I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant. The whole process needs looking at, but deciding punishment without a thorough review is to repeat the error.
Someone kills themselves in prison every few days. They and their families need support too.
Tonight the career of a young ambitious politician has ended. I do not like or agree with her politics, but very likely she is in turmoil, and I have sympathy for that.
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Deliberately making binary an issue that is not binary. It is not 'Person A believes any accusation is proof of guilt therefore it doesn't matter how the accused are treated' and 'Person B wants women to shut up and take it like the old days'.
Idiots will be found to occupy both those positions. I would hope we, all being sensible, would see that the fair position is not one of those two, and therefore it would be insulting to suggest, as EPG did, that anyone expressing concern about being people ruined by allegations which have not even been investigated let alone proven, wants women to shut up and take it.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some as ‘trivial’, the whole scandal characterised as a ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half way around the world under a media storm to resign them? Daft. If you're sacking them have the cajones to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
He is under pressure to resign tonight over the way he dealt with Carl Sargeant
It does seem odd that the twittermob is after Jones to resign without investigation as punishment for sacking without investigation.
I would recommend a period of calm quiet reflection.
n.
Huh? You think we need to stop cheering, like tell women to just shut up and take it like the old days? It's not that the PBs are old blokes who just don't get it, I think Mr Smithson completely gets it but there is a lot of male resentment below the line.
Pretty much this.
No, not "pretty much this". It would be disgusting if there were posters on here who thought it was right to "tell women to just shut up and take it like the old days" and it's therefore a very serious allegation to make. You should justify it (and I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support the suggestion) or retract it. I am sure you won't, but more to the point: wtf are you doing here if you genuinely think like that about other posters here? Why not go somewhere nicer? I mean, obviously we'll miss you, but...
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Deliberately making binary an issue that is not binary. It is not 'Person A believes any accusation is proof of guilt therefore it doesn't matter how the accused are treated' and 'Person B wants women to shut up and take it like the old days'.
Idiots will be found to occupy both those positions. I would hope we, all being sensible, would see that the fair position is not one of those two, and therefore it would be insulting to suggest, as EPG did, that anyone expressing concern about being people ruined by allegations which have not even been investigated let alone proven, wants women to shut up and take it.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some ast are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
It's certainly possible some have danced around that point, I wouldn't rule out it being said. I don't see what that, even if it is the case, has to do with taking a stance that is also unreasonable. If a point is unreasonable it remains unreasonable even if other people are even more unreasonable.
I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant.
.
Possibly one of the stupidest sentences yet to appear on pb,com
I think I came runner up one year in a 'stupidest sentence to appear on PB' competition.
Some ground rules: It cannot be a joke sentence, it cannot be a quote of something someone else said, and it has to be stupid at the time, not just in hindsight ("I don't know, TMay seems like she'll be a decent PM" was not inherently stupid if made a year ago)
I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant.
.
Possibly one of the stupidest sentences yet to appear on pb,com
If you have “no idea what the accusations are”, how can you possibly judge that they are “clearly significant”.
Any accusation that causes a Minister to be sacked is obviously significant.
We assume, and that is probably the case (whether or not the accusation then turns out to be true is another issue). But actually it isn't obvious, since as you've pointed out we shouldn't jump to conclusions, and one possibility is it wasn't very significant, but the party overreacted. I don't say that is what happened, I don't know, but while it is not unreasonable to assume a significant accusation, that assumption does rather depend on the reasonableness of the person doing the sacking.
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some as ‘trivial’, the whole scandal characterised as a ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
Well, maybe you’ve read different posts to me. Interestingly enough, I remember when the allegations towards George H W Bush were posted, and, especially in relation to first they weren’t taken all that seriously. See here, down thread:
I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant.
.
Possibly one of the stupidest sentences yet to appear on pb,com
If you have “no idea what the accusations are”, how can you possibly judge that they are “clearly significant”.
Whatever the accusations against Carl Sargeant they were not judged significant enough to be referred to the Police.
It appears not, but the same applies to a lot of work related suspensions pending investigation.
I'm sorry foxinsox but you keep digging in this hole. I can't help feeling that if the party involved was not Labour you'd be a little more critical of how this matter was handled.
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
Since this sex scanda ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
Well, maybe you’ve read different posts to me. Interestingly enough, I remember when the allegations towards George H W Bush were posted, and, especially in relation to first they weren’t taken all that seriously. See here, down thread:
And so because some have advanced an extreme narrative, smearing others who merely express concern as opposed to even sharing that extreme narrative is a ok? It's an interesting view point. (And let us not forget that is what happened with the initial comment, which was not yours - the criticism was not about people who advance such a narrative, it was equating a discussion about being careful not to overreact with that narrative, without any evidence to back that up. In fact going even further than that narrative)
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
hing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
Well, maybe you’ve read different posts to me. Interestingly enough, I remember when the allegations towards George H W Bush were posted, and, especially in relation to first they weren’t taken all that seriously. See here, down thread:
And so because some have advanced an extreme narrative, smearing others who merely express concern as opposed to even sharing that extreme narrative is a ok? It's an interesting view point. (And let us not forget that is what happened - the criticism was not about people who advance such a narrative - it was equating a discussion about being careful not to overreact with that narrative, without any evidence to back that up)
Well, no, I don’t think it’s okay to ‘smear others who merely express concern.’
Mrs May is a disgrace, she should have fired Priti Patel.
Stupid dumb Librarian.
Drag someone half wnes to sack them.
It makes very little difference. The end result is the same.
I think a difference in media portrayal. One is easily portrayed as decisive. The other seems duplicitous.
Perhaps you think Carwyn Jones was decisive?
Hrgeant
Be very careful about cheering this on.
Hent below the line.
Pretty much this.
Really? People who express concern at jumping to conclusions, while being absolutely in favour of the guilty being punished (the guilty including those 'merely' getting away with the sort of casual sexist behaviour that would have not drawn comment decades ago), just want women to shut the hell up?
hing’ message.
I can honestly say I haven't seen that "almost" narrative runnng on here.
Well, maybe you’ve read different posts to me. Interestingly enough, I remember when the allegations towards George H W Bush were posted, and, especially in relation to first they weren’t taken all that seriously. See here, down thread:
And so because some have advanced an extreme narrative, smearing others who merely express concern as opposed to even sharing that extreme narrative is a ok? It's an interesting view point. (And let us not forget that is what happened - the criticism was not about people who advance such a narrative - it was equating a discussion about being careful not to overreact with that narrative, without any evidence to back that up)
Well, no, I don’t think it’s okay to ‘smear others who merely express concern.’
It would be most out of character - however that is what EPG did, in my opinion (if he/she disagrees, I would be interested in the reasoning of how that interpretation is incorrect).
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant.
.
Possibly one of the stupidest sentences yet to appear on pb,com
If you have “no idea what the accusations are”, how can you possibly judge that they are “clearly significant”.
Whatever the accusations against Carl Sargeant they were not judged significant enough to be referred to the Police.
It appears not, but the same applies to a lot of work related suspensions pending investigation.
I'm sorry foxinsox but you keep digging in this hole. I can't help feeling that if the party involved was not Labour you'd be a little more critical of how this matter was handled.
I am not a supporter of Labour, I am a Lib Dem, and very critical of how my own party has handled such cases. I am glad that the Labour party was looking at procedures even before this suicide.
I am not one of the people calling for resignations or sackings of politicians of any party.
These are not easy allegations to investigate, and even more so when in the public eye.
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
It isn't weird at all. Your general argumentative strategy is to make blanket claims about "the PB tories" or whoever, rather than address an actual point made by an actual and specific poster, and then to retreat to a playgroundish "nernernernerner, you can't make me" stance when asked to substantiate them. And your "No echo-chamber" claim doesn't work either. To say "I am left-wing, but I also like to hear the right-wing case being made" is one thing, but what you are in effect saying now is that you like hearing the slap-the-women-about-and-have-a-good-laugh-about-it-afterwards case being made. Why would you want that?
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
Whatever the case I hope at least people get some speedier investigators. I know complaints of any kind can be very complicated to get to the bottom of, but Guido was saying the investigation into Vaz hasn't even concluded yet? And how long does it take to investigate whenever Ken brings up Hitler?
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
" A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.” "
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
" A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.” "
is a lie?
Well, it is not consistent with what Carl’s family and solicitor are saying.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
" A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.” "
is a lie?
Well someone is, or are focusing very much on definitions of 'detail' of accusations or 'nature' of them.
A family spokesman said on Wednesday they were publishing the correspondence "in light of the continued unwillingness" of the Labour Party "to clarify the nature of the allegations made against Carl".
"Up to the point of his tragic death on Tuesday morning Carl was not informed of any of the detail of the allegations against him, despite requests and warnings regarding his mental welfare," the spokesman said.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
Maybe the good doctor will elaborate but my understanding is that conditions for suicide often exist prior to and independently of so-called catalyst events.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
" A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.” "
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
I would suspect it will come down to the email trail - since if he or his solicitor requested details in writing and they were not provided, then disputes of whether he was told the general nature of the accusations if not the details will be less of a defence.
Off topic: tales from one of the UK's new small business owners . Me.
I went to my bank to open a business account. While waiting the branch was proudly showing a film saying that it was going to reintroduce...... TA DA! ...... bank managers. Blimey. Just like there used to be. Whatever next? Employees who can count, maybe.
It still took an hour and a lot of faffing mainly because I had to tell them what to do, what all the documents were and where to send them. Plus they did not know how to operate their own photocopying machine so had to get them to do that twice.
I was very tempted to tell them that my new business will consist of training people like them not to behave like fuckwits but thought better of it. For the time being anyway.
It's a wonder sometimes how our financial services sector grew to be as big as it is. Still, from what I hear of German banks they are even less capable than ours at organising a piss up in a brewery. So maybe that's it. Our competitive advantage is that we're not as crap as they are.
There's a marketing slogan: "Not as crap as the other banks."
A bit like the trader at a Dutch bank caught up in one of the many LIBOR scandals who wrote a chat saying: "There are bigger crooks than us out there."
Never mind visions and fancy apps. I'd vote for a bit of boring competence, frankly, in most walks of life.
"Not as crap as the other banks?"
I'd rather go with "Actually rather good, in a tastefully understated way"
If you would like to sell your services to me - or make other useful suggestions (I am not without assets - how's that for understatement?) then I am all ears. I can provide my own tastefulness. Efficiency and competence and honesty (I know, I know - how naive and dreamy can one be) are what I'm after.
Efficiency, competence and honesty are all we have to sell. Plus some magic fairy dust that others do t but people seem to like. I owe you lunch anyway, but haven't stopped spinning for the last 6 weeks
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
It isn't weird at all. Your general argumentative strategy is to make blanket claims about "the PB tories" or whoever, rather than address an actual point made by an actual and specific poster, and then to retreat to a playgroundish "nernernernerner, you can't make me" stance when asked to substantiate them. And your "No echo-chamber" claim doesn't work either. To say "I am left-wing, but I also like to hear the right-wing case being made" is one thing, but what you are in effect saying now is that you like hearing the slap-the-women-about-and-have-a-good-laugh-about-it-afterwards case being made. Why would you want that?
It is weird. It’s odd to have a fixation with a specific poster. If you hate my posts so much, don’t read them.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea that that’s my general argumentative strategy is absurd. I’ve challenged plenty of specific posters and specific points on here, and as someone who has a curious interest in my posts you should know that.
I’m not saying that I like hearing the slap-the-womanwhatevertherestofwhatyousaidis case at all. Nor did I state that I liked hearing the right wing case either. That’s your projection. I read plenty of views on here that I don’t like reading. It’s part of confronting the reality that these views exist out there. Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Surely you can judge whether the accusations are "clearly significant" simply by listening to the accuser? What you can't do is judge whether they are true until you have weighed up both sides.
I knew a dentist who was accused of touching a female patient while she was asleep under gas. The police trawled all of his patients to see if any had a similar experience. Two others -out of thousands-said they had. In one case it was found to be impossible-there was no moment when his assistant wasn't present-but he was charged with the other two.
They discovered that this gas was known to have the effect of causing hallucinations. This was explained to the court but the two women were believed and he was jailed and struck off. I don't believe the women were lying but I'm certain he didn't do it.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Whether the accusations are correct or not is a different judgement as to whether they are significant.
I have made the case that the accused needs support as well as accuser. For both these are life changing, highly emotional events.
I am not saying that the Labour party was correct in its actions, what I am saying is that the evidence needs looking at. Sacking others in a rash response is just repeating the tragedy.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Surely you can judge whether the accusations are "clearly significant" simply by listening to the accuser? What you can't do is judge whether they are true until you have weighed up both sides.
Yes, but we cannot tell if the accusations are clearly significant merely from the reaction of someone who heard the accusations, when we have not. It is not for us to know at this time, but as such we can really make no assessment of any kind, not of significance let alone veracity.
Heck, even if someone said 'accusations are significant' we still couldn't assess, since as is well known the word significant is one of the most versatile in the English language.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
Your interpretation is wrong.
I have expressed sympathy with Carl Sargeant's family, I fully understand their anger.
All I am asking for is that the evidence is objectively looked at before the punishment is decided. It is how British justice should work.
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
It isn't weird at all. Your general argumentative strategy is to make blanket claims about "the PB tories" or whoever, rather than address an actual point made by an actual and specific poster, and then to retreat to a playgroundish "nernernernerner, you can't make me" stance when asked to substantiate them. And your "No echo-chamber" claim doesn't work either. To say "I am left-wing, but I also like to hear the right-wing case being made" is one thing, but what you are in effect saying now is that you like hearing the slap-the-women-about-and-have-a-good-laugh-about-it-afterwards case being made. Why would you want that?
It is weird. It’s odd to have a fixation with a specific poster. If you hate my posts do much, don’t read them.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea that that’s my general argumentative strategy is absurd. I’ve challenged plenty of specific posters and specific points on here, and as someone who has a curious interest in my posts you should know that.
I’m not saying that I like hearing the slap-the-womanwhatevertherestofwhatyousaidis case at all. Nor did I state that I liked hearing the right case either. That’s your projection. I read plenty of views on here that I don’t like reading. It’s part of confronting the reality that these views exist out there. Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
Pointing out where you are wrong, is not having a fixation with you. Normally I don't bother, but this evening you have taken a case where the facts known with absolute certainty are that a husband and father has committed suicide, and everything else is conjecture, and treated it as a springboard for a tedious rant about the patriarchy. Perhaps try a bit of empathy, and see how you get on with it?
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
I thought Dr.Fox was a Liberal Democrat member. Certainly, a supporter.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
I thought Dr.Fox was a Liberal Democrat member. Certainly, a supporter.
So did I but he has come over all Corbynista recently
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Surely you can judge whether the accusations are "clearly significant" simply by listening to the accuser? What you can't do is judge whether they are true until you have weighed up both sides.
What none of us can do is sit in judgement. We are not judges.
This is what happens when you get a witch hunt. Instead of due process, we have speculation. Instead of evidence, hysteria. People get hurt. Reputations are ruined.
Some will be guilty, others will not. One thing that is for sure is that some people will take advantage of the current febrile environment to play politics and ruin people's reputations.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Whether the accusations are correct or not is a different judgement as to whether they are significant.
I have made the case that the accused needs support as well as accuser. For both these are life changing, highly emotional events.
I am not saying that the Labour party was correct in its actions, what I am saying is that the evidence needs looking at. Sacking others in a rash response is just repeating the tragedy.
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
?
It is weird. It’s odd to have a fixation with a specific poster. If you hate my posts do much, don’t read them.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea that that’s my general argumentative strategy is absurd. I’ve challenged plenty of specific posters and specific points on here, and as someone who has a curious interest in my posts you should know that.
I’m not saying that I like hearing the slap-the-womanwhatevertherestofwhatyousaidis case at all. Nor did I state that I liked hearing the right case either. That’s your projection. I read plenty of views on here that I don’t like reading. It’s part of confronting the reality that these views exist out there. Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
Pointing out where you are wrong, is not having a fixation with you. Normally I don't bother, but this evening you have taken a case where the facts known with absolute certainty are that a husband and father has committed suicide, and everything else is conjecture, and treated it as a springboard for a tedious rant about the patriarchy. Perhaps try a bit of empathy, and see how you get on with it?
It is a fixation; you repeat the same point over and over again, points that aren’t even specific to me, and behaviours which are not wrong.
A tedious rant about the patriarchy? I said three words ‘pretty much this’; that’s hardly a rant. (If anything you were the one that ranted tonight in response to those three words.) If you’ve interpreted that as rant maybe it’s perhaps you who needs to look at whether they’re wrong?
Re your last comment: and they say that millenials are ‘easily’ triggered.
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
Your interpretation is wrong.
I have expressed sympathy with Carl Sargeant's family, I fully understand their anger.
All I am asking for is that the evidence is objectively looked at before the punishment is decided. It is how British justice should work.
Your last paragraph is correct. However, in Carl Sargeant's case it appears that the punishment was decided and implemented before he was told of the allegations or the evidence was objectively reviewed. You seem incapable or unwilling to be critical of the perpetrators of this version of British justice.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
That contradicts what the Labour Party governance and legal unit is quoted as saying in the Guardian.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
I thought Dr.Fox was a Liberal Democrat member. Certainly, a supporter.
I think he has said if he were younger he'd vote Labour, while still personally remaining a Lib Dem, but I may have misremembered. I always take people at their word, although I think we all know people who the way they vote and views they espouse do not always seem to align, even considering parties being as big tent as they can be. Though I confess I don't know the official Lib Dem take on Corbyn anymore - the 2017 manifesto was very clear he was doing a terrible job opposing the Tories, hence why the pitch was for people to vote LD instead, but now he's improved his opposition perhaps the party is more forgiving.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
If you only listen to the Case for the Prosecution, you always convict.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
Whether the accusations are correct or not is a different judgement as to whether they are significant.
I have made the case that the accused needs support as well as accuser. For both these are life changing, highly emotional events.
I am not saying that the Labour party was correct in its actions, what I am saying is that the evidence needs looking at. Sacking others in a rash response is just repeating the tragedy.
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
You seem intent on defending Carwyn Jones rather than showing sympathy to Carl's family. And to say you are not a labour supporter when you daily espouse the wonderful world of Corbyn is comical
I thought Dr.Fox was a Liberal Democrat member. Certainly, a supporter.
I am indeed a LD member. I would have voted anyone but Cable if there had been a leadership contest though. As such I am a rather estranged one at present.
I am quite happy with a lot of Corbynite policies, particularly over generational inequality such as tuition fees, and quite relaxed about other things. I would like to see Trident scrapped too, and see NATO as obselete, and would like to see stronger rights for those in the gig economy and proper taxation of the super rich tax dodging individuals and companies.
These are policies popular with Lib Dems too. I am less happy with Corbyns economic plans such as overspending and nationalisation.
'Another reshuffle' - is a single replacement at la last time even really a reshuffle? Technically one person has shuffled, but it seems light.
Also love the classic newspaper X 'may be seen as' type line. Can be used to put in any opinion you like, because X might be seen as Y, you never know. Cannot see the story, but I think it is one level down from 'Senior figure X (who may be a random backbencher) suggested this meant Y'.
It is a fixation; you repeat the same point over and over again, points that aren’t even specific to me, and behaviours which are not wrong.
A tedious rant about the patriarchy? I said three words ‘pretty much this’; that’s hardly a rant. (If anything you were the one that ranted tonight in response to those three words.) If you’ve interpreted that as rant maybe it’s perhaps you who needs to look at whether they’re wrong?
Re your last comment: and they say that millenials are ‘easily’ triggered.
Millennials.
And you didn't just say "pretty much this", you also said:
"Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some as ‘trivial’, the whole scandal characterised as a ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message."
So you are prepared to lie your head off about what you yourself verifiably said 20 minutes ago, but if I question the veracity of your generalisations about what the PBs tories or rapists or whoever said three months ago that is just me being fixated with you?
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
It isn't weird at all. Your general argumentative strategy is to make blanket claims about "the PB tories" or whoever, rather than address an actual point made by an actual and specific poster, and then to retreat to a playgroundish "nernernernerner, you can't make me" stance when asked to substantiate them. And your "No echo-chamber" claim doesn't work either. To say "I am left-wing, but I also like to hear the right-wing case being made" is one thing, but what you are in effect saying now is that you like hearing the slap-the-women-about-and-have-a-good-laugh-about-it-afterwards case being made. Why would you want that?
It is weird. It’s odd to have a fixation with a specific poster. If you hate my posts do much, don’t read them.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea that that’s my general argumentative strategy is absurd. I’ve challenged plenty of specific posters and specific points on here, and as someone who has a curious interest in my posts you should know that.
I’m not saying that I like hearing the slap-the-womanwhatevertherestofwhatyousaidis case at all. Nor did I state that I liked hearing the right case either. That’s your projection. I read plenty of views on here that I don’t like reading. It’s part of confronting the reality that these views exist out there. Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
Pointing out where you are wrong, is not having a fixation with you. Normally I don't bother, but this evening you have taken a case where the facts known with absolute certainty are that a husband and father has committed suicide, and everything else is conjecture, and treated it as a springboard for a tedious rant about the patriarchy. Perhaps try a bit of empathy, and see how you get on with it?
@Apolcalypse, just ignore him, he's stuck in 1930s Little England.
The email correspondence between Carl Sergeant, his solicitors and the Labour Party is on the BBC Wales website.
It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).
As I said previously, there’s been posts on here (actually quite a few posts) which have pretty much implied that a number of a low level harassment allegations are trivial/not a big deal. This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
?
It is weird. It’s odd to have a fixation with a specific poster. If you hate my posts do much, don’t read them.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
Pointing out where you are wrong, is not having a fixation with you. Normally I don't bother, but this evening you have taken a case where the facts known with absolute certainty are that a husband and father has committed suicide, and everything else is conjecture, and treated it as a springboard for a tedious rant about the patriarchy. Perhaps try a bit of empathy, and see how you get on with it?
It is a fixation; you repeat the same point over and over again, points that aren’t even specific to me, and behaviours which are not wrong.
A tedious rant about the patriarchy? I said three words ‘pretty much this’; that’s hardly a rant. (If anything you were the one that ranted tonight in response to those three words.) If you’ve interpreted that as rant maybe it’s perhaps you who needs to look at whether they’re wrong?
Re your last comment: and they say that millenials are ‘easily’ triggered.
I think that as a WASP middle aged male that I am one of the patriarchy, but I do hope that you understand that it is possible to have empathy for both accused and accuser.
By the by, I wasn't on when it happened, I assume somebody in politics suggested no need to replace Patel, just get rid of DFID? Wouldn't want to miss an old standard.
Newsnight says Patel "still has leadership ambitions".
Well it's nice to have dreams.
Still, you can always play for time, there's plenty of time for one's day to come. Though if the thread header is right about having few friends in the parliamentary party, she has much schmoozing to do.
It is a fixation; you repeat the same point over and over again, points that aren’t even specific to me, and behaviours which are not wrong.
A tedious rant about the patriarchy? I said three words ‘pretty much this’; that’s hardly a rant. (If anything you were the one that ranted tonight in response to those three words.) If you’ve interpreted that as rant maybe it’s perhaps you who needs to look at whether they’re wrong?
Re your last comment: and they say that millenials are ‘easily’ triggered.
Millennials.
And you didn't just say "pretty much this", you also said:
"Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some as ‘trivial’, the whole scandal characterised as a ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message."
So you are prepared to lie your head off about what you yourself verifiably said 20 minutes ago, but if I question the veracity of your generalisations about what the PBs tories or rapists or whoever said three months ago that is just me being fixated with you?
That is authentically weird.
It is being fixated with me, because I’m not the only one who makes generalisations about PB Tories; yet you’re only borthered when I do it.
Also, I didn’t lie to myself, because I didn’t say that three word post was my only contribution to this thread. You made the assertion that I used the then discussion about Carl Sergeant as a spring board for ‘a rant against of the patriarchy’; EPG’s post is the only post I quoted which is specifically related to that to original discussion. The second post you quoted was not related to that original discussion but instead was a response to replies which took with issue with my first post, explaining and clarifying my overall position. That’s hardly using a discussion as a spring board for a rant against the patriarchy. Next time since your so keen on individuals pointing out specific points, you ought to sight the posts you’re actually referring to in the first place - that’s what you ask of me after all.
Now, going against want you demand of others - that is weird.
I may well be being a bit mad and part-channelling a Yes Prime Mininster plot.. But is there any way Rory Stewart could be sent to Iran, and be able to bring back the lady in prison? If he somehow could, and he may just have what it takes, he'd come back a hero and surely be a shoo in for next Tory leader/PM..
I’d send Boris to Iran - and tell him not to come back unless he brings the British prisoner back with him!
I presume his visa would expire and they'd evict him eventually! After all, why would they do that?
I do not think that is surprising but not over his alleged porn on his office computers
Over what then?
Lets wait and see
You mean, you've no idea but find it hard to believe it will be the porn allegations?
Ben - we are normally quite sensible with each other and I do have ideas but I am not going to make allegations pending investigations by the minister code.
However, the point about the alleged porn is that this was made public by a retired police officer with an agenda stating it was extreme porn but not illegal. If it is not illegal it is irrelevant
I may well be being a bit mad and part-channelling a Yes Prime Mininster plot.. But is there any way Rory Stewart could be sent to Iran, and be able to bring back the lady in prison? If he somehow could, and he may just have what it takes, he'd come back a hero and surely be a shoo in for next Tory leader/PM..
I’d send Boris to Iran - and tell him not to come back unless he brings the British prisoner back with him!
I presume his visa would expire and they'd evict him eventually! After all, why would they do that?
Comments
I have no idea what the accusations against Sergeant were, but they were clearly significant. The whole process needs looking at, but deciding punishment without a thorough review is to repeat the error.
Someone kills themselves in prison every few days. They and their families need support too.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/26/prison-suicides-in-england-and-wales-reaches-record-high
And of course victims kill themselves too:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/09/frances-andrade-courts-son
Tonight the career of a young ambitious politician has ended. I do not like or agree with her politics, but very likely she is in turmoil, and I have sympathy for that.
I made a fiver on Patel's resignation at 1.1. It all helps!
Does that count?
If you have “no idea what the accusations are”, how can you possibly judge that they are “clearly significant”.
This includes the Jane Merrick allegation, the Kate Maltby allegation, and the allegations in relation to Kelvin Hopkins.
And again, you’re obsessed with my observations about posts on here. It’s weird.
Re your last point: I’d rather not be in an echo-chamber where I only hear views I like. There were some past posters whose views I seriously judged, but I still stayed, so...,
'To resign Boris phone 01999 999 001' etc.
Some ground rules: It cannot be a joke sentence, it cannot be a quote of something someone else said, and it has to be stupid at the time, not just in hindsight ("I don't know, TMay seems like she'll be a decent PM" was not inherently stupid if made a year ago)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/08/carl-sargeant-welsh-labour-allegations-correspondence-family
I think two of those three would have been sacking offences if proved, one may not have been. None of them seem like the sort of thing that would have involved the police.
But it depends a great deal on exactly what happened - and of course it is worth remembering he denied them.
The tooth fairy lives, and Santa & his elves are busy in the workshop in Leicester.
Drinking red bull and port before a game is very much in line with what students of that age drink before a uni match.
So, if he is to be made DfID minister (highly unlikely, as he might actually be up to the job), will they wait until he is back?
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1753002#Comment_1753002
https://twitter.com/CFoI/status/761211619024236545
Speaking to the BBC on Monday, Jones said he had become “aware of a number of incidents” at the beginning of last week. “I asked my office to speak to those women involved who had provided detail of those incidents.
“As a result of those conversations I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to the party. If we have somebody who is in a position where they could embarrass the party or bring the party into disrepute, then action is taken.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.”
Was due process followed? It doesn't sound very different to how my hospital would investigate such complaints.
All that I am suggesting is that the correct response is not to fly off the handle in another way as an overreaction, and ruin a few more careers without proper investigation.
25 years should be enough thanks.
Plainly, other allegations are much more serious.
Carl was sacked not suspended, and wasn't even told the details of the allegations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41908424
I am not one of the people calling for resignations or sackings of politicians of any party.
These are not easy allegations to investigate, and even more so when in the public eye.
You have only provided Welsh Labour’s version of events, which has been strongly contested by Carl Sergeant’s family.
Once we have heard the Case for the Prosecution and the Case for the Defence, then we might be able to judge whether the accusations are “clearly significant”.
" A Labour Party spokesperson said on Wednesday: “The Labour Party governance and legal unit spoke with Carl Sargeant and, in line with agreed procedure, outlined the nature of the allegations that had been received and how the complaints process works.” "
is a lie?
Who knows who is lying in this murky affair?
A family spokesman said on Wednesday they were publishing the correspondence "in light of the continued unwillingness" of the Labour Party "to clarify the nature of the allegations made against Carl".
"Up to the point of his tragic death on Tuesday morning Carl was not informed of any of the detail of the allegations against him, despite requests and warnings regarding his mental welfare," the spokesman said.
BBC4.
I would suggest investigating what was said before rushing to conclusions.
It is quite possible that what was said was not heard. People in shock very often do not take it all in.
No. Read carefully how they've phrased it.
As I’ve said before, the reality of political discussion is that commentators make generalised comments about their political opponents. This happens all the time on this site, and I’m certainly not the only one to make comments about PB Tories - it’s occurred throughout the years by several posters on this site. Yet bizarrely, a lightening rod goes off in your head only when I do it.
Also, the idea that that’s my general argumentative strategy is absurd. I’ve challenged plenty of specific posters and specific points on here, and as someone who has a curious interest in my posts you should know that.
I’m not saying that I like hearing the slap-the-womanwhatevertherestofwhatyousaidis case at all. Nor did I state that I liked hearing the right wing case either. That’s your projection. I read plenty of views on here that I don’t like reading. It’s part of confronting the reality that these views exist out there. Besides, if I Left this site behind I’d also miss contributions from plenty of thoughtful posters.
They discovered that this gas was known to have the effect of causing hallucinations. This was explained to the court but the two women were believed and he was jailed and struck off. I don't believe the women were lying but I'm certain he didn't do it.
https://twitter.com/hadinili/status/928343627616718850
I have made the case that the accused needs support as well as accuser. For both these are life changing, highly emotional events.
I am not saying that the Labour party was correct in its actions, what I am saying is that the evidence needs looking at. Sacking others in a rash response is just repeating the tragedy.
Heck, even if someone said 'accusations are significant' we still couldn't assess, since as is well known the word significant is one of the most versatile in the English language.
I have expressed sympathy with Carl Sargeant's family, I fully understand their anger.
All I am asking for is that the evidence is objectively looked at before the punishment is decided. It is how British justice should work.
This is what happens when you get a witch hunt. Instead of due process, we have speculation. Instead of evidence, hysteria. People get hurt. Reputations are ruined.
Some will be guilty, others will not. One thing that is for sure is that some people will take advantage of the current febrile environment to play politics and ruin people's reputations.
A tedious rant about the patriarchy? I said three words ‘pretty much this’; that’s hardly a rant. (If anything you were the one that ranted tonight in response to those three words.) If you’ve interpreted that as rant maybe it’s perhaps you who needs to look at whether they’re wrong?
Re your last comment: and they say that millenials are ‘easily’ triggered.
+2
I am quite happy with a lot of Corbynite policies, particularly over generational inequality such as tuition fees, and quite relaxed about other things. I would like to see Trident scrapped too, and see NATO as obselete, and would like to see stronger rights for those in the gig economy and proper taxation of the super rich tax dodging individuals and companies.
These are policies popular with Lib Dems too. I am less happy with Corbyns economic plans such as overspending and nationalisation.
Also love the classic newspaper X 'may be seen as' type line. Can be used to put in any opinion you like, because X might be seen as Y, you never know. Cannot see the story, but I think it is one level down from 'Senior figure X (who may be a random backbencher) suggested this meant Y'.
And you didn't just say "pretty much this", you also said:
"Since this sex scandal began, we’ve had low level harassment allegations on here be dismissed by some as ‘trivial’, the whole scandal characterised as a ‘moral panic’ and assertions that we are about to enter a new age of prudishness. We’ve had more than just individuals express caution over jumping to conclusions. That in and of itself is reasonable. But on here we’ve had narratives that are almost of a ‘men are the real victims here’ ‘women are making a big deal out of nothing’ message."
So you are prepared to lie your head off about what you yourself verifiably said 20 minutes ago, but if I question the veracity of your generalisations about what the PBs tories or rapists or whoever said three months ago that is just me being fixated with you?
That is authentically weird.
It seems to make clear that Carl was not told the specific allegations against him, nor who the complainants were, but he was told the general nature (inappropriate behaviour).
It can be perused here :
https://tinyurl.com/yc7v9mvn
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
Still, you can always play for time, there's plenty of time for one's day to come. Though if the thread header is right about having few friends in the parliamentary party, she has much schmoozing to do.
Also, I didn’t lie to myself, because I didn’t say that three word post was my only contribution to this thread. You made the assertion that I used the then discussion about Carl Sergeant as a spring board for ‘a rant against of the patriarchy’; EPG’s post is the only post I quoted which is specifically related to that to original discussion. The second post you quoted was not related to that original discussion but instead was a response to replies which took with issue with my first post, explaining and clarifying my overall position. That’s hardly using a discussion as a spring board for a rant against the patriarchy. Next time since your so keen on individuals pointing out specific points, you ought to sight the posts you’re actually referring to in the first place - that’s what you ask of me after all.
Now, going against want you demand of others - that is weird.
Do you not see the parallels with the Welsh case?
However, the point about the alleged porn is that this was made public by a retired police officer with an agenda stating it was extreme porn but not illegal. If it is not illegal it is irrelevant
I wonder if anywhere still crucifies.