politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Team Biden now says he won’t be announcing his VP choice until
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Team Biden now says he won’t be announcing his VP choice until just before the convention
The screengrab from CBS news above includes just about all the women who have been been linked with being Joe Biden’s running mate for the November 3rd presidential election.
0
Comments
-
First!0
-
The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x0 -
Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.0
-
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x3 -
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.2
-
Good morning everyone. By no means as summery in this part of Essex this morning. Hope others are doing better.
As far as Mr P's comment is concerned, it's fortunate for the Tories that Parliament isn't sitting, although of course, that may not be coincidental. We won't know which 'senior Conservative MP' is keeping his head well down, whereas if Parliament were sitting someone doing so would, even under Covid, be more easily identifiable.0 -
Quite; how does The Times know who she is? Unless she has contacted them.Sandpit said: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.
1 -
-
-
Should he no longer work as an MP?Scott_xP said:0 -
And then reinstated for the confidence vote!Scott_xP said:0 -
Although apparently in banking he would be allowed to continue working as long as he didn’t talk to the complainant.Scott_xP said:
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.2 -
Removing the whip would not impact this MPs job.Scott_xP said:0 -
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday0 -
Well giving them a quote was unwise, I would suggest.Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday2 -
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
How did the Times know who she was?3 -
0
-
He is not an employee he's an office holder, and it's the same office with the same duties attached whether he has the whip or not. This is basic stuff.Scott_xP said:5 -
Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?Big_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=090 -
A fantasy scenario.Big_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=09
But if a GNU is former, top trolling would be to offer first refusal of PM’s role to Theresa May.
After all, she has the second highest vote share of any PM since 1997, and even more amazingly, she is such a brilliant campaigner she even managed to push a complete loser like Corbyn to over 12 million votes.
She is therefore the most successful leader of both the Tories and Labour for the last 50 years.0 -
TBH, I don't think that PM Johnson's sense of responsibility is such that he would resign if the economy tanked under his 'leadership'.Charles said:
Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?Big_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=09
0 -
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.1 -
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 guiltCharles said:Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
0 -
NoBig_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=091 -
She's the Queen, for goodness sake, what do you expect?ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.1 -
It’s a party matter / employee matter / embarrass the politician / criminal matter?ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
What’s interesting for me is that Spencer didn’t originally realise it was a sexual assault that was being reported to him1 -
We don't know that's what happened.ydoethur said: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.
She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.0 -
It may be as simple as a woman badly wronged trying to strike back at the man who wronged her. If she is someone from inside the Westminster bubble then this would make more sense to her than it would for a normal member of the public.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.3 -
Seems like it. TBH one would have thought the police would have have advised her to keep schtum, for fear of prejudicing any case.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
0 -
Well, at this point it’s worth pointing out he hasn’t. Several names are being bandied about on Twitter as suspects, one more often than the others, which tells me that whatever Dura Ace thinks nobody aside from the police, the party leadership, the complainant and apparently the Times, actually knows who it is yet.Charles said:
But the instant he *is* named, the stream of innuendo that’s been coming out is going to make a fair trial very hard indeed. It’s not impossible the CPS will decide there’s insufficient prospect of a conviction to pursue charges on this basis.
That however is separate from the fact that the whip should have been suspended while a police investigation is underway. As it was with Elphicke, for example. Unfortunately, the failure to do so, even symbolically (which is all it would be at this moment given Parliament is in recess and there is therefore no need to name the MP concerned) has now led the story to snowball.
At this moment, as an outsider looking in, I would say the whole thing has been grossly mishandled by just about everybody.1 -
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.1 -
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.Scott_xP said:
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 guiltCharles said:Why is it right that this MP should be publicly shamed before the police have determined whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him?
0 -
-
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?rcs1000 said:
NoBig_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=090 -
She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.Scott_xP said:
We don't know that's what happened.ydoethur said: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.
She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.
0 -
The problem is suspension of the whip would inevitably lead to identification of the MP. Then the “no smoke without fire” brigade would roll into action.ydoethur said:
Well, at this point it’s worth pointing out he hasn’t. Several names are being bandied about on Twitter as suspects, one more often than the others, which tells me that whatever Dura Ace thinks nobody aside from the police, the party leadership, the complainant and apparently the Times, actually knows who it is yet.Charles said:
But the instant he *is* named, the stream of innuendo that’s been coming out is going to make a fair trial very hard indeed. It’s not impossible the CPS will decide there’s insufficient prospect of a conviction to pursue charges on this basis.
That however is separate from the fact that the whip should have been suspended while a police investigation is underway. As it was with Elphicke, for example. Unfortunately, the failure to do so, even symbolically (which is all it would be at this moment given Parliament is in recess and there is therefore no need to name the MP concerned) has now led the story to snowball.
At this moment, as an outsider looking in, I would say the whole thing has been grossly mishandled by just about everybody.
There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle2 -
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.1 -
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.0 -
She has claimed she has been raped. Surely if that is the case you go to the police and do not keep talking to the press.Scott_xP said:
We don't know that's what happened.ydoethur said: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.
She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.1 -
There I disagree entirely. All that is needed at this time is a statement in a letter to the MP that the whip will not be in place when Parliament returns. There is no need to publish a list until that time because it doesn’t need to be updated until a vote, by which time the police will very likely have sent a file to the CPS.Charles said:
The problem is suspension of the whip would inevitably lead to identification of the MP. Then the “no smoke without fire” brigade would roll into action.ydoethur said:
Well, at this point it’s worth pointing out he hasn’t. Several names are being bandied about on Twitter as suspects, one more often than the others, which tells me that whatever Dura Ace thinks nobody aside from the police, the party leadership, the complainant and apparently the Times, actually knows who it is yet.Charles said:
But the instant he *is* named, the stream of innuendo that’s been coming out is going to make a fair trial very hard indeed. It’s not impossible the CPS will decide there’s insufficient prospect of a conviction to pursue charges on this basis.
That however is separate from the fact that the whip should have been suspended while a police investigation is underway. As it was with Elphicke, for example. Unfortunately, the failure to do so, even symbolically (which is all it would be at this moment given Parliament is in recess and there is therefore no need to name the MP concerned) has now led the story to snowball.
At this moment, as an outsider looking in, I would say the whole thing has been grossly mishandled by just about everybody.
There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
What failing to suspend the whip has done is made sure there is a nice juicy hook for the papers to hang a story on, and that’s one of the reasons things are spiralling damagingly out of control.1 -
Yes, he would remain an MP even after the whip had been withdrawn. He'd still be better off than in most professions where he would be suspended on full pay and left to fester at home.IshmaelZ said:
He is not an employee he's an office holder, and it's the same office with the same duties attached whether he has the whip or not. This is basic stuff.Scott_xP said:0 -
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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/convict2 -
That is the risk. That Biden has dragged out this very public search for so long that he disappoints or even offends the supporters of candidates not chosen, which by definition will be most of them.Sandpit said:Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.
1 -
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
0 -
A bit like what happened to Nigel Evans, until they all admitted they were lyingeek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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/convict3 -
Any decision to charge or not will take a lot longer than the next few weeks.ydoethur said:
There I disagree entirely. All that is needed at this time is a statement in a letter to the MP that the whip will not be in place when Parliament returns. There is no need to publish a list until that time because it doesn’t need to be updated until a vote, by which time the police will very likely have sent a file to the CPS.Charles said:
The problem is suspension of the whip would inevitably lead to identification of the MP. Then the “no smoke without fire” brigade would roll into action.ydoethur said:
Well, at this point it’s worth pointing out he hasn’t. Several names are being bandied about on Twitter as suspects, one more often than the others, which tells me that whatever Dura Ace thinks nobody aside from the police, the party leadership, the complainant and apparently the Times, actually knows who it is yet.Charles said:
But the instant he *is* named, the stream of innuendo that’s been coming out is going to make a fair trial very hard indeed. It’s not impossible the CPS will decide there’s insufficient prospect of a conviction to pursue charges on this basis.
That however is separate from the fact that the whip should have been suspended while a police investigation is underway. As it was with Elphicke, for example. Unfortunately, the failure to do so, even symbolically (which is all it would be at this moment given Parliament is in recess and there is therefore no need to name the MP concerned) has now led the story to snowball.
At this moment, as an outsider looking in, I would say the whole thing has been grossly mishandled by just about everybody.
There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
What failing to suspend the whip has done is made sure there is a nice juicy hook for the papers to hang a story on, and that’s one of the reasons things are spiralling damagingly out of control.0 -
Parliament returns on Sept 1. There’s no certainty (in fact I’d have thought it unlikely) that the police investigation will be done by then.ydoethur said:
There I disagree entirely. All that is needed at this time is a statement in a letter to the MP that the whip will not be in place when Parliament returns. There is no need to publish a list until that time because it doesn’t need to be updated until a vote, by which time the police will very likely have sent a file to the CPS.Charles said:
The problem is suspension of the whip would inevitably lead to identification of the MP. Then the “no smoke without fire” brigade would roll into action.ydoethur said:
Well, at this point it’s worth pointing out he hasn’t. Several names are being bandied about on Twitter as suspects, one more often than the others, which tells me that whatever Dura Ace thinks nobody aside from the police, the party leadership, the complainant and apparently the Times, actually knows who it is yet.Charles said:
But the instant he *is* named, the stream of innuendo that’s been coming out is going to make a fair trial very hard indeed. It’s not impossible the CPS will decide there’s insufficient prospect of a conviction to pursue charges on this basis.
That however is separate from the fact that the whip should have been suspended while a police investigation is underway. As it was with Elphicke, for example. Unfortunately, the failure to do so, even symbolically (which is all it would be at this moment given Parliament is in recess and there is therefore no need to name the MP concerned) has now led the story to snowball.
At this moment, as an outsider looking in, I would say the whole thing has been grossly mishandled by just about everybody.
There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
What failing to suspend the whip has done is made sure there is a nice juicy hook for the papers to hang a story on, and that’s one of the reasons things are spiralling damagingly out of control.
I agree it’s damaging to the Tory Party not to have suspended the whip. I’m impressed they’ve chosen to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing2 -
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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/convict1 -
It looks like his constituency party is backing him 100% but his constituency has not been revealedydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.0 -
It's a point both hardcore leavers and hardcore remainers don't seem to have graspedDavidL said:
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?rcs1000 said:
NoBig_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=091 -
If you're going to make such a high-profile search like this, you'd expect to see a more formal process in place for it. A long list in June, a short list in July and the nomination in August, with time for interviews and research between stages.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That is the risk. That Biden has dragged out this very public search for so long that he disappoints or even offends the supporters of candidates not chosen, which by definition will be most of them.Sandpit said:Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.
That way it would be down to only a handful by now, and he wouldn't be about to upset most of his party so close to the convention.0 -
Ah but there is still scope for the end of the transition period to be fudged, and I dare say room for that nice Mr Farage to complain in January that Boris has sold out to Brussels. This may be why Boris has packed the Cabinet with prominent Leave MPs, to keep them inside the tent or, to change metaphors midstream, as human shields.DavidL said:
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?rcs1000 said:
NoBig_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=09
It is ironic that for years we placed our hopes on German car makers pressuring their government to accommodate Boris, but forgot about British industry calling for a deal.0 -
meanwhile he is allowed to remain at work and be able to bump into her etc. Are you stupid or something , she does not want to be within miles of the creep again.Charles said:
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x
bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.0 -
The Commons is in recess so few people will be in the HoC..malcolmg said:
meanwhile he is allowed to remain at work and be able to bump into her etc. Are you stupid or something , she does not want to be within miles of the creep again.Charles said:
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x
bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.1 -
They are Tories G , typical Tory party attitude. His chums will look after him, he will be a good egg for sure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It looks like his constituency party is backing him 100% but his constituency has not been revealedydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.0 -
How would removing the whip change that?malcolmg said:
meanwhile he is allowed to remain at work and be able to bump into her etc. Are you stupid or something , she does not want to be within miles of the creep again.Charles said:
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x
bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.0 -
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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/convict0 -
Imagine if you got accused of rape and you had not done it and your name was all over the papers. Would you think that was ok then?malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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/convict1 -
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.1 -
Pathetic jessie boy cretin , next he will be telling us bears crap in the woods. if his spine was any bendier he would be a spring. Ruth's useful idiot for when she takes the hapless Jack's Governor General of the colony job over.Scott_xP said:0 -
Everyone knows who the rapey tory is so it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of potential victims.ydoethur said:
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
How did the Times know who she was?-1 -
His research is shit. He seems not to know that Brexit has already happened.Charles said:
Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?Big_G_NorthWales said:Adam Boulton retweets
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1289921418109440002?s=09
There is a route to a possible GNU, but it ain' through Brexit:
The 2nd spike is really serious
The economy tanks even more badly
One section of society gets the blame for that second spike/tanked economy
People start getting burned out their homes
Police/army are barely able to restore order
0 -
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.0 -
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.
0 -
Yet unlie other criminals the London press have not issued any details of who he is, bit of nobbling and favours being called in methinks. If it had been any other party it would have been front page of every London rag.Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday0 -
Nor is it malcs - see Salmond for details...Fysics_Teacher said:
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.1 -
I suspect you think the Tory bit is enough for a conviction in its own right.malcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.
Did the Alex Salmond trial teach you nothing?1 -
"while in all likelihood the guilt is there"eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.
How do you know this?
Your reaction is why his name should not be made public.0 -
They are all joined at the hip with the crooks running the country, they all mix together and will be passing tittle tattle. Some gets swept under the rug mind you as we see.ydoethur said:
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
How did the Times know who she was?0 -
Unite again threatening to withdraw funds from Labour. That would be extremely problematic for them with the Scottish GE just round the corner. With Leonard as their candidate for FM they will not be getting private donations or new member fees, so union money even more import than usual.1
-
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.malcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.1 -
I do not know who the Conservative is in these allegationsDura_Ace said:
Everyone knows who the rapey tory is so it wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of potential victims.ydoethur said:
Then she should have replied, ‘no comment.’Scott_xP said:
The Times already knew who she was.ydoethur said: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.
i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
How did the Times know who she was?
I think we all need to be very careful in our comments on this subject1 -
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.OldKingCole said:
Quite; how does The Times know who she is? Unless she has contacted them.Sandpit said: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.
0 -
He wasn't a big shot though.Scott_xP said:0 -
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.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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 he goes to court, regardless of the outcome, he will suffer reputational damage.1 -
I am far more concerned that some comments on here will cause concern for our moderatorsmalcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.1 -
It would at least show they are taking it seriously and as no-one there they don't even need to name the perpetrator, at least shows they have some moral fibre and have some care for their low end workers.Fysics_Teacher said:
How would removing the whip change that?malcolmg said:
meanwhile he is allowed to remain at work and be able to bump into her etc. Are you stupid or something , she does not want to be within miles of the creep again.Charles said:
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x
bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.0 -
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.Fysics_Teacher said:
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.
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.0 -
In law, as I understand it, your first question contains a contradiction: if there is not enough evidence to convict then he is innocent, no guilty.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.
The fact that it is one person’s word against another is why it is so hard to get convictions: proving two people had sex is not usually enough so physical evidence may not help.
We also have had a significant number of high profile victims of false accusations in the past few years, so when you talk about the victim’s rights don’t forget that in a rape case the accused may turn out to be the victim as well. Just ask Alex Salmond.2 -
On topic. That's quite a harem ready to serve under Joe.0
-
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.Fysics_Teacher said:
I suspect you think the Tory bit is enough for a conviction in its own right.malcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.
Did the Alex Salmond trial teach you nothing?
She has no hope of getting justice.0 -
My comment was to the question why would she want the person to be named and my starting point was that the success rate for sexual crime convictions is stupidly low when compared to accusations. It's so bad that even the Home Office are concerned about it. I also suspect that by going round the houses before talking to the police in all likelihood any evidence has disappeared.NerysHughes said:
"while in all likelihood the guilt is there"eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.
How do you know this?
Your reaction is why his name should not be made public.
The thing is that neither option of (anonymity or naming) of sexual assault defendants is great, one protects people from unfair accusations at the risk of missing other victims, the other as you state results in guilt (by as a very minimum) association
But if you had read my posts I don't think I've even said anything about whether the MP should be named, just gave reasons why the victim would want him to be.
0 -
The Guardian appears to know who he is, but sensibly isn't saying.Charles said:
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.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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 he goes to court, regardless of the outcome, he will suffer reputational damage.0 -
It is all being tidied up as we speak, the msm has been told it is a no no to print. She has no chance. Bet it is insufficient evidence, nothing to see move along.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.0 -
Scared to say Ross hits backScott_xP said:0 -
It's slimy old men like Alex Salmond who are the issue here - while it's perfectly possibly to argue that it was consensual, it's equally possible that that consensual act was an abuse of power.Fysics_Teacher said:
In law, as I understand it, your first question contains a contradiction: if there is not enough evidence to convict then he is innocent, no guilty.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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.
The fact that it is one person’s word against another is why it is so hard to get convictions: proving two people had sex is not usually enough so physical evidence may not help.
We also have had a significant number of high profile victims of false accusations in the past few years, so when you talk about the victim’s rights don’t forget that in a rape case the accused may turn out to be the victim as well. Just ask Alex Salmond.1 -
malcolmg said:
It would at least show they are taking it seriously and as no-one there they don't even need to name the perpetrator, at least shows they have some moral fibre and have some care for their low end workers.Fysics_Teacher said:
How would removing the whip change that?malcolmg said:
meanwhile he is allowed to remain at work and be able to bump into her etc. Are you stupid or something , she does not want to be within miles of the creep again.Charles said:
So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?Scott_xP said:The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tory-mp-will-not-be-suspended-over-rape-allegation-85g652l6x
bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
97%? No. But equally well there are some small percentage who do, and there have been a number of high profile examples recently.malcolmg said:
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.Fysics_Teacher said:
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.
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.
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.0 -
How can generalised comments about an invisible imaginary person cause any problems.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am far more concerned that some comments on here will cause concern for our moderatorsmalcolmg said:
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.Charles said:
Sarah Keays?Sandpit said:
There's definitely an uneasy feeling about it. One gets the impression that there's a big detail missing that changes the story completely.ydoethur said:
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.Scott_xP said:
They reported her story last week, before the arrest.ydoethur said:How did the Times know who she was?
Somebody is at the very least being very, very badly advised here.
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.
0 -
Why? Nobody has identified him or even hinted at it. Discussing subjects that are politically troubling for the tory party isn't yet a crime although I'm sure the Johnson/Cummings/Gove triumvirate are working on it.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am far more concerned that some comments on here will cause concern for our moderators0 -
My understanding from the news items last night was she did both. Party authorities first and then on their recommendation reported it to the Parliamentary authorities and the police.Sandpit said:
She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.Scott_xP said:
We don't know that's what happened.ydoethur said: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.
She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.1 -
OKC , all the London press, the hangers on and Westminster crowd will know well who it is. I would not bet on who comes out of it worst.OldKingCole said:
The Guardian appears to know who he is, but sensibly isn't saying.Charles said:
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.eek said:
Assuming he is guilty but there isn't enough evidence as its one person's word against another, what are the victims rights?Charles said:
So what are his rights?eek said:
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.Charles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
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 he goes to court, regardless of the outcome, he will suffer reputational damage.1 -
At the moment it's easy as Parliament isn't in session for a month and won't be voting.Fysics_Teacher said:
97%? No. But equally well there are some small percentage who do, and there have been a number of high profile examples recently.malcolmg said:
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.Fysics_Teacher said:
Quite. “We all know anyone accused of rape must be guilty.“malcolmg said:
Tories circling the wagonsCharles said:
She wants him to be publicly named.Scott_xP said:
"fairly punished" is doing a lot of work thereCharles said: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.
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.
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
Is that your argument?
Edit: the above is not a quotation, but nor is it my opinion, just to be clear.
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.
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.
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.1
This discussion has been closed.