’ at all. In terms of establishing why he resigned we don’t have know about the opposed to just simply why he resigned.
snip And I went off into he wider power structures because this isn't really about Fallon, it's about making sure men (and women, although let's be honest it will probably mostly be men) who have behaved inappropriately stop doing so, and that means condemning them when we need to, but we need to know to what degree we condemn them. And in the interests of fairness we cannot assume certain guilt when we don't even know what kind of allegations are being made yet.
We now have another allegation toward Fallon - is the lewd comments what he was referring to and why he resigned? In which case anyone who assumed further 'incidents' was more JHB incidents was wrong. Not all incidents are equal after all. But his admission of more incidents, if this is what he meant, then an assumption it was knee grabbing was premature, yet it was wrong to hold off on assuming he had done more knee grabbing?
As it is I expect there was more, since he is denying this story but did still resign, but I'm at least keeping an open mind.
As I stated in my most recent post to you, the latest story does not prove why my argument is wrong, but that you either misunderstood or did not read my second post to you on this issue. There I stated that the evidence we had got so far was that there had been other allegations and that he could not guarantee that other incidents had happened. I did not just simply say that he admitted all allegations - that is not a fair characterisation if what I said. As I said before, the same journalist which is reporting this story is the same journalist that reported that Fallon could not guarantee that other incidents had not occurred - implying that both are true: that Falllon couldn’t deny further incidents and that there had been further allegations as I said before.
And yes, the wider issues isn’t about Falllon, but in my post I wasn’t talking about Fallon in a wider context - simply specifically why he resigned.
I also didn’t assume nor state that the incidents were more knee grabbing, simply stating that other allegations had been made.
@kle4 and the usually sensible Mr kle4 appears have a bee in his bonnet and gone off in on a tangent. If you read my post you know that I said that reports stated that there had been other allegations and that Fallon could not deny that there had been other incidents. I don’t see how Fallon denying the Leadsom allegation refutes that - it just means he denied that particular allegation, not just he’s denied them all.
I also didn’t ‘assume’ that he was admitting to any allegation. If you read my previous post, it wasn’t an assumption but based off of reports - see the video I posted if you wanted an example, by the same journalist from the article you are quoting incidentally. Given the fact that you’ve just spent the last few minutes denying the extent we can know other allegations exist, and now that they do....(well, we already knew from earlier on today).
We shall have to agree to disagree. You were essentially stating, as I saw it, that it was wrong to even suggest he has not done anything else because he resigned, while I'm saying while that is probable, in the absence of other allegations we cannot be certain. His truly resigning over one incident is worthy of skepticism to say the least, but to cast it aside on the basis of proof which is not proof (a report from other sources about his admission about allegations which may or may not exist) is not sound in my view. I won't be surprised if he has gotten handsy, and I'll condemn him when it happens. Will those who assume he has gotten handsy apologise if no other allegations of that nature emerge?
I'm happy to leave it as we are simply misunderstanding what we are trying to say since I don't agree with your interpretation of what I said and you clearly disagree with how I have interpreted your words, but before I sign off, I do have to ask if you would take kindly to someone suggesting you have a bee in your bonnet because of what I admit was a passive aggressive jibe on my part (I'm happy to take it back, if you would like), or would you in fact object to such a characterisation?
I would also question what is wrong with tangentials? Perhaps I am wrong in what was implied by your post, others will take a view on that, but every time we speculate on what other people mean beyond their literal words we are doing that - you've just done it yourself after all.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
I disagree with the thread header. Apart from enraging some backbenchers, exactly what difference does this make? All the same reasons for leaving TMay in place are still there. They need her to get through Brexit, take any hits from it, and pass the baton on to the next person.
Before Fallon fell on his sword, no one else was going to be Defence Sec, and afterwards no one else is going to be Defence Sec. Basically nothing has changed.
I do tend to agree. PM promotes a loyal Cabinet member - hardly a ground-breaking move.
Except, quite simply, he is totally incompetent to fill this important position. No experience as a minister, and more crucially, military experience of any kind.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
When you thought her judgement couldn't get any worse she meets Benjamin Netanyahu on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration!
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones....I seemed to remember only a couple of days ago you were telling us how well Kevin Spacey had handled everything...
I stand by it. To greet the most unpopular Prime Minister in the world giving huge offense to a large section of your own population is crass in the extreme. Spacey in contrast was in a tight corner and said 'guilty and sorry. Shoot me!'
I disagree with the thread header. Apart from enraging some backbenchers, exactly what difference does this make? All the same reasons for leaving TMay in place are still there. They need her to get through Brexit, take any hits from it, and pass the baton on to the next person.
Before Fallon fell on his sword, no one else was going to be Defence Sec, and afterwards no one else is going to be Defence Sec. Basically nothing has changed.
I do tend to agree. PM promotes a loyal Cabinet member - hardly a ground-breaking move.
Except, quite simply, he is totally incompetent to fill this important position. No experience as a minister, and more crucially, military experience of any kind.
Minister for Saudi arms procurement wanted. No previous experience needed. Lack of conscience an advantage
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
There will be a fudge in the end - probably not suiting the two extremes but satisfying the majority
I disagree with the thread header. Apart from enraging some backbenchers, exactly what difference does this make? All the same reasons for leaving TMay in place are still there. They need her to get through Brexit, take any hits from it, and pass the baton on to the next person.
Before Fallon fell on his sword, no one else was going to be Defence Sec, and afterwards no one else is going to be Defence Sec. Basically nothing has changed.
I do tend to agree. PM promotes a loyal Cabinet member - hardly a ground-breaking move.
Except, quite simply, he is totally incompetent to fill this important position. No experience as a minister, and more crucially, military experience of any kind.
I believe very few recent Defence Secretaries have had military experience.
@kle4 and the usually sensible Mr kle4 appears have a bee in his bonnet and gone off in on a tangent. If you read my post you know that I said that reports stated that there had been other allegations and that Fallon could not deny that there had been other incidents. I don’t see how Fallon denying the Leadsom allegation refutes that - it just means he denied that particular allegation, not just he’s denied them all.
I also didn’t ‘assume’ that he was admitting to any allegation. If you read my previous post, it wasn’t an assumption but based off of reports - see the video I posted if you wanted an example, by the same journalist from the article you are quoting incidentally. Given the fact that you’ve just spent the last few minutes denying the extent we can know other allegations exist, and now that they do....(well, we already knew from earlier on today).
snip
I'm happy to leave it as we are simply misunderstanding what we are trying to say since I don't agree with your interpretation of what I said and you clearly disagree with how I have interpreted your words, but before I sign off, I do have to ask if you would take kindly to someone suggesting you have a bee in your bonnet because of what I admit was a passive aggressive jibe on my part (I'm happy to take it back, if you would like), or would you in fact object to such a characterisation?
I would also question what is wrong with tangentials? Perhaps I am wrong in what was implied by your post, others will take a view on that, but every time we speculate on what other people mean beyond their literal words we are doing that - you've just done it yourself after all.
Good night all.
I didn't 'assume' that he gotten handsy, I didn't make any assumption about the nature of the allegations at all. I just stated that it had been reported that there were other allegations. What those allegations were, I didn't specify.
I wouldn't take kindly to the bee in the bonnet comment, but then again I said it because of your comment (which you do acknowledge). I'll take it back.
Nothing wrong with going off on a tangent. I just didn't think it was worth doing so over Fallon.
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Sadly, the Walloon farmers can't really hold up a no deal hard brexit if that's what the split Tory party leads us to, can they?
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Sadly, the Wallon farmers can't really hold up a no deal hard brexit if that's what the split Tory party leads us to, can they?
There is a majority in Parliament for a deal, if Labour and the LDs do not play games.
I've just rewatched The Thick of It. Hugh Abbott's comment about Tucker wishing that everyone was born at 30 without genitalia seems very relevant despite it's age.
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Sadly, the Wallon farmers can't really hold up a no deal hard brexit if that's what the split Tory party leads us to, can they?
There is a majority in Parliament for a deal, if Labour and the LDs do not play games.
Even if Jeremy Corbyn agreed 100% with the deal, he would vote against it. The lure of socialist power is too great. Why make a compromise which helps your enemy?
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Sadly, the Wallon farmers can't really hold up a no deal hard brexit if that's what the split Tory party leads us to, can they?
There is a majority in Parliament for a deal, if Labour and the LDs do not play games.
Even if Jeremy Corbyn agreed 100% with the deal, he would vote against it. The lure of socialist power is too great. Why make a compromise which helps your enemy?
Then he may well end up leading a minority government of a hard Brexit UK and forced to try and negotiate a deal himself while keeping the more than a third of Labour voters who voted Leave on board ship.
Even if Jeremy Corbyn agreed 100% with the deal, he would vote against it. The lure of socialist power is too great. Why make a compromise which helps your enemy?
Yes, exactly. That is one of the reasons why the current situation is so dangerous; we could end up with disaster as an almost accidental consequence of a temporary and unholy alliance between a cynical opposition, die-hard Remainers, and the nuttier kind of die-hard Leavers, all voting to wreck any deal for different reasons - and that's without even counting the risk of some minor EU27 government, regional parliament or the EU parliament deciding to make difficulties.
I still think that the financial markets are underestimating the risk. The upside looks limited, and the downside looks both reasonably likely and seriously disruptive.
Just come back from an excellent drinks do and canapes with Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary who gave a very good speech, may be worth a long-shot punt as next Tory leader, he is a leaver after all but he was also very clear we want a good free trade deal with the EU and he made the very sensible point that Walloon farmers, who held up the Canada FTA, send most of their produce to the UK.
Sadly, the Wallon farmers can't really hold up a no deal hard brexit if that's what the split Tory party leads us to, can they?
There is a majority in Parliament for a deal, if Labour and the LDs do not play games.
Even if Jeremy Corbyn agreed 100% with the deal, he would vote against it. The lure of socialist power is too great. Why make a compromise which helps your enemy?
He voted for Article 50, so I don't think the "oppose for opposition's sake" argument need necessarily apply.
More an unrelated aside but the actor who played Gavin Williamson in 'the Theresa vs Boris - The battle to be PM' drama shown on the BBC in the summer is currently playing a character who is obsessively stalking Michelle Fowler in Eastenders. No tarantulas involved yet though.
He - Daniel Casey - - is perhaps best known for his role in Midsomer Murders.
On top of the sites that stores deleted tweets, I am sure every media organization worth their salt has bots which automatically capture all important people's social media these days.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Only about 170 nations do so of course. How do they manage it?!
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Overshadowed by Fallon, Williamson and Hopkins today, 8 of the Catalan ministers have been jailed by Spain today. What an incredibly dark day. To think that this is happening in a modern EU state is profoundly shocking, and that furthermore this is supported by the EU. Enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights is the right to express an opinion. That right has been flagrantly suppressed by the Spanish government. Just imagine if the Cameron government had acted towards the SNP in the same way that Rajoy has acted towards the Catalan government.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Are you not living in one such?
Not sure you could classify the US as surviving these days...
Donna Brazile has a new book coming out. Hacks. In it she relates how Obama left the Democratic Party in total meltdown and the DNC $24 million in debt, and the Hillary campaign bailed the DNC out and put it on life support. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, and she expected to wield control of its operations ahead of the nomination. In short by controlling the DNC's purse strings she rigged the nomination for herself.
Elizabeth Warren was asked this afternoon if the Dems nomination process was rigged by and for Hillary and her simple response - "yes".
So we now have 3 major scandals involving the Clintons. Uranium One, the fact that her campaign paid for Kremlin disinformation against Trump, and the fact that her campaign hijacked the DNC long before she got the nomination.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Are you not living in one such?
Not sure you could classify the US as surviving these days...
Certainly not the Houston Texans - first JJ Watt gone for the season, now Deshaun Watson tears his acl in a non-contact drill in practice - gone for the season.
The Lib Dems seem to have won Aldwick West in Arun.
In other news Adrea Leadom Leader of the house accuses Defense Secretary Michael Fallon of being a sexual deviant as the government collapses in slow motion.
During meetings of the Tresasury Select Committee?? Weird. I served on it for years - very interesting, but I don't remember anyone ever attempting a joke, let alone a lewd remark. I think that voters viewing the current revelations may get the impression that MPs are a lot livelier than they generally are.
During meetings of the Tresasury Select Committee?? Weird. I served on it for years - very interesting, but I don't remember anyone ever attempting a joke, let alone a lewd remark. I think that voters viewing the current revelations may get the impression that MPs are a lot livelier than they generally are.
Do you think any of them have Harvey Weinstein on speed dial?
Donna Brazile has a new book coming out. Hacks. In it she relates how Obama left the Democratic Party in total meltdown and the DNC $24 million in debt, and the Hillary campaign bailed the DNC out and put it on life support. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, and she expected to wield control of its operations ahead of the nomination. In short by controlling the DNC's purse strings she rigged the nomination for herself.
Elizabeth Warren was asked this afternoon if the Dems nomination process was rigged by and for Hillary and her simple response - "yes".
So we now have 3 major scandals involving the Clintons. Uranium One, the fact that her campaign paid for Kremlin disinformation against Trump, and the fact that her campaign hijacked the DNC long before she got the nomination.
There's plenty more to come from Brazile's book.
The Clintons have now lost control of the party to the BernieBros and the fans of Pocohontas, with Bannon and Trumpers now taking hold of the wheel of the GOP the establishments in both parties have lost control of the wheel for about the first time in US history.
Pedant note: "Friends of Damian Green launched a ‘table cloth’ defence against claims he touched a woman’s knee - insisting she may have mistaken his hand for a piece of material." - shouldn't that be "mistaken a piece of material for his hand"?
But whichever friend decided to go to the press with this concept is not very bright, or not really a friend.
Probably. Nevertheless the Irish FM is correct. Brexit promises ARE undeliverable. Unless and until both Remainers and Leavers accept Brexit will happen and it will be utterly crap, we can't move forward. It's about damage limitation, but you can't do that unless you accept there is damage that needs to be limited.
To this day I am amazed that any country can survive outside of the EU.
Only about 170 nations do so of course. How do they manage it?!
Mostly by being much less prosperous than EU countries. Does anyone really that life chances are as good in Chad, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Ecuador, etc, etc as they are in EU countries?
Comments
O/T - Just finished watching Manhunt - Unabomber - US mini series. Excellent look at the way the FBI handled the investigation and how a new form of investigation (forensic linguistics) came into being. A bit clunky at times - but they managed to sustain suspense even though the outcome of the case is known before you start watching.
I don't know if you are aware who the creeky guy at the start of each episode is. If not go search ADT killer...
https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/926071147229151233
I took my test after learning from zero on one of those intensive 5 day courses. The test was in a town I'd never been to before (Wigan IIRC) that happened to have a slot available. I thought it was pretty unlikely i'd pass, but gave it a go anyway.
5 mins in - and on a dual carriageway, the examiner randomly announced that the speed limit on this road was 40. I looked at the speedometer & I'd been doing 50.
I assumed that meant i'd almost certainly failed and my nerves evaporated. The rest of the test was fine and I was really relaxed, treating it as driving practice. To my surprise I passed. He explained the 40 sign was obscured by foliage and I was driving safely with the rest of the traffic, so no fail.
As an example, if it turns out one of the 'incidents' is him outright groping someone then it is in fact hugely important whether the allegation is independently confirmed, since otherwise he'll have gotten a pass because given his first admission with no other details on other 'incidents', people will assume any other incidents are similar in nature when in fact it is more serious. As another example, if there were reports these incidents involved parliamentary staff, or even fellow MPs in more junior roles, it adds an even more serious dimension of him using his powerful position to behave inappropriately. As another example, did these incidents take place recently and he's never learned his lesson, or did he have 3 incidents 15 years ago and he's regretted it ever since?
You'd be happy for the other allegations to remain hushed up since he has already resigned, in essence, and we'd learn nothing about how bad a person he really is? Is he a bad man who's resigned at the first hint of bad things getting out, or is he mostly a decent man who on a few occasions, as he put it, fell short of proper standards?
Apparently you don't want to know because he's already resigned? What will we have learned if we don't know what further allegations exist, whether they are admitted, and what that says about the culture at Westminster?
Never mind I guess. Out of sight, out of mind, and let's just assume too much or too little based on one confirmed incident and assumption more is there based on resignation - when the 'more there' could be a number of things, which if there is more there specificity is rather important.
Jeez...
Say, "we will get a deal no matter what the cost," and get clobbered by the EU.
Say, "we will never take a bad deal, and no deal is fine with us," and watch pharma, auto and finance companies freeze all UK investment for two years.
The correct solution is to prepare for no deal, while saying how much you want a deal. Talk softly and carry a big stick. Basically, the complete opposite of the current British approach, which seems designed to drive business out of Britain and land us with an enormous bill.
Fallon seems like a sad act, who really doesn't know how to behave around/talk to women.
I also didn’t say that I wanted allegations hushed up nor that I didn’t want to know, don’t know where you got that from. Your argument appears to have gone off into wider power structures in Westminster as opposed to just simply why he resigned. You didn’t have to write an epistle to me.
A source close to Sir Michael said: “He categorically denies saying something as appalling as he knows where she could warm her hands.”
How odd - because the usually sensible MissApocalypse was just saying how because he had resigned admitting other failings, it didn't matter what allegations were, and yet here we are with an allegation which he is apparently denying. So we cannot just assume that any allegation made was accepted as being true by Fallon.
Now, that doesn't mean he is innocent. Perhaps the claim is true. But it would seem it is the case that we cannot assume he is admitting to any allegation made after all (let alone allegations we don't even know the content of)
I myself was repeatedly groped ( a hand put on my crotch and aggressively rubbed ) by a sitting councillor when I was a council candidate.
What you have to remember is #1 Whips actually like this stuff as it gives them and the party a huge amount of power over people. #2 Quite how tribal parties are the desire to defend the tribe. #3 Quite how valuable incumbents are unless they contaminate the brand. Getting folk elected is expensive and you don't throw away incumbents easily. #4 That parties are very largely voluntarily organisations run on a shoe string.
On the other hand I've seen a young gay candidate deselected without any due process whatsoever simply on the basis of completely unsubstantiated rumours from an opposition party. The rumour being cottaging. When someone wants rid of you internally these claims can be very useful even if they reek of homophobia.
So the question is Cui Bono from covering a lot of this stuff up ? The answer is quite a few people. And the stakes at Westminster are 1000 x higher.
Whether Fallon meant the comment in that spirit, and whether he had a familar enough friendship with Leadsom for that kind of joke to be appropriate, is another question.
That he has done something more seems probable. That doesn't mean any of the additional allegations made are at all true, in fact if his resignation is to do with there being other incidents as reported, it might be they are incidents no one has even alleged of him yet.
And I went off into he wider power structures because this isn't really about Fallon, it's about making sure men (and women, although let's be honest it will probably mostly be men) who have behaved inappropriately stop doing so, and that means condemning them when we need to, but we need to know to what degree we condemn them. And in the interests of fairness we cannot assume certain guilt when we don't even know what kind of allegations are being made yet.
We now have another allegation toward Fallon - is the lewd comments what he was referring to and why he resigned? In which case anyone who assumed further 'incidents' was more JHB incidents was wrong. Not all incidents are equal after all. But his admission of more incidents, if this is what he meant, then an assumption it was knee grabbing was premature, yet it was wrong to hold off on assuming he had done more knee grabbing?
As it is I expect there was more, since he is denying this story but did still resign, but I'm at least keeping an open mind.
I'm not proposing building fortifications, or stringing up barbed wire. I'm proposing a few buildings where the N1 and the A1 meet by Jonesborough. And maybe similar in Middletown, Aughnacloy, and Clones.
I also didn’t ‘assume’ that he was admitting to any allegation. If you read my previous post, it wasn’t an assumption but based off of reports - see the video I posted if you wanted an example, by the same journalist from the article you are quoting incidentally. Given the fact that you’ve just spent the last few minutes denying the extent we can know other allegations exist, and now that they do....(well, we already knew from earlier on today).
To me that was the issue with the Right Dishonourable Member for Sheffield Hallam. Him posting some yucky stuff on forums years ago, whatever. Showing a consistent pattern of it, including the same behaviour in person in the past year then takes it into a different territory.
As you say if it was serious why did the Labour Party do nothing about it at the time - their seeming sweeping it under the carpet does not look good.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/benjamin-netanyahu-uk-visit-israel-prime-minister-theresa-may-worse-donald-trump-protests-none-a8029301.html
Not sure how many people rememember this, but I commented a few weeks ago about an incident several years ago where a female colleague made a completely spurious allegation about me, that was thankfully proven untrue by a totally reliable third party who had witnessed the entire event.
She was willing to utter a bare-faced lie to see me get fired, to get my job for herself.
I will freely admit that my view on a lot of the recent sex-pest-mania has been coloured by the false and disproven accusation made against me, but I will never forget the moment that a colleague was willing to go to the extremes of the allegations she made in order to remove me as a rival. Had there not been a witness I would have been f***ed, career wise, probably for good. All on the basis of one person's desire to have my job.
I am therefore inclined to apply the principle of "cui bono" in all cases and avoid judging a soul until the facts are in.
And yes, the wider issues isn’t about Falllon, but in my post I wasn’t talking about Fallon in a wider context - simply specifically why he resigned.
I also didn’t assume nor state that the incidents were more knee grabbing, simply stating that other allegations had been made.
I'm happy to leave it as we are simply misunderstanding what we are trying to say since I don't agree with your interpretation of what I said and you clearly disagree with how I have interpreted your words, but before I sign off, I do have to ask if you would take kindly to someone suggesting you have a bee in your bonnet because of what I admit was a passive aggressive jibe on my part (I'm happy to take it back, if you would like), or would you in fact object to such a characterisation?
I would also question what is wrong with tangentials? Perhaps I am wrong in what was implied by your post, others will take a view on that, but every time we speculate on what other people mean beyond their literal words we are doing that - you've just done it yourself after all.
Good night all.
I wouldn't take kindly to the bee in the bonnet comment, but then again I said it because of your comment (which you do acknowledge). I'll take it back.
Nothing wrong with going off on a tangent. I just didn't think it was worth doing so over Fallon.
Have a good night.
LORD....
Teensy chance he's deleting evidence. He knows Mueller has a copy of all his tweets already, right?
I still think that the financial markets are underestimating the risk. The upside looks limited, and the downside looks both reasonably likely and seriously disruptive.
I wonder whether he's deleted his account, someone around him has done it, or that twitter have done it.
He - Daniel Casey - - is perhaps best known for his role in Midsomer Murders.
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-18/meet-the-cast-of-theresa-v-boris-the-battle-to-be-pm/2/
Was a fun few minutes on Twitter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/damian-greens-friends-try-save-career-claiming-woman-may-have/
Time to lie down Andrea. You've just has a dream. A bad one but it was just a dream........
Elizabeth Warren was asked this afternoon if the Dems nomination process was rigged by and for Hillary and her simple response - "yes".
So we now have 3 major scandals involving the Clintons. Uranium One, the fact that her campaign paid for Kremlin disinformation against Trump, and the fact that her campaign hijacked the DNC long before she got the nomination.
There's plenty more to come from Brazile's book.
Maybe not Dallas either without Zeke.
But whichever friend decided to go to the press with this concept is not very bright, or not really a friend.
Most of the planet is a lot worse off