They reported her story last week, before the arrest.
I am getting more puzzled by this story the more I learn about it. Why did she go to the Chief Whip, the Leader of the House, the Times, and then the police? No. 4 should have been number one, and number 3 shouldn’t have figured at all.
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.
She comes across as wanting him shamed rather than allowing due legal process to take its course. Revenge, as opposed to justice. The MP's lawyer is certainly buying all the papers from today and yesterday.
Sarah Keays?
The Tory spokepersons on here are fair rattling on about this creeps honour this morning , must be a big shot right enough. Bit of panic setting in.
I’ve no idea who it is and I can’t be bothered to ask around. Let due process take its course. If he is charged and convicted then let him be punished accordingly. Until that happens it is word against word and he has rights as well.
Someone on Twitter has compiled a list of names of Tory MPs who have been involved in known sexual incidents, have NDAs with female staffers in place (that apparently includes a VERY senior Tory), or who have known 'reputations' around parliament. Certainly not something for posting here. It's a long list and doesn't help to narrow this case down very much at all.
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.
I am getting more puzzled by this story the more I learn about it. Why did she go to the Chief Whip, the Leader of the House, the Times, and then the police? No. 4 should have been number one, and number 3 shouldn’t have figured at all.
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.
She comes across as wanting him shamed rather than allowing due legal process to take its course. Revenge, as opposed to justice. The MP's lawyer is certainly buying all the papers from today and yesterday.
Sarah Keays?
The Tory spokepersons on here are fair rattling on about this creeps honour this morning , must be a big shot right enough. Bit of panic setting in.
I suspect you think the Tory bit is enough for a conviction in its own right.
Did the Alex Salmond trial teach you nothing?
It taught me that the London establishment do what they want and only what they want gets printed. Salmond was vilified despite being innocent and even before he was ever charged, we see the difference when it is one of the establishment though, all suppressed and they look after their own. She has no hope of getting justice.
I agree that Salmond was treated very badly. Is that a reason for doing the same thing to someone else, or should lessons be learned?
It is entirely possible and indeed probable that this man is guilty, and if he is he should be spending some significant time in prison. But if he is not, there will always be those that claim he got off on a technicality and that he was really guilty.
The complainant is not the appropriate person to make a determination of whether a breach of the law can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard that must be met before the guilty can be fairly punished.
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work there
If he is indeed guilty of rape, then fairly punished will mean jail time.
But that is not the current point of debate.
The complainant thinks the Tory party did nothing, when she informed them originally. She thinks they did nothing when the story was reported. She thinks they did nothing when the MP was questioned by Police.
She is perhaps entitled to think they could have done more, at every stage.
She wants him to be publicly named.
That will lead to a lot of people thinking he is guilty of something regardless of any court process.
That sort of damage to his reputation is unjust unless there is sufficient evidence to charge/convict
Tories circling the wagons
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.
It is the double standards, any other party and it would have been on the front pages, that tells you he is a chum of the top brass. We also know that most get away with it as well, an odd few falsely accused but majority get away with it. Unless you believe 97% of women who complain are accusing falsely perhaps, is that your argument.
97%? No. But equally well there are some small percentage who do, and there have been a number of high profile examples recently. One issue is that I think there was a recent change to prevent the name of someone under suspicion being released until formal charges are bought: there was a comment on a previous thread to the effect that t had gone through Parliament with only one MP voting against. I don’t know if that only applies to MPs or what offences it covers, but if it applies in this case then withdrawing the whip would have to be done without saying who had lost it: I’m not sure how that would work.
At the moment it's easy as Parliament isn't in session for a month and won't be voting.
Equally the statement could be "We are aware of the allegation, and while we have withdrawn the whip we won't be revealing the name until it's revealed by the police"
It's just an example of how things aren't be thought through.
I suspect if this was a finance company both the accused and accuser would be instructed to work from home unless being in the office was unavoidable.
Exactly what I said, but I still think they will be concentrating on supporting him and not the accuser.
The complainant is not the appropriate person to make a determination of whether a breach of the law can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard that must be met before the guilty can be fairly punished.
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work there
If he is indeed guilty of rape, then fairly punished will mean jail time.
But that is not the current point of debate.
The complainant thinks the Tory party did nothing, when she informed them originally. She thinks they did nothing when the story was reported. She thinks they did nothing when the MP was questioned by Police.
She is perhaps entitled to think they could have done more, at every stage.
She wants him to be publicly named.
That will lead to a lot of people thinking he is guilty of something regardless of any court process.
That sort of damage to his reputation is unjust unless there is sufficient evidence to charge/convict
Given the truly abysmal conviction rate for sexual offences I think she knows that it isn't going to get anywhere - so naming and shaming (resulting in other victims coming forward) is about as best as she can hope for.
So what are his rights?
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?
And note, I'm not saying that he should be named, what I'm saying is that this isn't going to go anywhere because I suspect while in all likelihood the guilt is there,the evidence isn't.
If there’s not enough evidence to charge then he will get away with anything he might have done. That could be just it it could be unfortunate.
If he goes to court, regardless of the outcome, he will suffer reputational damage.
The Guardian appears to know who he is, but sensibly isn't saying.
I wonder if there is one of those Kafka-esque super-injunctions in place?
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.
I am getting more puzzled by this story the more I learn about it. Why did she go to the Chief Whip, the Leader of the House, the Times, and then the police? No. 4 should have been number one, and number 3 shouldn’t have figured at all.
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.
She comes across as wanting him shamed rather than allowing due legal process to take its course. Revenge, as opposed to justice. The MP's lawyer is certainly buying all the papers from today and yesterday.
Sarah Keays?
The Tory spokepersons on here are fair rattling on about this creeps honour this morning , must be a big shot right enough. Bit of panic setting in.
I am far more concerned that some comments on here will cause concern for our moderators
I doubt general commentary should concern anyone.
However, the protestations on here about the innocence of someone they are supposed not to know the name of are odd.
On that basis one can understand why women don't bother to report sexual assaults. The allusion down thread by some people, implies the accuser to be a "bunny boiler".
If the Conservative Party are not revealing the name to protect the alleged victim, they should say so, and that is fine. It looks to all non- Conservative onlookers that the name remains secret to protect the accused. Another communications fail?
I think Mr G has the right idea. Let's do away with magistrates, juries, solicitors and barristers for these sort of trials. Just take the woman's word. Think of the savings to the judicial system. There's too many lawyers anyway and they don't add to the nation's productivity.
Obviously gentlemen over a certain age and with an impeccable history would be immune.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
The complainant is not the appropriate person to make a determination of whether a breach of the law can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard that must be met before the guilty can be fairly punished.
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work there
If he is indeed guilty of rape, then fairly punished will mean jail time.
But that is not the current point of debate.
The complainant thinks the Tory party did nothing, when she informed them originally. She thinks they did nothing when the story was reported. She thinks they did nothing when the MP was questioned by Police.
She is perhaps entitled to think they could have done more, at every stage.
She wants him to be publicly named.
That will lead to a lot of people thinking he is guilty of something regardless of any court process.
That sort of damage to his reputation is unjust unless there is sufficient evidence to charge/convict
Given the truly abysmal conviction rate for sexual offences I think she knows that it isn't going to get anywhere - so naming and shaming (resulting in other victims coming forward) is about as best as she can hope for.
So what are his rights?
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?
And note, I'm not saying that he should be named, what I'm saying is that this isn't going to go anywhere because I suspect while in all likelihood the guilt is there,the evidence isn't.
If there’s not enough evidence to charge then he will get away with anything he might have done. That could be just it it could be unfortunate.
If he goes to court, regardless of the outcome, he will suffer reputational damage.
The Guardian appears to know who he is, but sensibly isn't saying.
I wonder if there is one of those Kafka-esque super-injunctions in place?
On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
If people are actually betting on people like the Obamas, Warren and Clinton shows more a desire to increase the bookies Christmas party find than anything else.
What does this accuser think she will achieve, by talking to newspapers when there’s an active police case? Something doesn’t smell right. An anonymous man can’t be suspended.
Quite; how does The Times know who she is? Unless she has contacted them.
Maybe someone in the party who knew about her accusations and nothing being done about it had tipped them off, there are hundreds who could have known about it. Don't fall for Tory smearing of the victim. Very steep uphill battle for her up against the might of the establishment, Tories have unlimited resources to bury her.
Alex Salmond is releasing a book early next year to show how Sturgeon threw him to the wolves when it turned out he was not guilty, innocent until proven guilty applies here too
Quite reasonable. Some crimes, minor stuff, you could let them keep the whip when charged and wait for conviction, suspension without prejudice for the outcome once your identity is known through being charged with a serious offence makes sense. But not merely on arrest.
Quite reasonable. Some crimes, minor stuff, you could let them keep the whip when charged and wait for conviction, suspension without prejudice for the outcome once your identity is known through being charged with a serious offence makes sense. But not merely on arrest.
Given that two MPs charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice kept the whip until convicted, how minor did you have in mind?
I do agree though that it seems more than a bit weird that the person who has gone to the police has now also gone to the Times. Bloody stupid too, as a clever defence counsel now has ground to argue her actions have prejudiced a fair trial.
Unless the Times has invented it, of course, which seems improbable but can’t be entirely ruled out, or been hoaxed.
The Times already knew who she was.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’
How did the Times know who she was?
Everyone knows who the rapey tory is so it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of potential victims.
I don't, and I don't want to know at this stage. If the guy gets charged that's different, but for now there is a good reason why the law is so restrictive about releasing details at this stage of an enquiry.
Please don't bring logic into this. Often it comes to one word against another, That's why the cases are often lost and why the CPS get complaints that the conviction rate is low. Mind you, they're complaining now they don't take enough cases, but I'm not sure how that will increase the rate.
Please don't bring logic into this. Often it comes to one word against another, That's why the cases are often lost and why the CPS get complaints that the conviction rate is low. Mind you, they're complaining now they don't take enough cases, but I'm not sure how that will increase the rate.
Why waste a year+ of your life fighting a case that won't result in a conviction anyway.
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
Was Elphicke suspended before or after he was publicly named?
Same time, IIRC.
Makes sense, once its public domain then there's no reason to protect his privacy anymore.
If the Police/CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge and name him, then suspend pending the outcome. If they decide there isn't and don't name him, he shouldn't be named.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
By Dorset Eye - 2nd August 2020 Tory chief whip and Jacob Rees Mogg ‘sat on Tory MP rape allegation for a month’ before police involved Sky News understands the woman’s complaint was reported to a fellow MP. It is claimed that some allegations were raised with the chief whip Mark Spencer and with Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons some weeks ago.
It has been reported that Mr Spencer had not known the “magnitude” of the allegations. It’s understood Mr Spencer told the woman to make a formal complaint to parliamentary authorities, who would investigate. She later went to police.
Tories were really thinking paramountly about the complainant for sure. Mr Spencer seems not to have understand what "rape" is from above statement.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Quite reasonable. Some crimes, minor stuff, you could let them keep the whip when charged and wait for conviction, suspension without prejudice for the outcome once your identity is known through being charged with a serious offence makes sense. But not merely on arrest.
Given that two MPs charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice kept the whip until convicted, how minor did you have in mind?
Not as minor as that as that's a very serious crime. I was thinking of smaller, technical offences. But it would be need careful debate.
I do agree though that it seems more than a bit weird that the person who has gone to the police has now also gone to the Times. Bloody stupid too, as a clever defence counsel now has ground to argue her actions have prejudiced a fair trial.
Unless the Times has invented it, of course, which seems improbable but can’t be entirely ruled out, or been hoaxed.
The Times already knew who she was.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’
How did the Times know who she was?
Everyone knows who the rapey tory is so it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of potential victims.
I don't, and I don't want to know at this stage. If the guy gets charged that's different, but for now there is a good reason why the law is so restrictive about releasing details at this stage of an enquiry.
And equally it's why a victim may want the person to be named, one complaint doesn't work, 2 others, say people who came forward after the person was named, may help get the conviction by swaying the argument from him against her to him against a pattern of allegations.
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
Quite astonishing that there are still remainers so deluded that they think that Brexit can be postponed. Does he not know that we have already left?
How does it feel?
runnin' around 'round 'round? How does it feel watchin' from upside down? 'Cause many years from now There will be new sensations and new temptations How does it feel? How does it feel right at the start? And how does it feel when you are thrown apart?
'Cause many years from now There will be new elations and new frustrations How does it feel?
Was Elphicke suspended before or after he was publicly named?
Same time, IIRC.
Makes sense, once its public domain then there's no reason to protect his privacy anymore.
If the Police/CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge and name him, then suspend pending the outcome. If they decide there isn't and don't name him, he shouldn't be named.
It is sometimes surprising, Mr T, how often you and I, from wildly different parts of the political spectrum, agree on something!
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
To take two of your points: publicly accusing someone of rape who has not already been charged is a quick route to court and a massive libel claim so I’d be amazed if she did.
On your last point, the commons has made all its MPs a special case if I’m reading this correctly:
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
To take two of your points: publicly accusing someone of rape who has not already been charged is a quick route to court and a massive libel claim so I’d be amazed if she did.
On your last point, the commons has made all its MPs a special case if I’m reading this correctly:
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
George Galloway’s support for Brexit was the tipping point for me in voting Remain.
If he is against Scottish independence, then it looks like @malcolmg and co are right.
Was Elphicke suspended before or after he was publicly named?
Same time, IIRC.
Makes sense, once its public domain then there's no reason to protect his privacy anymore.
If the Police/CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge and name him, then suspend pending the outcome. If they decide there isn't and don't name him, he shouldn't be named.
It is sometimes surprising, Mr T, how often you and I, from wildly different parts of the political spectrum, agree on something!
I'm not sure we're entirely different on the spectrum. From memory you're centre-left liberal, while I'm right liberal.
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
I dont recall making any accusations or inferences about the complainant nor about the order of events in terms of whom they spoke to. My point was regarding the specific implication the feelings of disappointment of the complainant was relevant in any decision to name or not name the alleged perpetrator or suspend the whip.
It isnt. There are many possibilities they will be devastated by courses of action now which will nonetheless be reasonable. That sucks but the possibility is unfortunately high even when someone is guilty.
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
George Galloway’s support for Brexit was the tipping point for me in voting Remain.
If he is against Scottish independence, then it looks like @malcolmg and co are right.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
Was Elphicke suspended before or after he was publicly named?
Same time, IIRC.
Makes sense, once its public domain then there's no reason to protect his privacy anymore.
If the Police/CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge and name him, then suspend pending the outcome. If they decide there isn't and don't name him, he shouldn't be named.
It is sometimes surprising, Mr T, how often you and I, from wildly different parts of the political spectrum, agree on something!
I'm not sure we're entirely different on the spectrum. From memory you're centre-left liberal, while I'm right liberal.
Hmmm. Maybe. I suspect the Venn circles are more like elongated ovals!
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
George Galloway’s support for Brexit was the tipping point for me in voting Remain.
If he is against Scottish independence, then it looks like @malcolmg and co are right.
Quite astonishing that there are still remainers so deluded that they think that Brexit can be postponed. Does he not know that we have already left?
How does it feel?
runnin' around 'round 'round? How does it feel watchin' from upside down? 'Cause many years from now There will be new sensations and new temptations How does it feel? How does it feel right at the start? And how does it feel when you are thrown apart?
'Cause many years from now There will be new elations and new frustrations How does it feel?
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
If as I hope Labour gets a clear run in the central belt, the Tories a clear run in most of rural Scotland and the LDs a clear run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West at the Holyrood constituency level and all the Unionists vote for Unionist parties on the list, even Galloway's Unionist Alliance it might
The complainant is not the appropriate person to make a determination of whether a breach of the law can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard that must be met before the guilty can be fairly punished.
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work there
If he is indeed guilty of rape, then fairly punished will mean jail time.
But that is not the current point of debate.
The complainant thinks the Tory party did nothing, when she informed them originally. She thinks they did nothing when the story was reported. She thinks they did nothing when the MP was questioned by Police.
She is perhaps entitled to think they could have done more, at every stage.
She wants him to be publicly named.
That will lead to a lot of people thinking he is guilty of something regardless of any court process.
That sort of damage to his reputation is unjust unless there is sufficient evidence to charge/convict
Given the truly abysmal conviction rate for sexual offences I think she knows that it isn't going to get anywhere - so naming and shaming (resulting in other victims coming forward) is about as best as she can hope for.
As a general rule, the longer you wait to to go to the police and get a proper investigation started, the harder it will be to collect evidence of the quality and strength needed to secure a conviction. There may be good reasons for the delay in this case.
I have had cases at work where people have made allegations of sexual misbehaviour, usually off premises, sometimes months after the event, and we have always said that they must go to the police and that we cannot investigate such matters.
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
God I hope whoever the MP is is found not guilty. The desire to see him named, shamed and his life possibly ruined by people who have no idea whether he is guilty or not, and would normally perform miraculous contortions to say someone obviously guilty was innocent on a technicality, is a new low
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
If as I hope Labour gets a clear run in the central belt, the Tories a clear run in most of rural Scotland and the LDs a clear run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West at the Holyrood constituency level and all the Unionists vote for Unionist parties on the list, even Galloway's Unionist Alliance it might
On the 1st of each month I hope for some winnings from my Premium Bonds.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
The cynic in me asks - "Would the lawyers advising that you could win in court, be the lawyers who, charging by the hour, would be conducting the case?"
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
If as I hope Labour gets a clear run in the central belt, the Tories a clear run in most of rural Scotland and the LDs a clear run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West at the Holyrood constituency level and all the Unionists vote for Unionist parties on the list, even Galloway's Unionist Alliance it might
Hi Hyufd
Make sure that you send Rishi Sunak some of whatever you’re smoking.
Five ounces of that sold in the right market and he could clear the National Debt, which would be a big help.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
I don't know whats funnier. McCluskey complaining that Labour are wasting his money. Or the Labour MPs cheering on the idea that Unite will cut off funding to their own party. With the EHRC bomb about to detonate surely some of these nutjob MPs will not be under the Labour umbrella for much longer. A variety of pointless hard left vehicles are available to them to retire off to.
Keir Starmer would understand that no lawyer worth his or her salt would give this advice, especially in a case such as the one Labour was defending. Therefore, McCluskey is either lying or Labour's lawyers were so bad it was best to ignore them.
To be trivial, purely judging by appearance, which of them would you most like to meet socially? Rice by a clear margin for me - she looks clever and very un-superficial. But that may reflect the shiny-teeth image that campaign managers think US voters like - Rice is one of the few who hasn't stood for major office, so her photo won't be a publicity pic like many of the others.
On merit, I suspect it will be Harris in the end, just as seemed likely all along.
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
To take two of your points: publicly accusing someone of rape who has not already been charged is a quick route to court and a massive libel claim so I’d be amazed if she did.
On your last point, the commons has made all its MPs a special case if I’m reading this correctly:
Keir Starmer would understand that no lawyer worth his or her salt would give this advice, especially in a case such as the one Labour was defending. Therefore, McCluskey is either lying or Labour's lawyers were so bad it was best to ignore them.
False dichotomy.
Both are entirely possible. It could be that his personal solicitor thought they might win, while Labour’s actual lawyers took one look, soiled themselves and picked up the phone to discuss terms.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
The cynic in me asks - "Would the lawyers advising that you could win in court, be the lawyers who, charging by the hour, would be conducting the case?"
I certainly doubt they would be giving that advice on a "no win, no fee" basis!
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
The cynic in me asks - "Would the lawyers advising that you could win in court, be the lawyers who, charging by the hour, would be conducting the case?"
I would be very surprised if any competent experienced libel lawyer would give advice saying that the party “would” win such a case.
This strikes me as another bit of myth-making by those weaving their Corbyn-was-betrayed story.
Anyway I am sure Unite members would like to know why their money was wasted in Unite’s hopeless legal case against Anna Turley. What legal advice was given there and did Len and his chums follow it?
To be trivial, purely judging by appearance, which of them would you most like to meet socially? Rice by a clear margin for me - she looks clever and very un-superficial. But that may reflect the shiny-teeth image that campaign managers think US voters like - Rice is one of the few who hasn't stood for major office, so her photo won't be a publicity pic like many of the others.
On merit, I suspect it will be Harris in the end, just as seemed likely all along.
Duckworth would be the one I would love to see nominated, as your know Trump would end up saying something crass about disability.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
As I understand it rules/guidance was changed after the Cliff Richard case, which is why the media especially are being so circumspect now. So the government following new rules isn't a special case, its following the rules.
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
If as I hope Labour gets a clear run in the central belt, the Tories a clear run in most of rural Scotland and the LDs a clear run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West at the Holyrood constituency level and all the Unionists vote for Unionist parties on the list, even Galloway's Unionist Alliance it might
On the 1st of each month I hope for some winnings from my Premium Bonds.
Holyrood has PR, the main advantage the SNP has is the Unionist parties have split their vote at constituency level and not voted tactically on the list.
Remember in every Scottish election since 2014 bar 2015 the SNP have fallen below 50% of the vote, PR at Holyrood makes a Unionist majority of Scottish seats there possible in a way FPTP only at Westminster does not at present
So Soft Barely Brexit at all Ruth is back to lead the party into the election where the prospectus is All Hard Brexit All the Time?
It's a strategy I suppose.
The strategy is to get a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year and includes the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway in the stop the SNP tent
I was fine with the idea of troops in the street and arresting Sturgeon to keep Scotland part of the Union.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
George Galloway’s support for Brexit was the tipping point for me in voting Remain.
If he is against Scottish independence, then it looks like @malcolmg and co are right.
It’s worse. Michael Gove is also a Unionist.
What about Jeremy Clarkson? He was a remainer which nearly swung me back to Leave...
They would have to have already split for the scenario to work, otherwise they would just select a new PM and move on.
In reality Starmer PM and Hunt Deputy PM would be more likely with 100 Tory MPs voting with the opposition to extend the transition period but that is unlikely to happen
Possibly more likely though, than the Scottish 'Unionist" strategy working (the pro Brexit Tories, soft Brexit Labour and even the anti Brexit LDs and George Galloway)
If as I hope Labour gets a clear run in the central belt, the Tories a clear run in most of rural Scotland and the LDs a clear run in the Highlands, Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West at the Holyrood constituency level and all the Unionists vote for Unionist parties on the list, even Galloway's Unionist Alliance it might
On the 1st of each month I hope for some winnings from my Premium Bonds.
I assume you don’t have very many, as one of the features of Premium Bonds is that a lot of them win each month giving a reasonable rate of return, averaged over time.
Or at least that’s how it used to be. Given current interest rates that might not be true any more.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
As I understand it rules/guidance was changed after the Cliff Richard case, which is why the media especially are being so circumspect now. So the government following new rules isn't a special case, its following the rules.
For the general public though it looks like a cop out - why should a Tory MP be treated so differently to Cliff Richard...
Keir Starmer would understand that no lawyer worth his or her salt would give this advice, especially in a case such as the one Labour was defending. Therefore, McCluskey is either lying or Labour's lawyers were so bad it was best to ignore them.
False dichotomy.
Both are entirely possible. It could be that his personal solicitor thought they might win, while Labour’s actual lawyers took one look, soiled themselves and picked up the phone to discuss terms.
*giggles* love the "took one look, soiled themselves" comment. I took my boss's boss to HR at a previous employer (global blue chip). Talked HR Business Partner through what I had, he went ashen and started offering me options to avoid the £££ it was going to cost them if they didn't offer me suitable options.
Boss's boss was taken off for a reaming, I got a new reporting line and he left the business shortly afterwards as I believe a few other things were relayed to HR that also made them soil themselves...
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
Court cases are expensive, public, damaging and uncertain, which is why so few cases of any sort ever come to court. Similarly with industrial tribunals. At best, a load of mud is flung in public, some of which doesn’t stick. At worst, you lose and are left with huge costs, a ruined reputation and are a public laughing stock. In this case, it’s worse for Labour because even if they had won, the people who were suing had no assets to claim costs on. So actually, they would have been left with a load of egg on their faces, a ruined reputation and a huge legal bill EVEN IF THEY HAD WON. Keir Starmer is one of the most experienced and senior lawyers out there. He must have appreciated that, whereas Corbyn apparently only have felt furious that someone had dared to criticise him and his beloved Labour Party.
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
I dont say that happened but I can see it being plausible. Some victories can be very costly.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
As I understand it rules/guidance was changed after the Cliff Richard case, which is why the media especially are being so circumspect now. So the government following new rules isn't a special case, its following the rules.
For the general public though it looks like a cop out - why should a Tory MP be treated so differently to Cliff Richard...
So because something was done wrong in the past - and the rules/guidance were changed afterwards to prevent it happening again - we should now repeat the wrongs of the past?
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
They may also have been worried about the sort of evidence that would end up being aired in open court and thence to the papers.
Keir Starmer would understand that no lawyer worth his or her salt would give this advice, especially in a case such as the one Labour was defending. Therefore, McCluskey is either lying or Labour's lawyers were so bad it was best to ignore them.
False dichotomy.
Both are entirely possible. It could be that his personal solicitor thought they might win, while Labour’s actual lawyers took one look, soiled themselves and picked up the phone to discuss terms.
There is a very big difference between "might" and "will". McCluskey is claiming the advice was the latter. No decent lawyer would say that in a case such as the one Labour was facing.
No surprise there then. People really need to stop using the worldometers website. It only uses officially provided data which from a lot of countries is extremely suspect even including first world nations like Spain let alone those like Iran and Russia.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
Court cases are expensive, public, damaging and uncertain, which is why so few cases of any sort ever come to court. Similarly with industrial tribunals. At best, a load of mud is flung in public, some of which doesn’t stick. At worst, you lose and are left with huge costs, a ruined reputation and are a public laughing stock. In this case, it’s worse for Labour because even if they had won, the people who were suing had no assets to claim costs on. So actually, they would have been left with a load of egg on their faces, a ruined reputation and a huge legal bill EVEN IF THEY HAD WON. Keir Starmer is one of the most experienced and senior lawyers out there. He must have appreciated that, whereas Corbyn apparently only have felt furious that someone had dared to criticise him and his beloved Labour Party.
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
Can we win the case and is it worth trying to win the case are two different questions that people fail to see the nuance within.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
The cynic in me asks - "Would the lawyers advising that you could win in court, be the lawyers who, charging by the hour, would be conducting the case?"
I would be very surprised if any competent experienced libel lawyer would give advice saying that the party “would” win such a case.
This strikes me as another bit of myth-making by those weaving their Corbyn-was-betrayed story.
Anyway I am sure Unite members would like to know why their money was wasted in Unite’s hopeless legal case against Anna Turley. What legal advice was given there and did Len and his chums follow it?
I couldn’t remember which Union that was: that puts his statement in a whole new light.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
The rule of thumb is these parts is a cast-iron case is 70/30. The only time I have ever thought our odds were better than that was when the defendants didn't turn up...
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
They may also have been worried about the sort of evidence that would end up being aired in open court and thence to the papers.
Who remembers that McDonald's was awarded damages in the McLibel trial?
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
Court cases are expensive, public, damaging and uncertain, which is why so few cases of any sort ever come to court. Similarly with industrial tribunals. At best, a load of mud is flung in public, some of which doesn’t stick. At worst, you lose and are left with huge costs, a ruined reputation and are a public laughing stock. In this case, it’s worse for Labour because even if they had won, the people who were suing had no assets to claim costs on. So actually, they would have been left with a load of egg on their faces, a ruined reputation and a huge legal bill EVEN IF THEY HAD WON. Keir Starmer is one of the most experienced and senior lawyers out there. He must have appreciated that, whereas Corbyn apparently only have felt furious that someone had dared to criticise him and his beloved Labour Party.
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
Can we win the case and is it worth trying to win the case are two different questions that people fail to see the nuance within.
Yeah I can see how it would make Len and a lot of Lab/Corbyn types feel much better about life to think that of course they would have won the case but it simply wasn't worth trying.
No surprise there then. People really need to stop using the worldometers website. It only uses officially provided data which from a lot of countries is extremely suspect even including first world nations like Spain let alone those like Iran and Russia.
The last line of that report should read, ‘and while we’re about it, a bear has been found shitting in the woods.’
If anything, I’m surprised the figures aren’t considerably higher than that given the state of Iran’s health service and the bungling attempts at a cover up which means basic public health measures have been neglected. But of course they may be counting on a measure like Spain’s, which shows the deaths directly attributed to Covid-19.
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
As I understand it rules/guidance was changed after the Cliff Richard case, which is why the media especially are being so circumspect now. So the government following new rules isn't a special case, its following the rules.
For the general public though it looks like a cop out - why should a Tory MP be treated so differently to Cliff Richard...
So because something was done wrong in the past - and the rules/guidance were changed afterwards to prevent it happening again - we should now repeat the wrongs of the past?
Is that the logic?
Common sense, the general public and logic rarely go hand in hand. My entire point was that while the rules have changed, the public won't be aware of the fact so are probably seeing it more as one rule for Politicians another for harmless ancient Pop stars... See also Paul Gambaccini
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
They may also have been worried about the sort of evidence that would end up being aired in open court and thence to the papers.
Who remembers that McDonald's was awarded damages in the McLibel trial?
Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
I don't know that it is right, but the complainant feels that yet again the Tory party have taken no action, and she is presumably in no doubt at to his guilt
The feelings of complainants cannot be paramount when seeking justice. We've seen what happens when investigation is treated as though its therapy for people who have been or are alleged to be victims of crime.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
No, this will not do. For a start, he'd still be an MP even if the whip were withdrawn.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
As I understand it rules/guidance was changed after the Cliff Richard case, which is why the media especially are being so circumspect now. So the government following new rules isn't a special case, its following the rules.
For the general public though it looks like a cop out - why should a Tory MP be treated so differently to Cliff Richard...
Of course if someone like Cliff Richard were in the same situation now we would never know unless they were charged. So the MP is being treated differently as we have been told some details rather than none.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
Court cases are expensive, public, damaging and uncertain, which is why so few cases of any sort ever come to court. Similarly with industrial tribunals. At best, a load of mud is flung in public, some of which doesn’t stick. At worst, you lose and are left with huge costs, a ruined reputation and are a public laughing stock. In this case, it’s worse for Labour because even if they had won, the people who were suing had no assets to claim costs on. So actually, they would have been left with a load of egg on their faces, a ruined reputation and a huge legal bill EVEN IF THEY HAD WON. Keir Starmer is one of the most experienced and senior lawyers out there. He must have appreciated that, whereas Corbyn apparently only have felt furious that someone had dared to criticise him and his beloved Labour Party.
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
Can we win the case and is it worth trying to win the case are two different questions that people fail to see the nuance within.
Streisand Effect and 1 pound damages are a couple of things that spring to mind....
Keir Starmer would understand that no lawyer worth his or her salt would give this advice, especially in a case such as the one Labour was defending. Therefore, McCluskey is either lying or Labour's lawyers were so bad it was best to ignore them.
False dichotomy.
Both are entirely possible. It could be that his personal solicitor thought they might win, while Labour’s actual lawyers took one look, soiled themselves and picked up the phone to discuss terms.
There is a very big difference between "might" and "will". McCluskey is claiming the advice was the latter. No decent lawyer would say that in a case such as the one Labour was facing.
F1: odds too short for me but the Betfair exchange has Hamilton at 1.1 for the drivers' title. He has a 30 point lead over Bottas. The car is the class of the field by a distance. His odds should be around 1.01 or so.
Bottas is 12. You could theoretically back both to be green either way.
No surprise there then. People really need to stop using the worldometers website. It only uses officially provided data which from a lot of countries is extremely suspect even including first world nations like Spain let alone those like Iran and Russia.
The last line of that report should read, ‘and while we’re about it, a bear has been found shitting in the woods.’
If anything, I’m surprised the figures aren’t considerably higher than that given the state of Iran’s health service and the bungling attempts at a cover up which means basic public health measures have been neglected. But of course they may be counting on a measure like Spain’s, which shows the deaths directly attributed to Covid-19.
To be fair to worldometers, they have fixed many of the screwups in the gathering of data.
Actually lying by governments - by omission or commission - is almost impossible to deal with.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
They may also have been worried about the sort of evidence that would end up being aired in open court and thence to the papers.
Who remembers that McDonald's was awarded damages in the McLibel trial?
I do, although as I recall they were quite low.
I seem to remember the defendants were represented pro bono by a young radical lawyer. What was his name now? Something like Keith Tamer? Did he ever go on to other things? He may have lost the case but he made McDonalds look very stupid, so he must have had something going for him.
If they’re the same people that advised him on Turley v Unite and Walker, which cost his members a cool £2 million paying the damages and costs for a very wealthy businessman, I would treat their advice with some caution.
It's quite possible that the advice was correct, but Starmer felt that cutting our losses and moving on was better than a prolonged battle.
So the advice that Labour would win was correct but Starmer felt that he couldn't be bothered to go through with the rigmarole of a court case to confirm it.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
Court cases are expensive, public, damaging and uncertain, which is why so few cases of any sort ever come to court. Similarly with industrial tribunals. At best, a load of mud is flung in public, some of which doesn’t stick. At worst, you lose and are left with huge costs, a ruined reputation and are a public laughing stock. In this case, it’s worse for Labour because even if they had won, the people who were suing had no assets to claim costs on. So actually, they would have been left with a load of egg on their faces, a ruined reputation and a huge legal bill EVEN IF THEY HAD WON. Keir Starmer is one of the most experienced and senior lawyers out there. He must have appreciated that, whereas Corbyn apparently only have felt furious that someone had dared to criticise him and his beloved Labour Party.
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
Can we win the case and is it worth trying to win the case are two different questions that people fail to see the nuance within.
Yeah I can see how it would make Len and a lot of Lab/Corbyn types feel much better about life to think that of course they would have won the case but it simply wasn't worth trying.
I am expecting (without prejudice) that: 1. EHRC will say some very harsh things about the Labour Party that for some reason utterly contradicts the "He was framed" internal report out out by His friends 2. Labour will voluntarily pay £lots in damages to settle AS / Defamation / GDPR claims 3. Some loon (Corbyn?) will try to sue the Labour Party for defamation for its settlement of the other defamation suits
I cannot see how the various He was Framed MPs can stay in the party. We're heading towards two utterly contrasting versions of truth and reality. Actual demonstrable legal truth. And whatever demented shit comes out of the mouths of McCluskey/Bastani/Burgon et al.
How the hell could anybody of sound mind think that Donald "20,000 documented falsehoods" Trump is honest and trustworthy? He's literally one of the most dishonest people alive today. If lying was an Olympic event he'd be on the podium every time.
The complainant is not the appropriate person to make a determination of whether a breach of the law can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is the standard that must be met before the guilty can be fairly punished.
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work there
If he is indeed guilty of rape, then fairly punished will mean jail time.
But that is not the current point of debate.
The complainant thinks the Tory party did nothing, when she informed them originally. She thinks they did nothing when the story was reported. She thinks they did nothing when the MP was questioned by Police.
She is perhaps entitled to think they could have done more, at every stage.
She wants him to be publicly named.
That will lead to a lot of people thinking he is guilty of something regardless of any court process.
That sort of damage to his reputation is unjust unless there is sufficient evidence to charge/convict
Given the truly abysmal conviction rate for sexual offences I think she knows that it isn't going to get anywhere - so naming and shaming (resulting in other victims coming forward) is about as best as she can hope for.
So what are his rights?
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?
And note, I'm not saying that he should be named, what I'm saying is that this isn't going to go anywhere because I suspect while in all likelihood the guilt is there,the evidence isn't.
"while in all likelihood the guilt is there"
How do you know this?
Your reaction is why his name should not be made public.
We can't know for certain in an individual case, but given the statistics it is either the case that there are vast numbers of women fabricating claims of rape, or there are vast numbers of rapists escaping justice.
Comments
It is entirely possible and indeed probable that this man is guilty, and if he is he should be spending some significant time in prison.
But if he is not, there will always be those that claim he got off on a technicality and that he was really guilty.
It's a strategy I suppose.
However, the protestations on here about the innocence of someone they are supposed not to know the name of are odd.
On that basis one can understand why women don't bother to report sexual assaults. The allusion down thread by some people, implies the accuser to be a "bunny boiler".
If the Conservative Party are not revealing the name to protect the alleged victim, they should say so, and that is fine. It looks to all non- Conservative onlookers that the name remains secret to protect the accused. Another communications fail?
Obviously gentlemen over a certain age and with an impeccable history would be immune.
I very much hope if the complainant is truthful that her attacker gets a long prison sentence, but not suspending someone who is not even charged yet I find very hard to criticise even though of course the complainant is upset.
Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.
Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.
Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parliament-votes-keep-mps-arrests-7347827
I can’t see the date for this, though as Bercow was the speaker it must have been before the election.
I dont remember what happened with Evan either.
Please don't bring logic into this. Often it comes to one word against another, That's why the cases are often lost and why the CPS get complaints that the conviction rate is low. Mind you, they're complaining now they don't take enough cases, but I'm not sure how that will increase the rate.
But working with George Galloway to do so marks you out as the lowest of the low.
If the Police/CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge and name him, then suspend pending the outcome. If they decide there isn't and don't name him, he shouldn't be named.
Dorset Eye -
2nd August 2020
Tory chief whip and Jacob Rees Mogg ‘sat on Tory MP rape allegation for a month’ before police involved
Sky News understands the woman’s complaint was reported to a fellow MP.
It is claimed that some allegations were raised with the chief whip Mark Spencer and with Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons some weeks ago.
It has been reported that Mr Spencer had not known the “magnitude” of the allegations.
It’s understood Mr Spencer told the woman to make a formal complaint to parliamentary authorities, who would investigate.
She later went to police.
Tories were really thinking paramountly about the complainant for sure. Mr Spencer
seems not to have understand what "rape" is from above statement.
Second, the victim certainly knows who he is, so anyone claiming here that she is out for revenge must explain why she, the victim, has not publicly named him.
Third, it would be quite normal for the police to be the last resort after party and parliamentary authorities. Many rapes are not reported at all.
Fourth, the whip could have been withdrawn without fanfare when the complaints were first made. It is only now that this would be front-page news.
Fifth, the question of accused men's rights to anonymity comes up from time to time: see the Salmond, Cliff Richard and many other high-profile cases. The government should address this issue directly and not make one of its own MPs a special case.
'round
'round?
How does it feel watchin' from upside down?
'Cause many years from now
There will be new sensations and new temptations
How does it feel?
How does it feel right at the start?
And how does it feel when you are thrown apart?
'Cause many years from now
There will be new elations and new frustrations
How does it feel?
On your last point, the commons has made all its MPs a special case if I’m reading this correctly:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parliament-votes-keep-mps-arrests-7347827
Just finished reading his The Second Sleep which is somewhat scarily relevant for the current crisis.
I’m quite happy with the principle of a defendant’s anonymity. I can see the logic for naming after charge.
What isn’t good enough is saying it’s one rule for MPs and another for the rest of us.
If he is against Scottish independence, then it looks like @malcolmg and co are right.
It isnt. There are many possibilities they will be devastated by courses of action now which will nonetheless be reasonable. That sucks but the possibility is unfortunately high even when someone is guilty.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1290128533218447366?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1290128914233225220?s=20
I have had cases at work where people have made allegations of sexual misbehaviour, usually off premises, sometimes months after the event, and we have always said that they must go to the police and that we cannot investigate such matters.
Make sure that you send Rishi Sunak some of whatever you’re smoking.
Five ounces of that sold in the right market and he could clear the National Debt, which would be a big help.
On merit, I suspect it will be Harris in the end, just as seemed likely all along.
Both are entirely possible. It could be that his personal solicitor thought they might win, while Labour’s actual lawyers took one look, soiled themselves and picked up the phone to discuss terms.
Ookaaaaaaaaay
This strikes me as another bit of myth-making by those weaving their Corbyn-was-betrayed story.
Anyway I am sure Unite members would like to know why their money was wasted in Unite’s hopeless legal case against Anna Turley. What legal advice was given there and did Len and his chums follow it?
Remember in every Scottish election since 2014 bar 2015 the SNP have fallen below 50% of the vote, PR at Holyrood makes a Unionist majority of Scottish seats there possible in a way FPTP only at Westminster does not at present
Or at least that’s how it used to be. Given current interest rates that might not be true any more.
Boss's boss was taken off for a reaming, I got a new reporting line and he left the business shortly afterwards as I believe a few other things were relayed to HR that also made them soil themselves...
But the suggestion that lawyers told Labour they would win a case where they had accused a number of whistleblowers the party had unlawfully sacked of lying for political reasons about an issue which has seen a very large number of investigations all of which confirm the whistleblowers were correct, seems to me at best a stretch. You wonder a bit, if of course McCluskey is being honest, whether these lawyers had been hired for their legal training or their political tribalism.
Edit - should note @NickPalmer has a similar point rather more pithily.
Is that the logic?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53598965
No surprise there then. People really need to stop using the worldometers website. It only uses officially provided data which from a lot of countries is extremely suspect even including first world nations like Spain let alone those like Iran and Russia.
If anything, I’m surprised the figures aren’t considerably higher than that given the state of Iran’s health service and the bungling attempts at a cover up which means basic public health measures have been neglected. But of course they may be counting on a measure like Spain’s, which shows the deaths directly attributed to Covid-19.
F1: odds too short for me but the Betfair exchange has Hamilton at 1.1 for the drivers' title. He has a 30 point lead over Bottas. The car is the class of the field by a distance. His odds should be around 1.01 or so.
Bottas is 12. You could theoretically back both to be green either way.
Actually lying by governments - by omission or commission - is almost impossible to deal with.
I seem to remember the defendants were represented pro bono by a young radical lawyer. What was his name now? Something like Keith Tamer? Did he ever go on to other things? He may have lost the case but he made McDonalds look very stupid, so he must have had something going for him.
1. EHRC will say some very harsh things about the Labour Party that for some reason utterly contradicts the "He was framed" internal report out out by His friends
2. Labour will voluntarily pay £lots in damages to settle AS / Defamation / GDPR claims
3. Some loon (Corbyn?) will try to sue the Labour Party for defamation for its settlement of the other defamation suits
I cannot see how the various He was Framed MPs can stay in the party. We're heading towards two utterly contrasting versions of truth and reality. Actual demonstrable legal truth. And whatever demented shit comes out of the mouths of McCluskey/Bastani/Burgon et al.
Which do you think it is?