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?
What is the penalty for adultery in Iran?
Stoning, I believe.
I wonder if anywhere still crucifies.
Saudi Arabia performs crucifixions of some people they have beheaded.
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).
I addressed the claim that we should not cheer on the #metoo movement because some men suffered unfairly from the actions of third parties (i.e. other men and women, some of whom who have basically been tolerating this behaviour or using it to control their parties, the real Westminster scandal).
On the contrary, we should cheer on women who make good faith allegations to protect others and assert their right not to be harassed or worse. We should not let misogynists use a man's suicide to force women back into the closet, so to speak. If you want to blame someone, don't blame the women who brought up the allegations. That's an attempt to silence them, or perhaps more accurately, to make the problem go away in your mind. But the problem is there. What do you choose?
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 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.
Suicide bad, full and fair investigation of serious allegations good, are 1930s little England misconceptions, are they? Of course they are.
I am sorry I laughed at you for your epic fail over what continent means yesterday. it was very wrong of me.
Newsnight says Patel "still has leadership ambitions".
She's only 45, she could still be PM by the time she's 65.
She could be PM by the time she is 46 if she stands and MPs and members dislike the other candidates more. That is roughly how Theresa May got the job, and a number of her predecessors.
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Edit: and her political exertions on behalf of tobacco and drink interests suggest a willingness to go the extra mile on behalf of well heeled potential donors.
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Eh? Ignorance is bliss.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
I think Carl was clearly upset that he did not know who had made the complaints, and that the First Minister was (as he saw it) prejudicing a fair trail by his TV interviews.
My own opinion is that, as Carl is no longer around, it is absolutely imperative that the content of the accusations are closely inspected, and that the names of the accusers are provided and made public.
Who is the real victim here?
There are people who may have been seen as victims in the context of current accusations, whose actions in other spheres of activity might attract closer scrutiny.
Is the victim Carl? Or his accusers? It is hard to know what to make of the murky business.
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.
Agree on cable. Mistake. Agree on generational inequality Bad time to scrap trident, ideologically sound. NATO has done a good job for 60 years. At some time it will be obsolete, don't know when it if that is now. Can't object to good rights for those in work, employed or on contract.. Agree on taxation of super rich and international corps, and Dr's. Corbyn isn't the way to achieve it.
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Eh? Ignorance is bliss.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
I did (thank God) expressly say that I don't know much about it. Wiki however states that support for Israel is 2 percentage points higher in India than in the US, and that Israel supplies stacks of arms to India.
Then again another thing I don't know is to what extent being a non Indian Hindu implies alignment with the interests of India.
It is difficult to be objective about Carl Sargeant 's awful death. We clearly have little idea about the facts of the matter, but even if Carwyn has followed the letter of the law 100%, he must be feeling totally in despair and at least in part responsible. It reminds me a bit of the David Kelly affair, ironically also a Welshman. Although not responsible, Blair was somehow diminished by his death. I think Carwyn may also be diminished by what has happened, and I would not be at all surprised if he resigns. If that does happen i hope for all concerned the sooner the better. Just finally to say sincere condolences to Carl Sargeant's family and friends.
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Eh? Ignorance is bliss.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
Most commentators believe Modi's recent visit marked a sea change in relations between the two countries.
Right, time for "The Detectorists" . One of the finest comedies in years.
BBC4.
Sod that, Celebrity First Dates is on 4seven. Mickey Fab is on it. He's probably too eccentric to have a relationship, but the carcrash is interesting. Sinitta is poised, Roman Kemp is cute, and Jan Leeming is absolutely lovely.
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Eh? Ignorance is bliss.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
I did (thank God) expressly say that I don't know much about it. Wiki however states that support for Israel is 2 percentage points higher in India than in the US, and that Israel supplies stacks of arms to India.
Then again another thing I don't know is to what extent being a non Indian Hindu implies alignment with the interests of India.
Again the anti Muslim rhetoric is probably driving this. We do have a ghastly leader in a India now so quite possibly things have changed.
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?
So who has a take on what on earth Priti was up to?
See the tweet from Henry Mance in the thread header.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
Yebbut what was the strategy in this particular case?
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
She is Hindi (Hindu?)
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Eh? Ignorance is bliss.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
I have been asking this question all day. just watched several news programmes - newsnight, Sky etc etc.
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?
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
I think Carl was clearly upset that he did not know who had made the complaints, and that the First Minister was (as he saw it) prejudicing a fair trail by his TV interviews.
My own opinion is that, as Carl is no longer around, it is absolutely imperative that the content of the accusations are closely inspected, and that the names of the accusers are provided and made public.
Who is the real victim here?
There are people who may have been seen as victims in the context of current accusations, whose actions in other spheres of activity might attract closer scrutiny.
Is the victim Carl? Or his accusers? It is hard to know what to make of the murky business.
The only way to determine if the risk assessment to suspend Sargeant was correct is to look further into the concerns raised by the accusers, so that investigation should continue.
The investigation should be confidential, but the conclusions should be published.
For the Assembly Leader to sack a long time Minister and colleague would take fairly serious accusations.
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
I think Carl was clearly upset that he did not know who had made the complaints, and that the First Minister was (as he saw it) prejudicing a fair trail by his TV interviews.
My own opinion is that, as Carl is no longer around, it is absolutely imperative that the content of the accusations are closely inspected, and that the names of the accusers are provided and made public.
Who is the real victim here?
There are people who may have been seen as victims in the context of current accusations, whose actions in other spheres of activity might attract closer scrutiny.
Is the victim Carl? Or his accusers? It is hard to know what to make of the murky business.
The only way to determine if the risk assessment to suspend Sargeant was correct is to look further into the concerns raised by the accusers, so that investigation should continue.
The investigation should be confidential, but the conclusions should be published.
For the Assembly Leader to sack a long time Minister and colleague would take fairly serious accusations.
The names of the accusers, & the nature of the accusations, should be made public immediately.
It is difficult to be objective about Carl Sargeant 's awful death. We clearly have little idea about the facts of the matter, but even if Carwyn has followed the letter of the law 100%, he must be feeling totally in despair and at least in part responsible. It reminds me a bit of the David Kelly affair, ironically also a Welshman. Although not responsible, Blair was somehow diminished by his death. I think Carwyn may also be diminished by what has happened, and I would not be at all surprised if he resigns. If that does happen i hope for all concerned the sooner the better. Just finally to say sincere condolences to Carl Sargeant's family and friends.
Suicide has effects way beyond the individual, it is very destructive of other lives too.
Middle aged and older men are at higher risk. Loss of status is a major driver, and they tend to use fairly certain means.
I knew Dr Farley and wrote a supportive letter when he was under investigation. He did have a high referral rate, but he was destroyed by the investigation. I still wonder if I should have been louder in his defence.
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).
I think even DrFoxinSox might agree that Carwyn has some awkward questions to answer.
It does say that the accusation is of inappropriate behaviour and gooping, by several different people.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.
It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.
Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.
Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!
Newsnight says Patel "still has leadership ambitions".
She's only 45, she could still be PM by the time she's 65.
We will soon lose count of the number of Tory retreads who will have to have their names prefaced with "the disgraced formed cabinet minister.."
Didn't do Liam Fox much harm after his resignation over "meetings", interesting that Baroness Warsi was another female Tory cabinet minister who resigned over UK policy towards Israel...
On a totally different issue the Yorkshire Post today was having a real go at the government re transport policy.
And one piece of advice to government ministers / London based Tories - don't use HS2 as evidence that the government is investing in transport infrastructure in the North.
Back on the 5th November I asked who recently charged and pleading guilty Trump team member George Papadopolous met up with in London.
Earlier today the government said he'd met with some FCO officials. But Georgie had met with other people in London, way more interesting than some mandarins.
It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.
It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.
Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.
Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!
There is no reason now not to give the names of the accusers and the detail of the accusations.
There is no danger now (if there ever was) of Carl intimidating a witness.
Have I missed some obscure piece of protocol? But looking at the photos of resignation letters on various twitter feeds, news sites, orderorder etc., and the PM's letter is signed by May and then underneath, where usually is typed the name of signer, it says: "Priti Patel".
Is it late, Blue Nun late ? Or has there been a typo f-up?
It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.
It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.
Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.
Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!
There is no reason now not to give the names of the accusers and the detail of the accusations.
There is no danger now (if there ever was) of Carl intimidating a witness.
You are justifiably concerned at the ultimate tragedy, but this as Dr Foxinsox has highlighted is standard HR procedure. Should he have been counselled? Probably with the benefit of hindsight. The investigation procedure however remains robust.
Back on the 5th November I asked who recently charged and pleading guilty Trump team member George Papadopolous met up with in London.
Earlier today the government said he'd met with some FCO officials. But Georgie had met with other people in London, way more interesting than some mandarins.
It is exactly the same procedure in social services. An allegation is made, the alleged perpetrator is informed an allegation has been made, suspended and an investigation initiated. The accused will only be informed of the details of the allegation when the investigation is completed or a pre-set date has been reached.
It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.
Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.
Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!
There is no reason now not to give the names of the accusers and the detail of the accusations.
There is no danger now (if there ever was) of Carl intimidating a witness.
You are justifiably concerned at the ultimate tragedy, but this as Dr Foxinsox has highlighted is standard HR procedure. Should he have been counselled? Probably with the benefit of hindsight. The investigation procedure however remains robust.
I am concerned that a man his killed himself, and we do not know who his accusers were, and what the accusations were?
I can imagine instances in which the names of the accusers may make a significant difference to our interpretation of what’s happened.
I can see no reason now why the names of the accusers & the nature of the accusations cannot be made public.
Perhaps the accusers are victims of harassment. But, I could also imagine another reading of the chain of events in which the victim is Carl.
I may be misreading it but the tone of May’s letter to Patel (“thank you and see you again”) seems friendlier than Fallon’s (“thank you and goodbye”).....
I may be misreading it but the tone of May’s letter to Patel (“thank you and see you again”) seems friendlier than Fallon’s (“thank you and goodbye”).....
Maybe she suspects Patel was skewered by a leak within the FCO. Patel is ambitious and for that reason is not someone who goes off piste without good reason . This episode smells.
I may be misreading it but the tone of May’s letter to Patel (“thank you and see you again”) seems friendlier than Fallon’s (“thank you and goodbye”).....
Maybe she suspects Patel was skewered by a leak within the FCO. Patel is ambitious and for that reason is not someone who goes off piste without good reason . This episode smells.
Or from within DFID?
She was a terrible fit. A joke appointment to appease the express/DM.
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
There is another way of looking at it. Tom Holland, a historian and one of the founders of These Islands, says that while Brexit is certainly a convulsive and traumatic process it is also an expression of “democratic vitality”. The rest of the world may think that Britain is going mad, but, he adds: “we more than anyone else in Europe are having the open debates that elsewhere are being bottled up.
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....
The trouble with the situation is that it keeps returning back to May as being at the heart of the problem. Cabinet Ministers running amok sends a signal that a great chunk of the Tory higher command are seen to be incompetent - when the backbenchers decide to do something about it, the likes of Graham Brady and other old guard will be swept aside - maybe Grant Shapps will be seen as the knight in shining armour - Cameron's friends must be surely wondering when....
This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.
Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.
Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....
Grant Shapps will be seen as the knight in shining armour...
This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.
Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.
Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.
Isn't the reality that both are true: there was (and is) a democratic deficit in the EU; and Brexit was a vote against the status quo by those left behind by globalisation and technological change.
This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.
Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.
Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.
Isn't the reality that both are true: there was (and is) a democratic deficit in the EU; and Brexit was a vote against the status quo by those left behind by globalisation and technological change.
In reality hypothesis one relates to the question of identity rather than any technical objections to the democratic functioning of the EU. One man's checks and balances are another man's democratic deficit.
This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.
Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.
Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.
Isn't the reality that both are true: there was (and is) a democratic deficit in the EU; and Brexit was a vote against the status quo by those left behind by globalisation and technological change.
As the author goes on to write:
It is likely that both hypotheses played some role in the referendum outcome, but the existing evidence is insufficient to assess their relative contributions. When leave voters are asked to explain their vote, national sovereignty and immigration are the most frequently cited reasons, but these responses are consistent with either hypothesis. They could reflect voters’ attachment to the UK as a nation state, or they may mirror the language used by pro-Brexit newspapers and politicians. However, the hypotheses have quite different implications for how policymakers should respond to Brexit and for the future of European and global integration.
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....
Grant Shapps will be seen as the knight in shining armour...
Not something you read every day.....
especially not on PB - to be fair, I did say "maybe Grant Shapps"..... when we reach the end of 2017 and DD and TM have to fess up that the negotiations have not exactly yielded fruit, Liam Fox's globetrotting (with or without Priti Patel) has achieved very little except for airmiles and BJ is still a shambles over Iran, EU and Washington then I think 2018 could be the most difficult year for the Tories yet..........and thats even before other unknown unknowns pop up.
I may be misreading it but the tone of May’s letter to Patel (“thank you and see you again”) seems friendlier than Fallon’s (“thank you and goodbye”).....
I think we need to go beyond Remain and Leave, and onto "who will do the best job". Also, I honestly believe that 90% of the parliamentary Conservative Party simply wants to make the best of Brexit, irrespective of their views from before the referendum.
Agree - though some of the Leadbangers on the back benches may not.....
Grant Shapps will be seen as the knight in shining armour...
Comments
On the contrary, we should cheer on women who make good faith allegations to protect others and assert their right not to be harassed or worse.
We should not let misogynists use a man's suicide to force women back into the closet, so to speak.
If you want to blame someone, don't blame the women who brought up the allegations. That's an attempt to silence them, or perhaps more accurately, to make the problem go away in your mind. But the problem is there. What do you choose?
Nothing to do with the very serious position in Wales labour tonight, ironically highlighted in the English Daily Mail front page
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/05/saudi-arabia-five-beheaded-and-crucified-amid-disturbing-rise-in-executions/
From 2009 - Saudi Arabian man beheaded and crucified
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/12/saudi-arabian-man-beheaded-and-crucified-20091208/
I am sorry I laughed at you for your epic fail over what continent means yesterday. it was very wrong of me.
Her ambition and self belief outweighed her talent.
The first step is to assess the risk of the behaviour continuing, and in particular with a Minister responsible for young people.
The next step is to formally interview the accusers and witnesses, then notify the accused of these statements and witnesses, with the instruction not to speak to them at this point over the matter.
Having compiled the statements then these would be disclosed to the accused within a set time (5th of Dec in the email). This is the standard 28 days for investigation. There is then a six week period before the formal hearing.
This seems pretty standard HR procedure, near identical to what we do in my hospital.
Mr Sargeant commited suicide within days, so between step 1 and 2.
The procedural investigation should centre on whether the risk assessment in step 1 was reasonably arrived at, and justified by the severity of the accusations.
Undermine Boris? Or Tezza? Because... she thought she was untouchable? Or did she really want to help the Syrian refugees?
I mean I get the arrogance but what was the plan in this instance?
I have no idea what the ramifications of that fact are, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of, of a pro Israel and implicitly anti Muslim stance.
Edit: and her political exertions on behalf of tobacco and drink interests suggest a willingness to go the extra mile on behalf of well heeled potential donors.
You do know that India and Israel aren't exactly best buddies?
1) Mrs May is crap
2) Mrs May will be gone soon because of her crapness
3) So there's a bit of indecent haste and jockeying to replace Mrs May.
4) So it led to things like this
Bring back Cameron and Osborne.
My own opinion is that, as Carl is no longer around, it is absolutely imperative that the content of the accusations are closely inspected, and that the names of the accusers are provided and made public.
Who is the real victim here?
There are people who may have been seen as victims in the context of current accusations, whose actions in other spheres of activity might attract closer scrutiny.
Is the victim Carl? Or his accusers? It is hard to know what to make of the murky business.
Agree on generational inequality
Bad time to scrap trident, ideologically sound.
NATO has done a good job for 60 years. At some time it will be obsolete, don't know when it if that is now.
Can't object to good rights for those in work, employed or on contract..
Agree on taxation of super rich and international corps, and Dr's.
Corbyn isn't the way to achieve it.
Mrs May’s actions leave me shaking my head like a Sufi on speed.
https://youtu.be/MUEHTNWXBTc
Then again another thing I don't know is to what extent being a non Indian Hindu implies alignment with the interests of India.
I think Carwyn may also be diminished by what has happened, and I would not be at all surprised if he resigns. If that does happen i hope for all concerned the sooner the better.
Just finally to say sincere condolences to Carl Sargeant's family and friends.
No one has asked the question.
What was she trying to achieve?
[drops mike]
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/928387044522577925
The investigation should be confidential, but the conclusions should be published.
For the Assembly Leader to sack a long time Minister and colleague would take fairly serious accusations.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/928387840291065856
The comments below are, shall we say, varied.
Middle aged and older men are at higher risk. Loss of status is a major driver, and they tend to use fairly certain means.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-suicide-of-stephen-farley-67271.html
I knew Dr Farley and wrote a supportive letter when he was under investigation. He did have a high referral rate, but he was destroyed by the investigation. I still wonder if I should have been louder in his defence.
e.g. ‘he retreats into a world of fantasy and self-delusion’
It makes sense in order to deter the accused from intimidating accuser or witness, or fabricating a false defence during the investigation process.
Let us use Jimmy Saville as an example (because he can't sue!) He may be told that a serious accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against him. Saville now has to strategize how to discredit his accuser. His dilemma however is this, who is making the accusation? Is it the girl in Scarborough, the young lady in hospital at Stoke Mandeville, or the boy scout on Jim'll Fix it? If Saville were to be told you have been accused by the girl in Scarborough he could concoct an alibi with his chauffer, or he could offer to pay her off, or adopt any manner of other elaborate schemes. As it stands, he doesn't know who to pay off or discredit, so the investigation can continue unimpeded.
Anyway Neil Hamilton, no less, is demanding Carwyn's head!
And one piece of advice to government ministers / London based Tories - don't use HS2 as evidence that the government is investing in transport infrastructure in the North.
Back on the 5th November I asked who recently charged and pleading guilty Trump team member George Papadopolous met up with in London.
Earlier today the government said he'd met with some FCO officials. But Georgie had met with other people in London, way more interesting than some mandarins.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/928398759901483008
There is no reason now not to give the names of the accusers and the detail of the accusations.
There is no danger now (if there ever was) of Carl intimidating a witness.
Have I missed some obscure piece of protocol? But looking at the photos of resignation letters on various twitter feeds, news sites, orderorder etc., and the PM's letter is signed by May and then underneath, where usually is typed the name of signer, it says: "Priti Patel".
Is it late, Blue Nun late ? Or has there been a typo f-up?
If so that could be quite serious for him.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/928343678925639682
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/08/boris-johnson-to-meet-jailed-nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffes-husband
"Democratic leaders gleefully predicted that the Senate, where the Republicans hold a two-seat majority, might now be in play."
https://www.nytimes.com/?action=click&contentCollection=Asia Pacific&region=TopBar&module=HomePage-Button&pgtype=article&WT.z_jog=1&hF=t&vS=undefined
I can imagine instances in which the names of the accusers may make a significant difference to our interpretation of what’s happened.
I can see no reason now why the names of the accusers & the nature of the accusations cannot be made public.
Perhaps the accusers are victims of harassment. But, I could also imagine another reading of the chain of events in which the victim is Carl.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/928346292903927808?s=17
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-resigns-quits-who-will-replace-her-theresa-may-cabinet-secretary-a8044976.html?amp
https://medium.com/@ScottMStedman/exclusive-papadopoulos-had-working-level-meeting-with-u-k-foreign-office-in-september-2016-367ef543df18
She was a terrible fit. A joke appointment to appease the express/DM.
https://amp.ft.com/content/d08dbfb8-c3e5-11e7-a1d2-6786f39ef675
This leaves two plausible hypotheses for why the UK voted to leave.
Hypothesis 1: Primacy of the Nation State. Successful democratic government requires the consent and participation of the governed. British people identify as citizens of the UK not the EU. Consequently, they feel the UK should be governed as a sovereign nation-state. According to this hypothesis, the UK voted to leave because Brexit supporters wanted to take back control of their borders and their country.
Hypothesis 2: Scapegoating of the EU. Many people feel left behind by modern Britain. Influenced by the anti-EU sentiments expressed by Britain’s newspapers and eurosceptic politicians, these individuals have come to blame immigration and the EU for many of their woes. According to this hypothesis, voters supported Brexit because they believe EU membership has contributed to their discontent with the status quo.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/07/understanding-the-motivations-of-leave-voters-will-play-an-important-role-in-determining-the-future-of-globalisation/
It is likely that both hypotheses played some role in the referendum outcome, but the existing evidence is insufficient to assess their relative contributions. When leave voters are asked to explain their vote, national sovereignty and immigration are the most frequently cited reasons, but these responses are consistent with either hypothesis. They could reflect voters’ attachment to the UK as a nation state, or they may mirror the language used by pro-Brexit newspapers and politicians. However, the hypotheses have quite different implications for how policymakers should respond to Brexit and for the future of European and global integration.
What Patel did demonstrated she was an idiot
That's the difference
https://twitter.com/chrisjones_1/status/784464389739057152