Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Team Biden now says he won’t be announcing his VP choice until

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,107
    First!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    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
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    edited August 2020
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    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.

    Quite; how does The Times know who she is? Unless she has contacted them.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Scott_xP said:
    And then reinstated for the confidence vote!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited August 2020
    Scott_xP said:
    Although apparently in banking he would be allowed to continue working as long as he didn’t talk to the complainant.

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Scott_xP said:
    Removing the whip would not impact this MPs job.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    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.

    The Times already knew who she was.

    i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    The Times already knew who she was.

    i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
    Well giving them a quote was unwise, I would suggest.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    They reported her story last week, before the arrest.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    A fantasy scenario.

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    Charles said:

    Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?
    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'.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    Charles 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?

    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    She's the Queen, for goodness sake, what do you expect?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    It’s a party matter / employee matter / embarrass the politician / criminal matter?

    What’s interesting for me is that Spencer didn’t originally realise it was a sexual assault that was being reported to him
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    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.

    We don't know that's what happened.

    She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    Charles said:

    What’s interesting for me is that Spencer didn’t originally realise it was a sexual assault that was being reported to him

    That's his claim, anyway.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    Seems like it. TBH one would have thought the police would have have advised her to keep schtum, for fear of prejudicing any case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
    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.

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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?

    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 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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    Scott_xP said:

    Charles said:

    What’s interesting for me is that Spencer didn’t originally realise it was a sexual assault that was being reported to him

    That's his claim, anyway.
    Well, if he was alone when he spoke to her, he's 'somewhat foolish'!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    rcs1000 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?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Scott_xP said:

    Charles said:

    What’s interesting for me is that Spencer didn’t originally realise it was a sexual assault that was being reported to him

    That's his claim, anyway.
    Well, that is plausible TBF. He is thick as pigshit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    We don't know that's what happened.

    She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.
    She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.

    There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    edited August 2020
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    We don't know that's what happened.

    She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.
    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_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    Sandpit said:

    She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.

    Rees Mogg as Leader of the House
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.

    Rees Mogg as Leader of the House
    He is a Tory MP, a government minister.

    The Parliamentary authorities, her employers, are the Speaker and his staff.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.

    There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
    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.

    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.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP 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.
    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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
  • Sandpit said:

    Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

    A bit like what happened to Nigel Evans, until they all admitted they were lying
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.

    There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
    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.

    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.
    Any decision to charge or not will take a lot longer than the next few weeks.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
    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.

    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.
    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.

    There have been long debates about whether accused rapists should have anonymity until *conviction*. This is an extension of that principle
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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 thing
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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?
  • ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    It looks like his constituency party is backing him 100% but his constituency has not been revealed
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 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?
    It's a point both hardcore leavers and hardcore remainers don't seem to have grasped
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Sandpit said:

    Biden’s just teasing us, it’s going to end up being some middle-aged white guy.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,737
    edited August 2020
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 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?
    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.

    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Charles said:

    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
    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.
    bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
    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.
    bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
    The Commons is in recess so few people will be in the HoC..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
    It looks like his constituency party is backing him 100% but his constituency has not been revealed
    They are Tories G , typical Tory party attitude. His chums will look after him, he will be a good egg for sure.
  • malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
    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.
    bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
    How would removing the whip change that?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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
    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?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,611
    edited August 2020
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Charles said:

    Robert Harris is a fiction writer no?
    His research is shit. He seems not to know that Brexit has already happened.

    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


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    edited August 2020
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    The Times already knew who she was.

    i expect they called her for a quote after the events of yesterday
    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
    Nor is it malcs - see Salmond for details...
  • malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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?
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    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?
    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.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    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 do not know who the Conservative is in these allegations

    I think we all need to be very careful in our comments on this subject
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    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.

    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
    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.
    bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
    How would removing the whip change that?
    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

    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.

    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.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,650
    On topic. That's quite a harem ready to serve under Joe.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    edited August 2020

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
    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.

    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,224
    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.

    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.

    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.
    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.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    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

    So she wants him to be named and shamed before the police/CPS have determined whether the evidence is sufficient to charge him?
    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.
    bet there was plenty of chumocracy over the weekend.
    How would removing the whip change that?
    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.
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    edited August 2020

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    How did the Times know who she was?

    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
    How can generalised comments about an invisible imaginary person cause any problems.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,914
    edited August 2020



    I am far more concerned that some comments on here will cause concern for our moderators

    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.
  • Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    We don't know that's what happened.

    She works in Parliament. She went to Parliamentary authorities before the police. We don't know who told The Times about it.
    She didn't go to the Parliamentary authorities, she went to the Party authorities.
    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
    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.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    edited August 2020

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Charles 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.

    "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.
This discussion has been closed.