# Westminster sexual abuse scandals



## J Ed (Oct 28, 2017)

First stories beginning to break, has the potential to go on for a long time I suspect. Here are the first...








Brexit Minister Mark Garnier sent his PA to buy sex toys | Daily Mail Online



> *International Trade Minister Mark Garnier allegedly called an aide ‘sugar t*ts’*
> 
> *She said he gave her cash to buy two vibrators at a sex shop in Soho*


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 28, 2017)

This is so depressing and utterly unsurprising. Urgh.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 28, 2017)

Stephen Crabb sent young woman sexually explicit messages after rejecting her application for role in his office



> A married former cabinet minister sent a young woman sexually explicit messages after rejecting her application for a junior role in his parliamentary office, a _Telegraph _investigation can disclose.
> 
> 
> Stephen Crabb, a devout Christian who stood for the Conservative leadership last year, admitted saying "some pretty outrageous things" to the woman after interviewing her for a job, and that the messages "basically amount to unfaithfulness".
> ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 28, 2017)

Numerous editors right now trying to work out the angle which makes it Corbyn's fault.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 29, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

They'll have to be forced out


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> They'll have to be dragged out



FIFY.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 29, 2017)

Tory MP 'admits making aide buy sex toys'


----------



## Fingers (Oct 29, 2017)

Can the Tories not go more than one day without walking into a catastrophe?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Can the Tories not go more than one day without walking into a catastrophe?


Yes

But you don't want to see the scale of catastrophe that would produce


----------



## Borp (Oct 29, 2017)

Stephen crabb's got to go surely. That's the second time he's done this.
His constituency could well go labour in a by-election (bye election). It's currently 43% to 42% con to labour.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2017)

Fingers said:


>



If Corbyn has anything about him he will take action about the Labour names on that list.  Almost certainly stuff he heard before and hasn't done anything about and won't change the atmosphere at Westminster in itself - and while I'm at it, I'm no cheer leader for Corbyn/Momentum et al anyway.  But, as a decision, something he is faced with here and now, he should act - just as a bit of common decency.  'Acting' probably means suspension pending an inquiry and then expulsion depending on the results of the inquiry.

p.s. I know Labour suspended O'mara, just hope they also do so with regard to what are probably more senior/longstanding MPS.


----------



## The Fornicator (Oct 29, 2017)

I do hope this also results in no more Theresa May cleavage. Carry on like this and Boris Johnson will be parading around with a cod piece. All very, very peculiar.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> I do hope this also results in no more Theresa May cleavage. Carry on like this and Boris Johnson will be parading around with a cod piece. All very, very peculiar.


eh?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> I do hope this also results in no more Theresa May cleavage. Carry on like this and Boris Johnson will be parading around with a cod piece. All very, very peculiar.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 29, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> I do hope this also results in no more Theresa May cleavage. Carry on like this and Boris Johnson will be parading around with a cod piece. All very, very peculiar.


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If Corbyn has anything about him he will take action about the Labour names on that list.  Almost certainly stuff he heard before and hasn't done anything about and won't change the atmosphere at Westminster in itself - and while I'm at it, I'm no cheer leader for Corbyn/Momentum et al anyway.  But, as a decision, something he is faced with here and now, he should act - just as a bit of common decency.  'Acting' probably means suspension pending an inquiry and then expulsion depending on the results of the inquiry.
> 
> p.s. I know Labour suspended O'mara, just hope they also do so with regard to what are probably more senior/longstanding MPS.



The problem is how comprehensive the list is - I mean, there is at least one fairly senior Labour MP and ex-minister who has done exactly this sort of thing (as well as having rumours swirl about him being not safe in cabs) and yet there isn't a peep out of the press or his colleagues so far this week, something that is perhaps not unconnected to his anti-Corbyn stance.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> Tory MP 'admits making aide buy sex toys'



and will the slimy git try to claim them on expenses?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2017)

I may be wrong and I dont follow this stuff in fine detail these days:

I suspect a significant dynamic is that Labour sex-pesting needs to be weaponised to the max, shouted about for days or even weeks...demand this and demand that...isn't Corbyn awful.

Tory transgressions, well it's awful isn't it but the narrative can be moved along after a day or 2

It's a similar dynamic to the anti-semitism thing. It's not the bigotry that's really the issue as far as "news" media and the establishment are concerned, but the colour of the alleged bigots rosette. Tories are allowed to be hateful shits. There is an argument that Labour are meant to behave better, that the hypocrisy is thus greater, but that's not really the point either.

The point is that victims are to be used as pawns, and outrage to be staged or mitigated as necessary


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> The problem is how comprehensive the list is - I mean, there is at least one fairly senior Labour MP and ex-minister who has done exactly this sort of thing (as well as having rumours swirl about him being not safe in cabs) and yet there isn't a peep out of the press or his colleagues so far this week, something that is perhaps not unconnected to his anti-Corbyn stance.


I agree with, but sort of think Corbyn shouldn't make it look like _he does_, iyswim.  He should go in go in hard whenever plausible complaint are made about a Labour MP/official. As part of such a zero tolerance approach he could no doubt make sure that cases such as the one you mention are raised.  Suppose I'm saying it's a good look to go with this wherever it takes the party and whoever gets the whip withdrawn (and, more importantly, the right thing to do).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2017)

Borp said:


> Stephen crabb's got to go surely. That's the second time he's done this.
> His constituency could well go labour in a by-election (bye election). It's currently 43% to 42% con to labour.



From his point of view why would he or should he though?

Front it out for £80k+ extras, gravy and ego boosts or chuck it all in for the sake of principles that he probably never had?


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 29, 2017)

The issue here is 'law'. Of the allegations made, how many of the alleged suspects have actually committed an offence?


----------



## existentialist (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The issue here is 'law'. Of the allegations made, how many of the alleged suspects have actually committed an offence?


Who says the issue is merely "law"?

It's not against the law to abuse one's position (unless you're in a "position of trust", a legal definition that conveniently excludes MPs) to pressure people for sex, but I'm not convinced that makes it OK.

The fact that you appear to speaks volumes...


----------



## existentialist (Oct 29, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> From his point of view why would he or should he though?
> 
> Front it out for £80k+ extras, gravy and ego boosts or chuck it all in for the sake of principles that he probably never had?


A great deal of effort is going in locally to making sure that he doesn't have to chuck it in


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The issue here is 'law'. Of the allegations made, how many of the alleged suspects have actually committed an offence?



No it isn't.  The issue is whether or not Westminster should held to the same standards of behaviour as Westminster has required business and the public sector to be held to, especially with regards to relations between senior and junior colleagues and vulnerable people who seek assistance from those in power / with power over them.


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I agree with, but sort of think Corbyn shouldn't make it look like _he does_, iyswim.  He should go in go in hard whenever plausible complaint are made about a Labour MP/official. As part of such a zero tolerance approach he could no doubt make sure that cases such as the one you mention are raised.  Suppose I'm saying it's a good look to go with this wherever it takes the party and whoever gets the whip withdrawn (and, more importantly, the right thing to do).



He should, but unless its a universal thing (and it needs to be given that some of his critics are the very people who allowed the badness to flourish) then it will be just used as a stick to beat him with.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> No it isn't.  The issue is whether or not Westminster should held to the same standards of behaviour as Westminster has required business and the public sector to be held to, especially with regards to relations between senior and junior colleagues and vulnerable people who seek assistance from those in power / with power over them.



I absolutely agree with you, but what framework are you going to make reference to?


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I absoultely agree with you, but what framework are you going to make reference to?



They are sworn Crown servants, so basically I'd look to what other sworn Crown servants have to sign up to - including not exploiting ones office for personal gain - and basically go from there.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The issue here is 'law'. Of the allegations made, how many of the alleged suspects have actually committed an offence?



cobblers.

there are plenty of things most people could do at work that would get them in to trouble and possibly sacked under their employer's rules and procedures, that are not illegal.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> They are sworn Crown servants, so basically I'd look to what other sworn Crown servants have to sign up to - including not exploiting ones office for personal gain - and basically go from there.



I agree, so what framework is that? And, if the law / codes of practice etc are not breached - what then - an expansion of the law and codes to encompass all possible forms of behaviour and interaction? It is a slippery slope.


----------



## elbows (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I agree, so what framework is that? And, if the law / codes of practice etc are not breached - what then - an expansion of the law and codes to encompass all possible forms of behaviour and interaction? It is a slippery slope.



No it isn't a slippery slope. There is plenty that can be improved without anyone being able to sensibly claim that things have gone too far, or that we are heading for nightmare scenario x as a result of people finally taking this stuff more seriously.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 29, 2017)

elbows said:


> No it isn't a slippery slope. There is plenty that can be improved without anyone being able to sensibly claim that things have gone too far, or that we are heading for nightmare scenario x as a result of people finally taking this stuff more seriously.



The point is -_ how_?


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> I agree, so what framework is that? And, if the law / codes of practice etc are not breached - what then - an expansion of the law and codes to encompass all possible forms of behaviour and interaction? It is a slippery slope.



There isn't a common framework for Crown servants, though there are common things that apply to almost all of them - not enriching oneself for personal gain, dealing with people honestly and fairly, behaving in a non-exploitative way towards less senior types etc.   Of course, MPs are the exception to this and its hard to see how one would ever fix it without an election on that specific subject.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Oct 29, 2017)

agricola said:


> There isn't a common framework for Crown servants, though there are common things that apply to almost all of them - not enriching oneself for personal gain, dealing with people honestly and fairly, behaving in a non-exploitative way towards less senior types etc.   Of course, MPs are the exception to this and its hard to see how one would ever fix it without an election on that specific subject.



Perhaps that is the key - the MP is (ideally) answerable to the electorate. If his / her behaviour falls outside any contemporary punitive framing - they can be removed.


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Perhaps that is the key - the MP is (ideally) answerable to the electorate. If his / her behaviour falls outside any contemporary punitive framing - they can be removed.



Well no, because that is the theory as it exists now and it has been demonstrated not to work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 30, 2017)

An MP is also answerable to their party and to parliament and I think reprehensible behaviour is covered by either's rules of conduct.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 30, 2017)

BBC seems to be making May out to be dealing with this heroically from the headlines over the last day - I can see how this is being spun already. We'll have to see whether actions (such as withdrawing the whip) match up to the words.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 30, 2017)

Three dozen Tory MPs 'accused of inappropriate behaviour'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Three dozen Tory MPs 'accused of inappropriate behaviour'


Fingers this is the sort of thing that happens if there isn't a smaller catastrophe every day


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> BBC seems to be making May out to be dealing with this heroically from the headlines over the last day - I can see how this is being spun already. We'll have to see whether actions (such as withdrawing the whip) match up to the words.


There will be no real action as goodbye to a couple of MPs is goodbye to her government


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 30, 2017)

the whip's will be going through the little black book to see which members of the awkward squad can be conveniently binned - a good day to bury bad backbenchers / junior government members


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Perhaps that is the key - the MP is (ideally) answerable to the electorate. If his / her behaviour falls outside any contemporary punitive framing - they can be removed.


When can they be removed?


----------



## Fingers (Oct 30, 2017)

Not too sure how they are going to get out of this mess. Questions will be asked on why may has had a weekly list of MPs getting up to scandalous stuff and has never acted on it. Plus she will be thinking about her already precarious  'majority'. 

PMQs should be interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Not too sure how they are going to get out of this mess. Questions will be asked on why may has had a weekly list of MPs getting up to scandalous stuff and has never acted on it. Plus she will be thinking about her already precarious  'majority'.
> 
> PMQs should be interesting.


It will be interesting if criminal acts have been on this list & may hasn't demanded the police be informed


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Not too sure how they are going to get out of this mess. Questions will be asked on why may has had a weekly list of MPs getting up to scandalous stuff and has never acted on it. Plus she will be thinking about her already precarious  'majority'.
> 
> PMQs should be interesting.



She'll be prepped with a counter attack, something along the lines of 'won't be lectured on equality issues following Labour's appalling inaction over anti-semitism'.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> She'll be prepped with a counter attack, something along the lines of 'won't be lectured on equality issues following Labour's appalling inaction over anti-semitism'.


She can only deal with the tory ones though. At the moment the sexpest breakdown looks pretty evenly split between the two main parties. There'll be loads more to come too. There are quite a few politicians sleeping poorly at the moment, I reckon.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> the whip's will be going through the little black book to see which members of the awkward squad can be conveniently binned - a good day to bury bad backbenchers / junior government members


I don't think so - any leader using this for factional gains would be crucified. They'll have to make an effort to appear even handed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> She can only deal with the tory ones though. At the moment the sexpest breakdown looks pretty evenly split between the two main parties. There'll be loads more to come too. There are quite a few politicians sleeping poorly at the moment, I reckon.


they should be up and out at this time of day, pa, not lazing in bed


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> She can only deal with the tory ones though. At the moment the sexpest breakdown looks pretty evenly split between the two main parties. There'll be loads more to come too. There are quite a few politicians sleeping poorly at the moment, I reckon.



Absolutely. It's just like the expenses scandal; no opportunity to make political capital, and a cross-party effort to a) sacrifice a couple of egregious offenders on both sides, b) adopt an amnesty for prior offending for everyone else, c) enforce better standards from now on. 

Whatever is done, it will have an interesting impact on selection processes, and on funding or reporting lines for researchers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> She'll be prepped with a counter attack, something along the lines of 'won't be lectured on equality issues following Labour's appalling inaction over anti-semitism'.


pity corbyn won't point to jacob rees-mogg hobnobbing with fascists


Jacob Rees-Mogg | Beastrabban\'s Weblog


----------



## teqniq (Oct 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> pity corbyn won't point to jacob rees-mogg hobnobbing with fascists
> 
> View attachment 119138
> Jacob Rees-Mogg | Beastrabban\'s Weblog


Why though? Surely this is an open goal?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Why though? Surely this is an open goal?


he just won't. if he hasn't done it already with all the accusations of anti-semitism i doubt he will do now.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 30, 2017)

The real parliamentary sex scandal is the cover-up


----------



## tim (Oct 30, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Three dozen Tory MPs 'accused of inappropriate behaviour'



A lot more than her majority, I still think we may see an emergency government of national unity before the year is over with this and BREXIT hitting together.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

I heard about 2 minutes of a R4 thing last night when driving (the Westminster Hour, I think). There were a couple of female MPs, one of whom sounded like Caroline Flint, talking a lot of sense (  ).  Essentially, expressing outrage about power and the gropey culture at Westminster - along with a Tory MP hurriedly adding 'oh, erm, yes I agree'. The interesting thing was as soon as the possibility of any kind of outside scrutiny or management of the issue was mentioned, they all went with the 'it has to be up to MPs to regulate this... talk to the speaker, beef things up blah blah'*. Don't get me wrong, I don't see setting up some kind of Stop The MPs Raping People quango as the answer, it's more deepseated than that.  But it was still interesting to see them scuttle back into the safety zone of Parliament's 'unique' position. Shades of the expenses scandal.

* admittedly I'd turned it off by then, so they might have gone on to a more robust solution.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 30, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> The point is -_ how_?


That's a detail. At the moment, I suspect there'd be a fair amount of debate as to "whether". Particularly from those most likely to be negatively affected by more oversight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

tim said:


> A lot more than her majority, I still think we may see an emergency government of national unity before the year is over with this and BREXIT hitting together.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> BBC seems to be making May out to be dealing with this heroically from the headlines over the last day - I can see how this is being spun already. We'll have to see whether actions (such as withdrawing the whip) match up to the words.



She's 'demanding action' apparently. Who exactly she is demanding act, given that she herself is in charge of the country, we can only wonder.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

From the grauniad's feed:


> The Labour MP* John Mann *told LBC that he knew of four cases of “objectionable behaviour”, including two where women made complaints, one to her political party and one to the parliamentary authorities. One of the allegations “passes the criminal threshold” and one is “appalling”, he said.
> 
> He told LBC:
> 
> ...


With it being John Mann, you have a _slight_ suspicion that one of the MPs he is tilting it will turn out to be a Labour lefty.  But that aside, I can see that he's pushing to get these names out in the public domain.  But with all thoughts about due process and the rest, this is at the point where he needs to just fucking come out with it and name them (particularly the one who seems to have been reported to the police but nothing happened on grounds of jurisdiction).  If you've got something credible to say, just fucking say it.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who exactly she is demanding act, given that she herself is in charge of the country...



Well, nominally.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Well, nominally.



And not at all if she suspends, what, two tory MPs?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2017)

coming so soon after they put that terrible paedo scandal behind them and declared nothing to see here cos their all dead as well. What will people think of our once-proud parliament


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> An MP is also answerable to their party and to parliament and I think reprehensible behaviour is covered by either's rules of conduct.



Yep, they can be disciplined for "bringing the party into disrepute".


----------



## Raheem (Oct 30, 2017)

Theresa May is going to be praying to every god she can think of that this turns out to be bad enough to bring down the government, isn't she?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 30, 2017)

You just know, looking at a picture of Mark Garnier, that he probably use those "sex toys" on himself.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> coming so soon after they put that terrible paedo scandal behind them and declared nothing to see here cos their all dead as well. What will people think of our once-proud parliament


Even parliament itself is falling to bits. In fact there's their answer! If any of the more rapey, noncey MPs are close to being outed they can spirit them away to South America and pretend a crumbling gargoyle crushed them to death. 

*Important Notice*: I have gifted you the notion of being _'crushed by a crumbling parliamentary gargoyle'_. Make of it what you will and the likes will flow in! However Soames is already the _wardrobe man_, so you'll have to work a bit harder.


----------



## Winot (Oct 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I heard about 2 minutes of a R4 thing last night when driving (the Westminster Hour, I think). There were a couple of female MPs, one of whom sounded like Caroline Flint, talking a lot of sense (  ).  Essentially, expressing outrage about power and the gropey culture at Westminster - along with a Tory MP hurriedly adding 'oh, erm, yes I agree'. The interesting thing was as soon as the possibility of any kind of outside scrutiny or management of the issue was mentioned, they all went with the 'it has to be up to MPs to regulate this... talk to the speaker, beef things up blah blah'*. Don't get me wrong, I don't see setting up some kind of Stop The MPs Raping People quango as the answer, it's more deepseated than that.  But it was still interesting to see them scuttle back into the safety zone of Parliament's 'unique' position. Shades of the expenses scandal.
> 
> * admittedly I'd turned it off by then, so they might have gone on to a more robust solution.



I heard it too - I think it was Lucy Powell and Anna Soubry.

Evening Standard is interesting today - apparently there were lots of fixes proposed but they were all blocked by e.g. 1922 Committee.

Revealed: Senior Tories blocked bid to shield staff from sex pest MPs


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> She's 'demanding action' apparently. Who exactly she is demanding act, given that she herself is in charge of the country, we can only wonder.


She's waiting for Corbo to tell her what to do, as per.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 30, 2017)

worth pointing out that the only way that these mps can be forced out of  their seats is if they are sent to prison - they can be expelled from the party but they would still be mps. 
If tory mps do have the whip withdrawn - they could threaten to resign and force a bi-eleciton - which the government obviously wants like a hole in the head.
given this - i think May will be very reluctant to expel any mps unless she has absolutely no choice. 
Agree that it has similarities with the expenses scandal - so, despite their being offenders on sides - it  may well hurt the government more than the opposition.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 30, 2017)

Hold onto your hats for a blackmail scandal

Theresa May's former Communications Director Kate Perrior has made an explosive allegation that instead of punishing the misconduct of Tory MPs, the Tory whips use knowledge of incidents like degenerate behaviour and sexual harassment to blackmail MPs into towing the party line.

Here's exactly what she told BBC Breakfast:
_"The information is held by the whips, because they use it to make sure that MPs know that other people within the party know exactly what they’ve been up to, and that behaviour either is not acceptable, or it will be used against them – you will vote in a certain way or we will tell your wife exactly what you’ve been up to."_

The Tory party systematically blackmail their depraved MPs into subservience


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Hold onto your hats for a blackmail scandal
> 
> Theresa May's former Communications Director Kate Perrior has made an explosive allegation that instead of punishing the misconduct of Tory MPs, the Tory whips use knowledge of incidents like degenerate behaviour and sexual harassment to blackmail MPs into towing the party line.
> 
> ...



This sort of thing is hardly news though is it?  This is what whips do.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Hold onto your hats for a blackmail scandal
> 
> Theresa May's former Communications Director Kate Perrior has made an explosive allegation that instead of punishing the misconduct of Tory MPs, the Tory whips use knowledge of incidents like degenerate behaviour and sexual harassment to blackmail MPs into towing the party line.



That view of how the whips work has long been part of popular culture, and denials have always been weak. Hopefully it won't be brushed aside this time.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> This sort of thing is hardly news though is it?  This is what whips do.



Need some specific examples to go public, which could force change rather than allow this state of affairs to continue.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Three dozen Tory MPs 'accused of inappropriate behaviour'



Peston on the Tory fears:


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 30, 2017)

Of course May and other senior MPs will have known about this, especially whips. I'm sure they've used this info for leverage in the past.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 30, 2017)

elbows said:


> Need some specific examples to go public, which could force change rather than allow this state of affairs to continue.



Well yes, covering up for infidelity and the like is pretty standard.  If the whips have been aware of actual abuse and they have chosen to not pass that info on then that is obviously more serious.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 30, 2017)

I suspect the child sex stuff as well. We know cyril smith was nicked in northamptonshire with a boot of wrong, and as I recall the reporting some policemen came down from london to collect him. Stinks

don't want to be too tinfoil but it smells.

and Kincora


----------



## ruffneck23 (Oct 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course May and other senior MPs will have known about this, especially whips. I'm sure they've used this info for leverage in the past.


See 4 posts above yours


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 30, 2017)

I sense an enquiry and boot it into the long grass scenario.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I suspect the child sex stuff as well. We know cyril smith was nicked in northamptonshire with a boot of wrong, and as I recall the reporting some policemen came down from london to collect him. Stinks



Well the Cyril Smith part of the public inquiry recently finished, I was disappointed that I only had time to follow it properly for a couple of days, and there was no proper conversation about it here.

I don't know what I missed. Probably not much when it came to the broader stuff away from the homes in Rochdale. But one thing I did see, in relation to MI5 being aware that the director of public prosecutions later lied about the Smith case to a journalist, was that MI5s excuse for not doing anything was along the lines of 'back then our mission was just defence of the realm'.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I sense an enquiry and boot it into the long grass scenario.



Not convinced thats what they will attempt this time, given broader momentum in society about these issues right now, some heads must roll sooner rather than later.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 30, 2017)

May looks depressed


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> May looks depressed View attachment 119174


yeh leadsom's just farted


----------



## Fingers (Oct 30, 2017)

no suspension of the fuckwits who got outed yesterday then....


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> no suspension of the fuckwits who got outed yesterday then....


yeh. nor shall there be, for as long as may retains command.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> May looks depressed View attachment 119174


Dreaming of a wheatfield, far far away.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> no suspension of the fuckwits who got outed yesterday then....


I don't want to reduce this to party advantage, but Corbyn would be well advised to take rapid action against any of his MPs who get credible accusations against them. As well as being a good idea in itself - to sideline the more creepy, gropey fuckers - it would put the pressure on May to act.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> no suspension of the fuckwits who got outed yesterday then....


Given that garnier pretty much admitted it, there was certainly scope to suspend him straightaway. 'High jinx', ffs! Creepy cunt.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2017)

Not very surprising is it? I saw a comment on twitter to the effect that the braying, blokeish atmosphere of the commons could be seen as a bit of an indicator of the attitudes held by many there. I'm very interested to see how this develops. On the one hand there's a lot of momentum behind uncovering sexual assault right now and there could be a high price for further cover-ups that then get exposed. On the other hand taking action on it could literally destabilise the government, so a lot of work will probably go into suppressing it all. A lot of minds busy whirring on the best way out right now...


----------



## friedaweed (Oct 30, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Hold onto your hats for a blackmail scandal
> 
> Theresa May's former Communications Director Kate Perrior has made an explosive allegation that instead of punishing the misconduct of Tory MPs, the Tory whips use knowledge of incidents like degenerate behaviour and sexual harassment to blackmail MPs into towing the party line.
> 
> ...


There's a rather unfortunate message at the end of that web page.

* Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. 

*


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> I saw a comment on twitter to the effect that the braying, blokeish atmosphere of the commons could be seen as a bit of an indicator of the attitudes held by many there.


this is bollocks isn't it? every time someone gets fingered for being a creepy fuck atm, their enemies sagely comment that _of course, it was obvious: their behaviour before being unmasked as a beast was a total red flag. _It isn't though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I don't want to reduce this to party advantage, but Corbyn would be well advised to take rapid action against any of his MPs who get credible accusations against them. As well as being a good idea in itself - to sideline the more creepy, gropey fuckers - it would put the pressure on May to act.



He was pretty quick to suspend Jared O'Mara for less serious misdemeanours.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> this is bollocks isn't it? every time someone gets fingered for being a creepy fuck atm, their enemies sagely comment that _of course, it was obvious: their behaviour before being unmasked as a beast was a total red flag. _It isn't though.



That happens but surely far more common is the situation where the offender did have a reputation beforehand, and loads of people within their sphere knew, to one degree or another, what they were like.

For example I'm sure lots of people within the Westminster bubble know who lots of people on that tory spreadsheet are. I'm not in that bubble so I don't, but if people get exposed publicly then its understandable that we will hear from a bunch of people, including journalists, who were previously silent.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

elbows said:


> That happens but surely far more common is the situation where the offender did have a reputation beforehand, and loads of people within their sphere knew, to one degree or another, what they were like.
> 
> For example I'm sure lots of people within the Westminster bubble know who lots of people on that tory spreadsheet are. I'm not in that bubble so I don't, but if people get exposed publicly then its understandable that we will hear from a bunch of people, including journalists, who were previously silent.


Absolutely, people often get reps for being creepy fucks when they're creepy fucks. But that's not what someone on twitter is talking about when they talk about the braying blokeish atmosphere at Westminster. 

When Sam Kriss got unmasked the other week, his pursed-lipped detractors claiming _well we knew all along _because he was colourfully rude about people on the internet was a fairly depressing sight. If being aggressive or rude is a mark of a beast, there's a lot of people on urban who should be worried...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> He was pretty quick to suspend Jared O'Mara for less serious misdemeanours.


Aye, I just hope he follows suit for others further up the food chain. I've seen stuff on here and beyond suggesting there are former cabinet ministers out there who have been at least as bad - and during their time in parliament. But yes, the O'mara suspension was good, because he was apparently a Corbyn fan. I know there's a debate about whether his behaviour should be excused on the grounds that he was 'only 20' at the time, something I'm not sure about tbh, but suspension was a good move.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> this is bollocks isn't it? every time someone gets fingered for being a creepy fuck atm, their enemies sagely comment that _of course, it was obvious: their behaviour before being unmasked as a beast was a total red flag. _It isn't though.


Well, I'm not going to die in a ditch to defend that line of thought, and you're right it's too easy to say it was obvious after the fact, but I think it's the nature of patriarchy that willy-waving macho group behaviour and abuse are likely to be found together. The commons does seem to display some weird public schoolboy version of machismo, that's all.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 30, 2017)

Hmmm, is this just clumsily phrased or is C4 News going for it?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

tune in at 7pm to find out!


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> tune in at 7pm to find out!



I can't get the Channel 4 player to work on my computer, and my telly's fucked.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

I don't expect you'll need to wait long if they're for real.


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Well, I'm not going to die in a ditch to defend that line of thought, and you're right it's too easy to say it was obvious after the fact, but I think it's the nature of patriarchy that willy-waving macho group behaviour and abuse are likely to be found together. The commons does seem to display some weird public schoolboy version of machismo, that's all.



TBH I am not sure that it (the braying / blokeish behaviour) is necessarily that much of an indicator as and of itself; if anything this scandal bears all the hallmarks of the previous MP misbehaving scandals - the blatant nature of the wrongdoing, the silence from journalists who knew the stories before they came out, the deliberate confusion over whether anything "wrong" (in official terms) has actually been done and the lack of any meaningful action when the wrongdoing is exposed (Bercow's comment today about MPs "employing" their staff being a particularly mendacious one, given who actually pays the wages of the staff).


----------



## Fingers (Oct 30, 2017)

Staines should have dropped it all yesterday, he has been trumped by C4 News. Shame


----------



## J Ed (Oct 30, 2017)

Anyone else think that this is going to be huge? I don't think that the media/public/body politic has really processed the fact that we now know that the government are using knowledge of sexual abuse as leverage.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

Hmm I don't think they are going to give us any names.


----------



## tim (Oct 30, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else think that this is going to be huge? I don't think that the media/public/body politic has really processed the fact that we now know that the government are using knowledge of sexual abuse as leverage.



The fact that thw whips use their knowledge to blackmail MPs has never been a secret, has it?


----------



## J Ed (Oct 30, 2017)

tim said:


> The fact that thw whipd use theitr knowledge to blackmail MPs has never been a secret, has it?



No, I think it's just been seen as part of the game. Hard to see how, with the recent shift in societal attitudes, sexual abuse being part of the game is seen as anything other than reprehensible.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

_I'm not a sex pest - I'm a feminist_ is a classic.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2017)

That would be the one being  'perpetually intoxicated'.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

the redactions look a bit random.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Oct 30, 2017)

"Paid a female to be quiet"  - Is that in connection with anything else, or was she just going on a bit?


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> the redactions look a bit random.



Always hard to answer that without seeing the unreacted version but it doesn't look random to me. Names column, ministerial etc roles column (my guess), and the words removed from the description column are probably considered to be too close to being clues that could lead to more accurate name guessing if revealed.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)




----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> _I'm not a sex pest - I'm a feminist_ is a classic.



Someone with lines like that would be entertaining on a tv panel show...


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

elbows said:


> Always hard to answer that without seeing the unreacted version but it doesn't look random to me. Names column, ministerial etc roles column (my guess), and the words removed from the description column are probably considered to be too close to being clues that could lead to more accurate name guessing if revealed.


oh is the name column missing from the one I've posted?


----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh is the name column missing from the one I've posted?


Yes, and that's probably not a bad thing.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

well. it'll turn up soon enough.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh is the name column missing from the one I've posted?



Yeah but its just solid black and I can only find it on the Guido website so I'm not going to bother linking to it.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Oct 30, 2017)

> Video exists of one MP engaged in an extreme sex act with three men, reportedly



Well, I think that's disgraceful.


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2017)

elbows said:


> Yeah but its just solid black and I can only find it on the Guido website so I'm not going to bother linking to it.



That at least makes sense, as one would think Shapps would be easy to detect that way.


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

The Sun has Fallon breaking cover to admit he fondled Julia hartley-brewer's knee on the front page tomorrow. So that's cabinet member number 1...


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2017)

killer b said:


> The Sun has Fallon breaking cover to admit he fondled Julia hartley-brewer's knee on the front page tomorrow. So that's cabinet member number 1...



Its Fallon, in the _Sun_, and what he admits to is ancient and towards the minor scale of things.  Its just them trying to kill off stories that are much worse.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 30, 2017)

Surely there will be something on Johnson, or is he an honourable philanderer?


----------



## killer b (Oct 30, 2017)

agricola said:


> Its Fallon, in the _Sun_, and what he admits to is ancient and towards the minor scale of things.  Its just them trying to kill off stories that are much worse.


Or Fallon getting it out in a friendly publication before it leaks in an unfriendly one.


----------



## elbows (Oct 30, 2017)

They can use that case for their agenda because of this:



> Julia said she did not feel like she was a victim of a sexual assault, and found the incident nothing more than “mildly amusing”.


----------



## lazythursday (Oct 30, 2017)

This story could be the Sun fishing for worse on Fallon. Put his name out there linked to harassment and see if other accusations come forward.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2017)

is he going to fall on his sword?

sorry


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 31, 2017)

lazythursday said:


> This story could be the Sun fishing for worse on Fallon. Put his name out there linked to harassment and see if other accusations come forward.



Fallon getting ahead of much worse accusations against others, possibly? A risky strategy, he's caught het, knows it, and thinks his fondling will be forgotten in the rush?


----------



## tim (Oct 31, 2017)

Michael Fallon hits the news this morning for repeatedly touchingJulia Hartley Brewer's leg 15 years ago.

Fallon 'touched journalist's knee'


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Fallon getting ahead of much worse accusations against others, possibly? A risky strategy, he's caught het, knows it, and thinks his fondling will be forgotten in the rush?



I think so. He has form. This looks like a dead cat to me, aided and abetted by JHB.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

Wonder when it is Boris' turn?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 31, 2017)

The press like 'Boris'. The dirt they have will also be worth much more once they've nudged him into power, they're not going to spaff it out yet when there's other targets available.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Surely there will be something on Johnson, or is he an honourable philanderer?


How many jobs did he lose for mendacity?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

By all accounts Fallon isn't even on the list, which surely must leak today.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> The press like 'Boris'. The dirt they have will also be worth much more once they've nudged him into power, they're not going to spaff it out yet when there's other targets available.



The press aren't a a unified front. That list is out there and the names will come out soon enough - if he's on it each paper will want to be the one to break it. There's not going to be any mutual agreement to hold off.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 31, 2017)

Fawkes blog naming Damian Green as the Minister who is top of the list 

Westminster Works Out Who is Top of Tory Sleaze Spreadsheet - Guido Fawkes


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> By all accounts Fallon isn't even on the list, which surely must leak today.



I'm afraid there is no surely about this.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> Fawkes blog naming Damian Green as the Minister who is top of the list
> 
> Westminster Works Out Who is Top of Tory Sleaze Spreadsheet - Guido Fawkes



Ah so we are going to have the drip drip game. Which is probably based on many factors such as some details already being in the public domain.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

elbows said:


> I'm afraid there is no surely about this.


Every political journalist in the country has a copy. It won't be long.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Every political journalist in the country has a copy. It won't be long.



I know but I'm used to the games that happen even when we know the press all know something. For various reasons including the legal and other forms of pressure, they often feel the need to play tedious games to get stuff out there, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all despite 'everyone' knowing.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

someone will pastebin it sooner or later is all.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

I note that God failed to tip off the compilers of the Tablets list of leading lay catholics in advance. A list that was published less than a week ago, oops.



> Damian Green, First Secretary of  State, tops The Tablet 100 this year. In second place is Baroness Hollins (pictured), a professor of the psychiatry of learning disability and an adviser to Pope Francis on safeguarding, followed by Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham.





> Brendan Walsh, editor of The Tablet (pictured), says: "This is more than just a list of interesting people doing interesting things. Some are well known for their faith commitment; some wear it more lightly and tentatively. But there are important values held in common, a shared sensibility: a protectiveness towards the dreams of others, and perhaps the understanding that how the cards fall in this life is not all that matters."



Damian Green tops The Tablet 100 list


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> Fawkes blog naming Damian Green as the Minister who is top of the list
> 
> Westminster Works Out Who is Top of Tory Sleaze Spreadsheet - Guido Fawkes



leading remainer in the cabinet and key may allay - might explain the enthusiasm for this story from the murdoch press.  I mean, you would put money on johnson being on a list of likely sex pests - but apparently its tumbleweed on that front.

And nice bit of anti sisterhood from the vile hartley brewer - reinforcing the notion that being sexually assaulted is just a bit of fun because it was (supposedly) all ok when it happened to her.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

agricola said:


> That at least makes sense, as one would think Shapps would be easy to detect that way.



The current Sun version doesn't have that column as one solid black block. And less redactions elsewhere, and some names.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

I like the way it says 'tory MP' for a an internal tory audit.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

I like the way they still have blacked out Whittingdale's name, even though you can clearly see the entry that relates to him.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

Its an odd list.  Given there is stuff on there which is a bit 'so what?' (the last one for example) it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff is much if anything.  I suppose it makes sense as a whips list of things they want to hold over people but in that case how bad does your behavior have to be to get onto that list?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its an odd list.  Given there is stuff on there which is a bit 'so what?' (the last one for example) it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff is much if anything.  I suppose it makes sense as a whips list of things they want to hold over people but in that case how bad does your behavior have to be to get onto that list?


Is this a whips list or a list put together by researchers and staff?


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its an odd list.  Given there is stuff on there which is a bit 'so what?' (the last one for example) it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff is much if anything.  I suppose it makes sense as a whips list of things they want to hold over people but in that case how bad does your behavior have to be to get onto that list?



I don't think this was so much a whips list as a hastily compiled list of anyone that could face attention in the wake of Weinstein focus on harassment etc.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its an odd list.  Given there is stuff on there which is a bit 'so what?' (the last one for example) it makes you wonder how much of the other stuff is much if anything.  I suppose it makes sense as a whips list of things they want to hold over people but in that case how bad does your behavior have to be to get onto that list?



That last one maybe should be so-what but it's potentially gold to a tabloid, David Mellor style, so it makes sense it's on the list given why they have it.

A lot of the rest though, what strikes me is that these aren't listed as some one-off scandal thing, they're ongoing behaviours. There's potentially a lot of complaints to come out even if some of them could be shrugged off individually.


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 31, 2017)

13 from bottom:

Boris - Cabinet Minister - Is Boris


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

"Video exists of three males urinating on him".

Hmmph. Wouldn't piss on a tory if he was on fire.


----------



## Whagwan (Oct 31, 2017)

The one nicknamed Copperfeel must be a David for that to make any sense surely?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 31, 2017)

Is this just a Tory thing! Really?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

of course not. But the journalists currently only have a tory list to go on.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> That last one maybe should be so-what but it's potentially gold to a tabloid, David Mellor style, so it makes sense it's on the list given why they have it.
> 
> A lot of the rest though, what strikes me is that these aren't listed as some one-off scandal thing, they're ongoing behaviours. There's potentially a lot of complaints to come out even if individually some of them could be shrugged off individually.



Yes its the combining onto one list of "odd sexual penchants", standard bed hopping and perhaps serious allegations of sexual abuse, some repetitive over a period of time.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

Completely bizarre list, mixing in things that have nothing at all to with issues of consent. If the inclusion of those things (eg last on list) serve any purpose it's surely just be to muddy the waters and try to turn this into prurient entertainment 'funny old posh boys and their eccentric ways'.  Grim.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 31, 2017)

krtek a houby said:


> "Video exists of three males urinating on him".
> 
> Hmmph. Wouldn't piss on a tory if he was on fire.



Sitting or standing?


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 31, 2017)

Nicknamed "** Copperfeel"

Surely just putting "Mr" wouldn't be redacted...

Place your bets, Dr or Sir.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

First name would have to be David in that case surely?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Nicknamed "** Copperfeel"
> 
> Surely just putting "Mr" wouldn't be redacted...
> 
> Place your bets, Dr or Sir.



Lord?

Or it could actually be "David".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Surely there will be something on Johnson, or is he an honourable philanderer?



Oxymoronic.  How can a philanderer - a cheat - be honourable?


----------



## binka (Oct 31, 2017)

I'm finding it quite difficult to think of a Tory MP I'd be surprised to find on this list.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

binka said:


> I'm finding it quite difficult to think of a Tory MP I'd be surprised to find on this list.



Truth be told it could be said for most of the house, well the men anyway.  The one man you'd put your house on not being on the list is Corbyn, the majority of the others?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2017)

binka said:


> I'm finding it quite difficult to think of a Tory MP I'd be surprised to find on this list.



Michael Gove.  He wouldn't dare cheat on his missus.  She'd beat the shit out of him.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

nah, I've got Gove in the 'creep' column.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2017)

Allegedly


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 31, 2017)

does NDA mean 'silence bought' ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Non Disclosure Agreement, yeah. Might be just over an affair though (or not, Weinstein had one with Rose McDowall)


----------



## Dan U (Oct 31, 2017)

old Kwasi gets about a bit

quite a lot of this is really no ones business though surely.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Gosh he does too.


----------



## xenon (Oct 31, 2017)

I can't remember who exactly but remember that old audio clip that surfaced a year or so back. A whip / secretary saying they were aware of certain MPs prederlictions, hinted at young boys and they'd use said knowledge to keep them in line?

This drip drip of the minor stuff is pure media management bullshit.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> quite a lot of this is really no ones business though surely.



On the face of it. But "inappropriate" might cover quite a lot of ground.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

the Raab one is very interesting, if true and especially if its still in force


----------



## binka (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> quite a lot of this is really no ones business though surely.


In other walks of life maybe but I'm all in favour of anything that ruins any politician's career/life regardless of how unfair it is


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

So Bob Stewart the hero of bosnia and UN's spear-point = perpetually drunk. However did  Srebrenica happen?


----------



## Santino (Oct 31, 2017)

Maybe the Fallon story was put out to establish his heterosexual credentials.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

Santino said:


> Maybe the Fallon story was put out to establish his heterosexual credentials.


 
Or that it's possible to touch Julia Hartley-Brewer without your hand withering.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Or that it's possible to touch Julia Hartley-Brewer without your hand withering.


no need for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Or that it's possible to touch Julia Hartley-Brewer without your hand withering.


This above is sort of how it starts isn't it?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> This above is sort of how it starts isn't it?



An exaggeration, I think, but point taken.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2017)

I said allegedly! 
Very easy to fake, that.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> So Bob Stewart the hero of bosnia and UN's spear-point = perpetually drunk. However did  Srebrenica happen?



he turned into a drunk after Bos - he's been _free with his affections _from time immemorial (he hooked up with one on the interpreters in Bos, and was openly living with her during the tour - and unsurprisingly got divorced upon return), but the problem drinking only started when he returned from Bos and the divorce got nasty and the knives were out. he'd never been a Chief of the Defence Staff in waiting - he was lucky to get to Lt Col level, and _incredibly_ lucky to be appointed CO of an Infantry Bn - but his career came to a crashing halt during his first tour as a full Colonel because of the _open_ infidelity, the booze, the career politiking at that level and the publicity seeking.

he was pretty effective in Bos, or as effective as he could be given his ROE, UN Policy (and UK Policy) and the resources at his disposal, but he didn't have the temperament, cunning or brains to be peacetime senior Officer in a shrinking Army, and the disappointment of what had not been achieved in Bos, combined with the collapse of his private life, fed into his going from being a social drinker into being a problem drinker.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> he turned into a drunk after Bos - he's been _free with his affections _from time immemorial (he hooked up with one on the interpreters in Bos, and was openly living with her during the tour - and unsurprisingly got divorced upon return), but the problem drinking only started when he returned from Bos and the divorce got nasty and the knives were out. he'd never been a Chief of the Defence Staff in waiting - he was lucky to get to Lt Col level, and _incredibly_ lucky to be appointed CO of an Infantry Bn - but his career came to a crashing halt during his first tour as a full Colonel because of the _open_ infidelity, the booze, the career politiking at that level and the publicity seeking.
> 
> he was pretty effective in Bos, or as effective as he could be given his ROE, UN Policy (and UK Policy) and the resources at his disposal, but he didn't have the temperament, cunning or brains to be peacetime senior Officer in a shrinking Army, and the disappointment of what had not been achieved in Bos, combined with the collapse of his private life, fed into his going from being a social drinker into being a problem drinker.


Sounds like this sort of stuff was an open secret - or not even a secret. Yet this bloke won the selection for a very safe seat. They either have very serious personnel problems or there's some serious not giving a shit going on.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Or people with secrets (open or otherwise) are more pliable than those without.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Crispy said:


> I said allegedly!
> Very easy to fake, that.


twitter noise says it's been leaked, so I think it's most likely genuine.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Or people with secrets (open or otherwise) are more pliable than those without.


There's thousands of willing pliables out there - it's the common thing for all Prospective MPs. A safe seat - what was required? I can see no pay off.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds like this sort of stuff was an open secret - or not even a secret. Yet this bloke won the selection for a very safe seat. They either have very serious personnel problems or there's some serious not giving a shit going on.



he's very personable, he has name recognition in pretty much every voter over the age of 40, and he's got a chestful of medals and can talk coherantly/plausibly (to those who have little knowledge and understanding..) about defence issues in an era when most politicians wouldn't know the difference between a tank and a battleship.

i know its been a while since you were involved in a political organisation that picked prospective parliamentary candidates and so you might not remember the procession of loons, freaks, weirdos and obvious sexpests and serial killers who put themselves forward for selection - but i'm not remotely surprised they picked him.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> he's very personable, he has name recognition in pretty much every voter over the age of 40, and he's got a chestful of medals and can talk coherantly/plausibly (to those who have little knowledge and understanding..) about defence issues in an era when most politicians wouldn't know the difference between a tank and a battleship.
> 
> i know its been a while since you were involved in a political organisation that picked prospective parliamentary candidates and so you might not remember the procession of loons, freaks, weirdos and obvious sexpests and serial killers who put themselves forward for selection - but i'm not remotely surprised they picked him.


Well when you put it like that...

It was the safe seatness that surprised me though. They're supposed to be for favoured sons and daughters. I have seem him come across very well in a sort of _this is what we used to be like_ way.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

Could be some awkward silence around the Truss' dinner table this evening


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Well when you put it like that...
> 
> It was the safe seatness that surprised me though. They're supposed to be for favoured sons and daughters. I have seem him come across very well in a sort of _this is what we used to be like_ way.



i _assume_ it was the influence of the Cameron/Osbourne cabal - they were very young and inexperienced, very posh and wanted to have a grizzled old soldier (with public name recognition..) on the team to make them look more like a prospective government than the editorial team at _Tatler_ or _Horse and Hound.
_
notice however that he never became a minister, i wouldn't be at all surprised if they selected him as a candidate from afar, and that his promised ministerial career ended when they met him.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its an odd list.  Given there is stuff on there which is a bit 'so what?' (the last one for example)


 Still, a quick check on which Cabinet Minister has lobbied for Channel should unearth the culprit.   I also like the archaic language, 'fornicated with male researcher' for example. 

My attitude towards MPs is that I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. 7th from bottom suggests not everyone holds to my lofty standards.  [edit: beaten to it by krtek a houby a page ago]


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Still, a quick check on which Cabinet Minister has lobbied for Channel should unearth the culprit.   I also like the archaic language, 'fornicated with male researcher' for example.
> 
> My attitude towards MPs is that I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. 7th from bottom suggests not everyone holds to my lofty standards.


_Impregnated_


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

If true it's extraordinary that this was all committed to writing and having done so it was allowed to be leaked.  Did no one think 'do you know what, having this list in writing is a bad idea?'


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

This one is more redacted with name of alleged offender and alleged misdemeanor


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> If true it's extraordinary that this was all committed to writing and having done so it was allowed to be leaked.  Did no one think 'do you know what, having this list in writing is a bad idea?'



Apparently nobody thought that having a government full of grimy little perverts was a bad idea so I guess all bets are off.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

So the dildo lady who left her job with Mark Garnier, went to work for John Wittingdale... who is also on the list...


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> If true it's extraordinary that this was all committed to writing and having done so it was allowed to be leaked.  Did no one think 'do you know what, having this list in writing is a bad idea?'



i'm still of the view that the list is a journalists list - if it was a whips/party list it wouldn't say 'Tory MP', because, well, duh.. it would just say 'backbencher' or whatever. its not a parliamentary workers '_who to avoid in a taxi_' list because some of it is just affairs between consenting adults with nothing sex pesty about them that secretaries or researchers would have cause to worry about.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i'm still of the view that the list is a journalists list - if it was a whips/party list it wouldn't say 'Tory MP', because, well, duh.. it would just say 'backbencher' or whatever. its not a parliamentary workers '_who to avoid in a taxi_' list because some of it is just affairs between consenting adults with nothing sex pesty about them that secretaries or researchers would have cause to worry about.



The list, if it's genuine, doesn't say "Tory MP". That was a mockup by the Sun.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

Alan Mak's holidays


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 31, 2017)

If that version is true then I would have thought Fallon would be considered something of a security risk - recall this idiot who had trouble keeping his flies done up 

Suspected Russian spy admits affair with Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock

_Katia Zatuliveter, 26, told a tribunal that the married 65-year-old MP tried to seduce her the first time they met, and later gave her a job in his parliamentary office where she had access to sensitive defence documents through his position on the defence select committee.
She also admitted that before meeting Mr Hancock she had affairs with a Nato official and a Dutch diplomat._


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

The impregnated Boris lady actually lives with the MP and has a kid with him so that is tittle tattle.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> i'm still of the view that the list is a journalists list - if it was a whips/party list it wouldn't say 'Tory MP', because, well, duh.. it would just say 'backbencher' or whatever. its not a parliamentary workers '_who to avoid in a taxi_' list because some of it is just affairs between consenting adults with nothing sex pesty about them that secretaries or researchers would have cause to worry about.


There's certainly an odd tone to it.  Judgemental, even if most of the cases appear to involve at the very least imbalances of power, right through to sexual assaults.  Slightly odd almost _medical_ language. As you say, it doesn't look like an internal tory document, but neither does it use the language a journo might typically use.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> There's certainly an odd tone to it.  Judgemental, even if most of the cases appear to involve at the very least imbalances of power, right through to sexual assaults.  Slightly odd almost _medical_ language. As you say, it doesn't look like an internal tory document, but neither does it use the language a journo might typically use.



yes, its the language thats odd - who says _fornicated_ or _impregnated_?

is this the cunning work of one W. Rees-Mogg Esquire, who with his coat as white as snow, will come to the rescue of the party and apply the _coup de grace_ to its embattled and utterly compromised leader?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> yes, its the language thats odd - who says _fornicated_ or _impregnated_?
> 
> is this the cunning work of one W. Rees-Mogg Esquire, who with his coat as white as snow, will come to the rescue of the party and apply the _coup de grace_ to its embattled and utterly compromised leader?


Surely, he'd have gone with _wantonness_ and _lasciviousness_.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> old Kwasi gets about a bit
> 
> quite a lot of this is really no ones business though surely.



Why are Truss and Rudd on the list and not KK if they are both on the list for sleeping with him? Is it cos they are both married and he appears to be single looking at wikipedia?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

I like the fact there are a couple of whips listed there as well.  

I think, perhaps, its time to get rid of the bars at the HoC as this lot clearly cannot be trusted.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 31, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why are Truss and Rudd on the list and not KK if they are both on the list for sleeping with him? Is it cos they are both married and he appears to be single looking at wikipedia?



Rudd is not married. She was married to AA Gill who is now deceased and she has made no secret of the fact that she is/was involved with KK


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> _impregnated_?



what word would you use ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I like the fact there are a couple of whips listed there as well.
> 
> I think, perhaps, its time to get rid of the bars at the HoC as this lot clearly cannot be trusted.



Or put more bars on the windows and doors and keep them way from the public...


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why are Truss and Rudd on the list and not KK if they are both on the list for sleeping with him? Is it cos they are both married and he appears to be single looking at wikipedia?



Is Rudd married?  Just checked her wiki page and it appears she's divorced and it even lists her relationship with KK going back to 2014.  The list is just odd.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Rudd is not married. She was married to AA Gill who is now deceased and she has made no secret of the fact that she is/was involved with KK



Seems odd she should be on it at all then. But as people have noted, mix in the scandalous-but-not-illegal stuff with all the actual abuse of power and persons.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> what word would you use ?



got X pregnant?

forced X to have an abortion?

i don't think i've ever heard the word 'impregnated' actually used by anyone...


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Seems odd she should be on it at all then. But as people have noted, mix in the scandalous-but-not-illegal stuff with all the actual abuse of power and persons.



but quite a bit of this stuff _isn't_ scandalous - one of the MP's has been on _dates_ with a researcher, Amber Rudd, who is single, had a relationship with another single colleague. 

and?

this is why it makes little sense either as a whips 'embarrassing pecadiloes' list, nor a _beware the gropey sex pest _list.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 31, 2017)

fair enough - I was trying to think of an actual word for the process involved rather than re-phrasing it & they all sound a bit veterinary - ......_inseminated  ...."covered"  _


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

List is absurd, unless it's intentionally obscuring the real issue of abuse of power by glazing over it with anachronistic 'moral turpitude' brushstrokes.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> but quite a bit of this stuff _isn't_ scandalous - one of the MP's has been on _dates_ with a researcher, Amber Rudd, who is single, had a relationship with another single colleague.



It's potentially useful to know anything about a politician that they might want to keep private, surely?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> List is absurd, unless it's intentionally obscuring the real issue of abuse of power by glazing over it with anachronistic 'moral turpitude' brushstrokes.


I think most people's first reaction to a lot that will be, _so fucking what_?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> List is absurd, unless it's intentionally obscuring the real issue of abuse of power by glazing over it with anachronistic 'moral turpitude' brushstrokes.


Maybe the _mix_ of things on the list is absurd, but it does include sexual assaults and also that one of them has an injunction out against him.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2017)

It's the weight as much as the depth.  So many MPs just known and accepted to be "handsy" and "inappropriate".


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 31, 2017)

They've padded out the abusive stuff with tittle-tattle to blunt the scandal, obviously.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Maybe the _mix_ of things on the list is absurd, but it does include sexual assaults and also that one of them has an injunction out against him.


Yes, that's what i meant, the mix, why are the real accusations of misconduct/ abuse of power mixed in with all this silly bollocks.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I think most people's first reaction to a lot that will be, _so fucking what_?



Well yeah, given some people are being singled out for consenting adult stuff it makes you wonder what the bar for 'inappropriate' is?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> but quite a bit of this stuff _isn't_ scandalous - one of the MP's has been on _dates_ with a researcher, Amber Rudd, who is single, had a relationship with another single colleague.
> 
> and?
> 
> this is why it makes little sense either as a whips 'embarrassing pecadiloes' list, nor a _beware the gropey sex pest _list.



Fair, just thinking about how tabloids might present this stuff if they were minded to.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It's potentially useful to know anything about a politician that they might want to keep private, surely?



in Rudds' case, it might have been _private_ - she does have children, she probably doesn't fancy having her love life splashed over the _Sun - _but i don't think you'd describe it as a secret_._ being a nonce or having an affair is a secret, consenting grown ups is just private or discreet.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Well yeah, given some people are being singled out for consenting adult stuff it makes you wonder what the bar for 'inappropriate' is?


Well it's just pissed away the whole story. It just looks like a desperate smear job that's likely to be forgotten entirely after a few weeks.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Fingers said:


> The impregnated Boris lady actually lives with the MP and has a kid with him so that is tittle tattle.



I don't think she does, if we are talking about the love-child people know about.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

kebabking said:


> in Rudds' case, it might have been _private_ - she does have children, she probably doesn't fancy having her love life splashed over the _Sun - _but i don't think you'd describe it as a secret_._ being a nonce or having an affair is a secret, consenting grown ups is just private or discreet.



Its on her wiki page dating back to 2014, so not that private.



Spymaster said:


> Well it's just pissed away the whole story. It just looks like a desperate smear job that's likely to be forgotten entirely after a few weeks.



I wonder by whom though?  There almost certainly is some very dodgy behavior in there but it can just be dismissed if they want it to, like at the time no doubt.


----------



## JimW (Oct 31, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> fair enough - I was trying to think of an actual word for the process involved rather than re-phrasing it & they all sound a bit veterinary - ......_inseminated  ...."covered"  _


"made great with child outwith the bonds of matrimony".


----------



## kebabking (Oct 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's just pissed away the whole story. It just looks like a desperate smear job that's likely to be forgotten entirely after a few weeks.



had we not beeen exposed to the ineptness of May i might be persauded that this was the idea all along - release a load of rubbish, 90% of which goes in the 'meh' pile to make the whole thing go away, but i'm no longer convinced that the tory party has the terrifying cunning and wit to pull that off...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

JimW said:


> "made great with child outwith the bonds of matrimony".


_bastardised - committed bastardy._


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

agricola said:


> I don't think she does, if we are talking about the love-child people know about.



I think he meant the one that had "impregnated" Boris Johnson's researcher or aide or whatever.  Not what the man has been up to himself and his alleged super-injunction.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's just pissed away the whole story. It just looks like a desperate smear job that's likely to be forgotten entirely after a few weeks.



Perhaps, but its interesting to compare the two "leaked" lists - especially who has been removed in the second one.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I think he meant the one that had "impregnated" Boris Johnson's researcher or aide or whatever.  Not what the man has been up to himself and his alleged super-injunction.



Ah, that would make sense.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> They've padded out the abusive stuff with tittle-tattle to blunt the scandal, obviously.


I don't think that's 'obviously' what's happened here at all. There was no scandal really, before the list was leaked - and no guarantee that all, or even more than one or two of the actual dodgy cases would break. 

They've been clearly leaked for a reason - but damage control isn't it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

Julia h-b (who was the front cover story in the sun) is loudly making jokes on tweeter to great acclaim it seems from relieved-sounding men.


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's 'obviously' what's happened here at all. There was no scandal really, before the list was leaked - and no guarantee that all, or even more than one or two of the actual dodgy cases would break.
> 
> They've been clearly leaked for a reason - but damage control isn't it.



Perhaps, though the inclusion of well-known cases and the redaction of them (even though they were well-known) by friendly sources like Guido and the _Sun_ does suggest that the release of the list has been managed.  One is also a bit suspicious given that most of the actual allegations on there (as opposed to "_acted inappropriately_") relate to private matters rather than anything relating to harassment or sexual abuse, which is after all what the scandal is meant to relate to.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think that's 'obviously' what's happened here at all. There was no scandal really, before the list was leaked - and no guarantee that all, or even more than one or two of the actual dodgy cases would break.
> 
> They've been clearly leaked for a reason - but damage control isn't it.


Surprised the Labour names haven't started to come out yet, for purposes of clouding the water.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Surprised the Labour names haven't started to come out yet, for purposes of clouding the water.



PM on radio 4 now, rape allegations at a labour function


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Surprised the Labour names haven't started to come out yet, for purposes of clouding the water.



I suppose the problem there is that most /all the Corbynistas will have been gone over already, so all the papers will end up doing is getting the opposition.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> PM on radio 4 now, rape allegations at a labour function


Yep, just heard that.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2017)

agricola said:


> I suppose the problem there is that most /all the Corbynistas will have been gone over already, so all the papers will end up doing is getting the opposition.


"_Been groped by a lefty, get in touch and we'll print your story? £5,000 if it was Corbynista, £1,000 if it was union leader and £3 if it was a moderate_"


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Wilf said:


> "_Been groped by a lefty, get in touch and we'll print your story? £5,000 if it was Corbynista, £1,000 if it was union leader and £3 if it was a moderate_"



_"Please contact FameFlynet to arrange pictures"_.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> PM on radio 4 now, rape allegations at a labour function



Activist 'warned' about pursuing rape claim

Dates back to 2011 it seems.  Pretty grim story.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Don't read the responses to keunseberg's tweet on the topic. Miserable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Activist 'warned' about pursuing rape claim
> 
> Dates back to 2011 it seems.  Pretty grim story.


Where's millipede? This happened on his watch.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> Don't read the responses to keunseberg's tweet on the topic. Miserable.



I'm not on twitter but I'll have a wild stab in the dark. Is it loads of comments regarding her bias and questioning why she hasn't said anything about the tory list?  General stuff about that whilst ignoring the very serious allegation?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I'm not on twitter but I'll have a wild stab in the dark. Is it loads of comments regarding her bias and questioning why she hasn't said anything about the tory list?  General stuff about that whilst ignoring the very serious allegation?


Nailed it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

disgusting, hundreds of them all exactly like that Teaboy, plus a few "If its true why didn't she go to the police at the time's.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

This just in too

Westminster staffer says she was sexually assaulted by MP


----------



## Dan U (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Where's millipede? This happened on his watch.



He tweeted pretty quickly party and police should investigate thoroughly


----------



## agricola (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Where's millipede? This happened on his watch.



She was working in Ed Ball's office between October 2011 and May 2013, and worked for Liz Kendall afterwards as well.  It would be interesting to find out who the "party official" was who told her not to report the attack.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> He tweeted pretty quickly party and police should investigate thoroughly


A mere six years late


----------



## Dan U (Oct 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> A mere six years late



That presumes he knew anything


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2017)

Dan U said:


> That presumes he knew anything


Clearly


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2017)

_MP.s must have a say on brexit!_


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

For those who like their spreadsheets *unredacted*.

<removed>


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> For those who like their spreadsheets *unredacted*.
> 
> The unredacted spreadsheet of 40 Tory MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour



Already posted above - without the redactions to spare Kwasi Kwarteng's blushes.


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Already posted above - without the redactions to spare Kwasi Kwarteng's blushes.



Nice one I really must keep up with the Schnews.

<REMOVED>


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

what the fuck are you doing?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

edit that shit out.


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> edit that shit out.



why ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

It's one thing to post the list, quite another to post details of one of the possible victims.


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's one thing to post the list, quite another to post details of one of the possible victims.



That list mentions Danielle Fleet - I merely did a quick google of publically available information. I would have thought if there is a problem it is with posting an unredacted list.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

there's a problem in you not being able to see the problem. fucking freak.


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

Still don't get it. Can you spell it out for the freak please. Happy to remove it if a mod asks me to.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2017)

It's fine to try to shame & ridicule this woman  because.. ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

You've posted details and a picture of someone who may the victim of a sex offence. It really needs explaining why this is a problem in 2017?


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> It's fine to try to shame & ridicule this woman  because.. ?



I will remove it as it is obviously causing offence. That said posting an unredacted list is then probably unwise as names are now being circulated without any proof. I have removed mine.


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> You've posted details and a picture of someone who may the victim of a sex offence. It really needs explaining why this is a problem in 2017?



I took the list to imply that she had had an affair with BJ and was told to sign a NDA to keep his "reputation" intact. I'm not sure any offence has been commited in law as such.


----------



## Silas Loom (Oct 31, 2017)

phillm said:


> to keep his reputation intact


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


>



edited "reputation".


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

bimble said:


> It's fine to try to shame & ridicule this woman  because.. ?



because she chose to have an affair with BoJo allegedly ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2017)

The only thing you know is there's an NDA - the rest is your torrid imagination.


----------



## tim (Oct 31, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Already posted above - without the redactions to spare Kwasi Kwarteng's blushes.



Why was Liz Truss named and Kwasi Kwarteng redacted? And why is two Tory MPs involved in mutual punctuation seen as being on a par with the criminal activities alleged elsewhere?


----------



## phillm (Oct 31, 2017)

killer b said:


> The only thing you know is there's an NDA - the rest is your torrid imagination.



Ok I get it now - I imagined my reasoning above and thought it fair game. Of course there could be an altogether much darker explanation in which case my behaviour was totally inappropriate. Apologies....


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

Damian Green denying allegations. Again, while inappropriate, not the kind of stuff that will shock people.

Allegations 'completely false' - Green


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Damian Green denying allegations. Again, while inappropriate, not the kind of stuff that will shock people.
> 
> Allegations 'completely false' - Green


That's true, at least in the sense of it probably not being a shock to people. He was though seeking to trade helping someone's career for sex. And whilst that could apply to either party being of any age, the usual dynamic is in play here: powerful late middle aged bloke and young woman.  I suspect this breaches the ministerial code, but don't particularly care. He's a deeply sleazy cunt and should be hounded out of public life. However as this story unfolds, I suspect he'll end up being at the bottom end of offences uncovered.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> That's true, at least in the sense of it probably not being a shock to people. He was though seeking to trade helping someone's career for sex. And whilst that could apply to either party being of any age, the usual dynamic is in play here: powerful late middle aged bloke and young woman.  I suspect this breaches the ministerial code, but don't particularly care. He's a deeply sleazy cunt and should be hounded out of public life. However as this story unfolds, I suspect he'll end up being at the bottom end of offences uncovered.



Agree, and - sadly - agree


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

There's a really sad subplot to a lot of these stories, a first meeting where it becomes fairly clear that the politician is 'handsy' or aiming to trade access to a career for sex... and the aspiring activist comes back a second time, with at least a suspicion of what the game is. Something that crops up all over the Weinstein accounts.

I'm not victim blaming in this, it's just genuinely sad.   Whilst the optimum outcome might be for the aspiring politico or actor to punch the fucker, go the police, join a campaigning group, we know that is unlikely to happen. People are isolated and don't see a way to beating these powerful people who will normally be able to trash their stories. But the bit I find really distressing is in some cases feeling they have to go back to the same mogul or MP as, still, their only route to a job. 

One thing that should come out of this is that MP's researchers, secretaries and the rest should be appointed by Parliament itself, not the MP -  with line management up to people in the parliamentary bureaucracy itself.  Wouldn't stop all this shit but would at least dilute the idea that the MP's 'staff' are their private property.  Of course it won't happen because of the fucking pompous image MPs have as the kind of people that need only self regulation - MPs as outside the normal scrutiny rules.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> There's a really sad subplot to a lot of these stories, a first meeting where it becomes fairly clear that the politician is 'handsy' or aiming to trade access to a career for sex... and the aspiring activist comes back a second time, with at least a suspicion of what the game is. Something that crops up all over the Weinstein accounts.
> 
> I'm not victim blaming in this, it's just genuinely sad.   Whilst the optimum outcome might be for the aspiring politico or actor to punch the fucker, go the police, join a campaigning group, we know that is unlikely to happen. People are isolated and don't see a way to beating these powerful people who will normally be able to trash their stories. But the bit I find really distressing is in some cases feeling they have to go back to the same mogul or MP as, still, their only route to a job.
> 
> One thing that should come out of this is that MP's researchers, secretaries and the rest should be appointed by Parliament itself, not the MP -  with line management up to people in the parliamentary bureaucracy itself.  Wouldn't stop all this shit but would at least dilute the idea that the MP's 'staff' are their private property.  Of course it won't happen because of the fucking pompous image MPs have as the kind of people that need only self regulation - MPs as outside the normal scrutiny rules.



People get hassled at work but they still have to go back in the next day.  Its fucked up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> One thing that should come out of this is that MP's researchers, secretaries and the rest should be appointed by Parliament itself, not the MP -  with line management up to people in the parliamentary bureaucracy itself.


very difficult to see how there could be effective line management if the line manager not working with the member of staff on a regular basis.


----------



## agricola (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> One thing that should come out of this is that MP's researchers, secretaries and the rest should be appointed by Parliament itself, not the MP -  with line management up to people in the parliamentary bureaucracy itself.  Wouldn't stop all this shit but would at least dilute the idea that the MP's 'staff' are their private property.  Of course it won't happen because of the fucking pompous image MPs have as the kind of people that need only self regulation - MPs as outside the normal scrutiny rules.



If you are talking about a central pool of staff who could then go on to work in an MP's office but who would not be hired/fired by them, then it would have much more of a positive effect than anything else proposed would (though of course it wouldn't cover the Party staff / "activists" and whatnot who are probably most at risk of abuse).


----------



## MrSki (Nov 1, 2017)




----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> If you are talking about a central pool of staff who could then go on to work in an MP's office but who would not be hired/fired by them, then it would have much more of a positive effect than anything else proposed would (though of course it wouldn't cover the Party staff / "activists" and whatnot who are probably most at risk of abuse).


Yep, exactly that. It cropped up around the expenses scandal, the notion that it might stop them employing their partners and kids, but would be highly relevant here.  I don't think it will happen for one moment.  It's not just that some MPs want to exploit their staff in ways from collecting their dry cleaning right through to sexually assaulting them, it's their inflated vision of themselves as special cases.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep, exactly that. It cropped up around the expenses scandal, the notion that it might stop them employing their partners and kids, but would be highly relevant here.  I don't think it will happen for one moment.  It's not just that some MPs want to exploit their staff in ways from collecting their dry cleaning right through to sexually assaulting them, it's their inflated vision of themselves as special cases.


what would be better might be if research was taken out of the hands of individual mps and put into a bolstered house of commons library staff.

i am reminded that a woman i used to know met the former ruc mp, who - apparently on the grounds of her looks - suggested she might like to work for him.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> very difficult to see how there could be effective line management if the line manager not working with the member of staff on a regular basis.


Aye, I didn't put that very well. Suppose I meant a combination of what Agricola said, along with regular meetings , reporting and career development stuff going through more senior civil servants. Sticking plasters really, things that don't fully undermine the power relationship,, but do disrupt it.


----------



## agricola (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep, exactly that. It cropped up around the expenses scandal, the notion that it might stop them employing their partners and kids, but would be highly relevant here.  I don't think it will happen for one moment.  It's not just that some MPs want to exploit their staff in ways from collecting their dry cleaning right through to sexually assaulting them, it's their inflated vision of themselves as special cases.



Sad then that Bercow specifically ruled it out yesterday, under the pretense that MP's must employ their own staff (though of course we pay the wages of the staff, dismissal costs etc).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> Sad then that Bercow specifically ruled it out yesterday, under the pretense that MP's must employ their own staff (though of course we pay the wages of the staff, dismissal costs etc).


... through to the point of 'office winding up costs' when they lose their seat (on top of several other pots of money they receive).


----------



## agricola (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what would be better might be if research was taken out of the hands of individual mps and put into a bolstered house of commons library staff.
> 
> i am reminded that a woman i used to know met the former ruc mp, who - apparently on the grounds of her looks - suggested she might like to work for him.



Perhaps, but the problem there would be it would be very difficult to keep it out of the hands of individual MPs.  It would probably result in parties doing the research away from Parliament, which might conceivably put more people at risk.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, but the problem there would be it would be very difficult to keep it out of the hands of individual MPs.  It would probably result in parties doing the research away from Parliament, *which might conceivably put more people at risk*.


On that last point: as someone who is not exactly a fan of the parliamentary system, it seems odd having to say this. But responses to the MP's expenses scandal had an underlying (nominal) logic of 'how can we stop MPs stealing money from the public purse'. May et al are now faced with having to create a system of regulation that _stops MPs sexually assaulting staff_, but still tap dances round their idiotic sense of entitlement.  Astonishing situation. 'Would you mind not groping your staff, please Sir?'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, but the problem there would be it would be very difficult to keep it out of the hands of individual MPs.  It would probably result in parties doing the research away from Parliament, which might conceivably put more people at risk.


maybe they should be allowed to employ their families on the basis that they are perhaps less likely to sexually assault them or send them out for sex toys.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what would be better might be if research was taken out of the hands of individual mps and put into a bolstered house of commons library staff.
> 
> i am reminded that a woman i used to know met the former ruc mp, who - apparently on the grounds of her looks - suggested she might like to work for him.


When GG was a labour MP he shared an office with Mildred Gordon and he tried to get her to agree to a bed being moved in.


----------



## agricola (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> On that last point: as someone who is not exactly a fan of the parliamentary system, it seems odd having to say this. But responses to the MP's expenses scandal had an underlying (nominal) logic of 'how can we stop MPs stealing money from the public purse'. May et al are now faced with having to create a system of regulation that _stops MPs sexually assaulting staff_, but still tap dances round their idiotic sense of entitlement.  Astonishing situation. 'Would you mind not groping your staff, please Sir?'



Indeed, but my point was that the problem is not just one of MPs and their office staff at Westminster; if anything the situation there is better than with regards to activists / casual staff away from the Commons who are probably more at risk of abuse and exploitation (as the Elliott Johnson thing proved) given that they have no protection whatsoever.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

A Lib Dem activist posted a good thread on twitter this morning on that topic - worth a read.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

the mail has its finger on the pulse


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the mail has its finger on the pulse
> 
> View attachment 119319



I know who she is and what's shes about and her agenda but it is still disheartening to see the exact same attitude that allowed Saville to flourish being so loudly and proudly displayed.  I had hoped that after what we've seen in the last few years and what we've learned there might just be a slight more decency, but no.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 1, 2017)

tim said:


> Why was Liz Truss named and Kwasi Kwarteng redacted? And why is two Tory MPs involved in mutual punctuation seen as being on a par with the criminal activities alleged elsewhere?



I assume the list was kept for the purposes of keeping people in line, not for actually doing anything about any of the stuff mentioned. So cheating, harassment and abuse are all there because they can all be used as leverage, not because they're ethical equivalents.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I assume the list was kept for the purposes of keeping people in line, not for actually doing anything about any of the stuff mentioned. So cheating, harassment and abuse are all there because they can all be used as leverage, not because they're ethical equivalents.



But at least one of the entries doesn't even involve cheating on someone, we were told this wasn't a whip type list that would be used for the purpose you describe, and I would expect a list of that kind would be more comprehensive and detail-laden.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2017)

A list of potential vulnerabilities that might be exploited (by press, opponent, black mailer - take your pick) I guess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A list of potential vulnerabilities that might be exploited (by press, opponent, black mailer - take your pick) I guess.


or indeed one's own party


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

> There are, however, a couple of misconceptions about the “dossier” that I can clear up. The first is that it is not really a “dossier” in a professional sense, nor has it been collated by party whips. My understanding, from the two people who passed it to me, is that Conservative staffers have taken it upon themselves to collate the list in order to document worrying patterns and identify if there are any opportunities to corroborate the stories of others. (In the case of Bill Cosby, what doomed him was that it stopped being a “his word versus hers” situation and became a “his word versus hers and hers and hers and hers and hers” one.)



Why isn’t the media publishing the full list of allegations against Tory MPs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Why isn’t the media publishing the full list of allegations against Tory MPs?


it was one thing when publications started including photos of their journalists.

it's quite another when publications start including watercolours


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A list of potential vulnerabilities that might be exploited (by press, opponent, black mailer - take your pick) I guess.


Some of the things listed were probably _Essential Criteria_ for those applying to become an MP.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

Sorry for several New Statesman links back to back but oh look, John Humphries in idiot throwback shocker.

John Humphrys worries MPs won’t “date” or “marry” assistants if we call out assault



> “Is there a danger that we could go too far in the other direction and people will be afraid to ask somebody else out for the evening or indeed ask them out for a proper date – maybe, eventually, to marry them or something, I mean, you know. There are risks in this aren’t there?”


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Sorry for several New Statesman links back to back but oh look, John Humphries in idiot throwback shocker.
> 
> John Humphrys worries MPs won’t “date” or “marry” assistants if we call out assault


yeh that's really on the cards john


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh that's really on the cards john


I'll bet he sees Giles Coren as the son he never had.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

Did I read somewhere that Humphries has had a string of partners who are/were junior staff at the BBC?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Did I read somewhere that Humphries has had a string of partners who are/were junior staff at the BBC?


i don't know, did you?


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

Ah, just one.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


>


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

Dominic Raab counter attacks (from guardian politics feed):


> Under my own name, the entry reads: “Injunction for inappropriate behaviour with a woman”. And yet, I have never been served with any injunction for anything. Nor have I ever sought one. Equally, any insinuation that I have engaged in anything resembling sexual harassment, sexually abusive behaviour or lewd remarks with either parliamentary colleagues or staff (in any job I have done) is false and malicious. I have already taken legal advice.
> 
> The only tenuous link I can conceive of is that, in 2011, a tabloid newspaper ran a vexatious story smearing me, in relation to a previous job before I became an MP. I successfully sued that newspaper for libel, and in March 2012 they paid a five figure sum in compensation, and printed an unequivocal apology and retraction on page 2.
> 
> I appreciate the Westminster list will encourage a further media feeding frenzy against MPs. I also recognise that there are undoubtedly some very disturbing allegations out there, which need to be taken seriously. At the same time, for anonymous individuals to compile and publish, or allow to be published, a list of vague, unsubstantiated and – in my case – false allegations is wrong. It is also a form of harassment and intimidation, although of course I am not suggesting it is the same or equivalent. Still, accountability should mean properly investigating any reports of abuse, without irresponsibly smearing those who have done nothing wrong.


You can see the battle over this story shaping up before our eyes. On one side there seem to be enough MPs involved that it reaches, at least temporarily, the 'something must be done' stage. But on the other the credibility of the list will be called into question if, in this particular case, it is wrong and there was no injunction. Will be used to undermine the whole slew of allegations, the vast majority of which I'm sure will be genuine.  And, fwiw, the fact that he got a retraction from the Mail on Sunday doesn't mean a great deal to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Will be used to undermine the whole slew of allegations, the vast majority of which I'm sure will be genuine.



Some will try, but I don't think it will work, and the list is not central to the story despite the attention given to it in recent days.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> John Humphrys worries MPs won’t “date” or “marry” assistants if we call out assault



I thought they married them _*then*_ put them on the payroll


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


>



Should be noted that this refers to comments made by Tim Fortescue (Tory Whip from 1970-73) not to any whips current or in the recent past.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Dominic Raab counter attacks (from guardian politics feed):
> 
> You can see the battle over this story shaping up before our eyes. On one side there seem to be enough MPs involved that it reaches, at least temporarily, the 'something must be done' stage. But on the other the credibility of the list will be called into question if, in this particular case, it is wrong and there was no injunction. Will be used to undermine the whole slew of allegations, the vast majority of which I'm sure will be genuine.  And, fwiw, the fact that he got a retraction from the Mail on Sunday doesn't mean a great deal to me.



I'm increasingly suspicious that list is mostly non-credible or not particularly serious stuff, with a few sacrificial lambs thrown in. 



elbows said:


> Some will try, but I don't think it will work, and the list is not central to the story despite the attention given to it in recent days.



I hope you're right but the focus seems to be all on this list now.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 1, 2017)

More revelations.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

christ, that's weak. one of yours?


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> I hope you're right but the focus seems to be all on this list now.



There is a lot of focus on the list at the moment, but it really isn't the only story getting headlines on this matter. Things will rumble on at various levels, some of which are immune from list-related bullshit and push-backs.

Sadly as we saw in the post-Savile environment, there is a lot more 'energy' when things reach epic scandalous gossip proportions, a good deal of which dies off when big scalps are not claimed. And people such as myself did underestimate how quickly things could turn in the other direction and how effective the push-back from some quarters could be. But that stuff still rumbles on too despite that, and there were additional complications in those cases due to factors such as the amount of time that had passed and how damaged (and easy to discredit) some of the victims and alleged victims were.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)




----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Sorry for several New Statesman links back to back but oh look, John Humphries in idiot throwback shocker.
> 
> John Humphrys worries MPs won’t “date” or “marry” assistants if we call out assault


This is one of the most breathtakingly stupid statements I've ever seen. This week, at least...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

eatmorecheese said:


> This is one of the most breathtakingly stupid statements I've ever seen. This week, at least...


you won't believe what kaka tim posted next.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

the Rory Stewart allegations - that he asked his researcher to do 'odd things' - have been denied. by the researcher...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the Rory Stewart allegations - that he asked his researcher to do 'odd things' - have been denied. by the researcher...


Could it just be a different researcher?


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Could it just be a different researcher?



The lady in question was named (in parentheses) on the unredacted list.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Could it just be a different researcher?



it was a named researcher - on the list. same name researcher claims its bollocks. could be some form of mix up, but given the other hole in the list, it smells a bit like made up hoop.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the Rory Stewart allegations - that he asked his researcher to do 'odd things' - have been denied. by the researcher...


i keep reading that as the rod stewart allegations


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> The lady in question was named (in parentheses) on the unredacted list.



Could of course simply be because they didn't want to be named or implicated in this and they're just trying to keep out of it.

Could also be that this list is just a meaningless distraction full of easily refuted claims.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> ...Could also be that this list is just a meaningless distraction full of easily refuted claims.



it seems a somewhat risky strategy - effectly smear your whole parliamentary party as sex pests and hope the public take _more_ notice as each seperate allegation is refuted in turn. lesson 101 of politics is that if you thrown enough shit some of it will stick - even May knows that...


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Could of course simply be because they didn't want to be named or implicated in this and they're just trying to keep out of it.
> 
> Could also be that this list is just a meaningless distraction full of easily refuted claims.




"Distraction" is silly. It's not part of anyone's masterplan. 

It's definitely a collection of informed and uninformed gossip, though, and so the value is questionable except as a source for more detailed research. Anyway, this is a government that can, without shame, have Johnson in the cabinet.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

First place this list was leaked to was the Guido Fawkes website ? Weird story all round.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> it seems a somewhat risky strategy - effectly smear your whole parliamentary party as sex pests and hope the public take _more_ notice as each seperate allegation is refuted in turn. lesson 101 of politics is that if you thrown enough shit some of it will stick - even May knows that...


it's a mad idea. it might be a shit, incomplete or innacurate list, but there isn't the faintest chance it's been released as some kind of distraction.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> More revelations.


I'm really confused. I can't think of any short words, words of let's say 4 letters, that would apply to Grant Shapps.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's a mad idea. it might be a shit, incomplete or innacurate list, but there isn't the faintest chance it's been released as some kind of distraction.


Yep, my guess is that the inconsistencies of tone and inclusion of things that vary from sexual assaults through to absolutely nothing at all suggests it is at least 'real', regardless of who produced it (disgruntled tory, wannabe whip, journo). It's all about opportunism and monitoring, nothing in itself about taking _action_ against abusers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 1, 2017)

The original list needs to be taken in context of it basically being a form of "raw intelligence" which is often garbled. It's been suitably skewed all day on social media by apologists for molestation. 

I often wonder if these loudmouths would be quite so quick to say "don't be hysterical PC gone mad (tm) etc. " if they had partners / children / siblings etc. who were subject to some of this stuff.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's a mad idea. it might be a shit, incomplete or innacurate list, but there isn't the faintest chance it's been released as some kind of distraction.



I think the extent to which it's a mad idea depends what else there is to distract from.

I agree normally it would be mad, but in the context of a govt that would collapse if even one or two MP's were expelled, and based on the flimsy nature of some of the stuff in that document, I'm feeling a bit suspicious of it tbh, especially after the two denials today.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The original list needs to be taken in context of it basically being a form of "raw intelligence" which is often garbled. It's been suitably skewed all day on social media by apologists for molestation.
> 
> I often wonder if these loudmouths would be quite so quick to say "don't be hysterical PC gone mad (tm) etc. " if they had partners / children / siblings etc. who were subject to some of this stuff.


"It's a slippery slope. They start off stopping you molesting your secretary and, before you know it, they've banned Christmas".


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think the extent to which it's a mad idea depends what else there is to distract from.
> 
> I agree normally it would be mad, but in the context of a govt that would collapse if even one or two MP's were expelled, and based on the flimsy nature of some of the stuff in that document, I'm feeling a bit suspicious of it tbh, especially after the two denials today.


If it's an document put together by Tory staff to compare notes - as it's claimed it is - then that it's a mixture of unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate gossip and more serious allegations is totally what you'd expect. It's been leaked by someone with an agenda (that Guido and the Sun are where it was leaked to makes this pretty certain), but this kind of thing just isn't controllable once it's out in the world - this will destabilise the government, and it's totally conceivable it could bring it down: so look for people who could gain from that within the party for the leak, rather than dreaming up some machiavellian conspiracy on the part of the government.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Ridiculous to watch Jess Phillips weighing in on this for Labour given her track record of generating insane headlines about rape threats. She's hardly the most convincing champion for victims of sexual assault...


off you fuck.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

Following on from what I said earlier, I really don't think the crapness of the list will kill the story so long as people keep coming forward like this:

Former MP 'assaulted Commons intern'



> A former parliamentary intern has told the BBC that he was sexually assaulted by a former MP in 2012.
> 
> James Greenhalgh, who didn't know the MP, said he felt violated.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigTom (Nov 1, 2017)

As much as i dislike Jess Phillips, she has spent much of her working life working in women's refuges and charities supporting victims of domestic abuse. She's one of the only MPs i can think of who i think will actually go at this properly. I hope i have her pegged right as someone with some principles when it comes to this issue and that she won't let this go in a horse trade for some career bullshit.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 1, 2017)

not named this week, but it appears that john redwood mp took exception to tom pride reporting his comment about date rape.

more here.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

Bad things on front page of evening standard , two new serious allegations.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i keep reading that as the rod stewart allegations



If you think I’m sexy...


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Bad things on front page of evening standard , two new serious allegations.



These?

Woman 'reported sexual assault by MP four times but was ignored'

EXCLUSIVE: 'Date rape drug' in Commons bar - Tory aide tells police her drink was spiked in MPs' drinking den


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

Fallon has resigned!


----------



## Sue (Nov 1, 2017)

Poi E said:


> If you think I’m sexy...


What's wrong with being sexy?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fallon has resigned!


That's a big one.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fallon has resigned!


Presumably something more is due to come out?


----------



## Sue (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fallon has resigned!


Wonder what's about to come out?


----------



## Sue (Nov 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Presumably something more is due to come out?


Snap


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

Fucking yes! Yes!


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> What's wrong with being sexy?



I wouldn’t know


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fallon has resigned!


One imagines over more than behaviour which "may have fallen short".  Hope he's just the first domino.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fallon has resigned!



It's ok though. It was nothing to do with this ...



> The BBC understands that his decision was not related to any new or specific claims.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 1, 2017)

What did Fallon do?  I saw the uncensored list earlier, but now it's been deleted, and I can't really remember who did what.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

Hahahahah. Him and Spacey in one week. Cracker.


----------



## chilango (Nov 1, 2017)

How many lost by-elections till the govt falls?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 1, 2017)

graunid journo


----------



## Raheem (Nov 1, 2017)

The BBC said:
			
		

> The BBC understands that his decision was not related to any new or specific claims.



I can't read this in any other way that him effectively admitting he is just a general slime.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

J Ed said:


> graunid journo




What does he mean? That sexual harassment is tolerated in the Kremlin? Am I missing something?


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 1, 2017)

Jon-of-arc said:


> What did Fallon do?  I saw the uncensored list earlier, but now it's been deleted, and I can't really remember who did what.



A drunk with odd sexual penchants and has been sexual with another MP.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 1, 2017)

Poi E said:


> What does he mean? That sexual harassment is tolerated in the Kremlin? Am I missing something?



Corbyn! Russia! Communists! Trump!

Or something like that.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 1, 2017)

chilango said:


> How many lost by-elections till the govt falls?


Presumably he's just resigned from cabinet.  Not as an mp.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i keep reading that as the rod stewart allegations



Only a matter of time I reckon




			
				Rod Stewart said:
			
		

> C'mon angel my heart's on fire
> Don't deny your man's desire
> You'd be a fool to stop this tide
> Spread your wings and let me come inside
> ...


----------



## chilango (Nov 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably he's just resigned from cabinet.  Not as an mp.



oh


----------



## Poi E (Nov 1, 2017)

Good enough. Let’s see what else comes out.

I see the odious wanker in his resignation letter said he had “fallen below the standards expected of the Armed Forces.” No, below those expected of a decent human being, you arse.


----------



## big eejit (Nov 1, 2017)

Fallon on his (pork) sword.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 1, 2017)

big eejit said:


> Fallon on his (pork) sword.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 1, 2017)

Raheem said:


> I can't read this in any other way that him effectively admitting he is just a general slime.



Been told by a mate who is pretty senior in newspapers that there is another story in the post about Fallon, which of course may now be spiked by whichever paper has it.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 1, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> A drunk with odd sexual penchants and has been sexual with another MP.



Which of those is the thing that meant he had to resign?  I mean, not that I give a fuck what happens to a Tory minister, but unless the being sexual with another mp was non-consensual, I can't strike this down as a victory against harassment and abuse in Westminster.  Although it is pretty weird that anyone knows he has odd sexual penchants.

Must be more to it than that.  Was he not handsy or anything?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably he's just resigned from cabinet.  Not as an mp.


yeah but depending of whats coming , he may well have to stand down as an mp ( fingers crossed )


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Presumably he's just resigned from cabinet.  Not as an mp.


Indeed: he's resigned_ as defence secretary_. Although the BBC website does not make this very clear. 

Here's his letter:


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 1, 2017)

strip him of his knighthood too methinks


----------



## 2hats (Nov 1, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed: he's resigned_ as defence secretary_.


Implying that MPs are held to lower standards than members of the armed forces?


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 1, 2017)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Which of those is the thing that meant he had to resign?  I mean, not that I give a fuck what happens to a Tory minister, but unless the being sexual with another mp was non-consensual, I can't strike this down as a victory against harassment and abuse in Westminster.  Although it is pretty weird that anyone knows he has odd sexual penchants.
> 
> Must be more to it than that.  Was he not handsy or anything?



How the fuck should I know why he’s resigned! You asked what was on that sheet, I answered your query.

The MP he was sexual with, according to that sheet, is Mike Freer.

The woman whose knee Fallon touched has just tweeted she’d be surprised if he’s resigned for that (the knee touching). Which I think we’d all worked out.


----------



## killer b (Nov 1, 2017)

Dan U said:


> Been told by a mate who is pretty senior in newspapers that there is another story in the post about Fallon.


Tbf I could have told you This, and I'm not pretty senior in newspapers.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 1, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> How the fuck should I know why he’s resigned! You asked what was on that sheet, I answered your query.
> 
> The MP he was sexual with, according to that sheet, is Mike Freer.
> 
> The woman whose knee Fallon touched has just tweeted she’d be surprised if he’s resigned for that (the knee touching). Which I think we’d all worked out.



Soz, yeah, wasn't really aimed at you.  Thanks for your answer.

Didn't know about the knee touching. Cheers.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 1, 2017)

Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> Tbf I could have told you This, and I'm not pretty senior in newspapers.



Ha ha yes true enough


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> Implying that MPs are held to lower standards than members of the armed forces?



I think that's pretty obvious - if I had had to pay expenses or allowances back to the MOD because I had _misinterpreted _the rules I would stand a 50/50 chance of losing my job with immediate effect purely through administrative action. If it was more than a couple of grand I'd be courts martialed, probably go to prison and certainly lose my pension.

Not what happens to MP's...


----------



## Raheem (Nov 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?



A This Week invite list of disgraced former defence secretaries, I should think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Hahahahah. Him and Spacey in one week. Cracker.


Next year we'll have a scandal pool thread as well as a dead pool one


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?



The House of Lords


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I think that's pretty obvious - if I had had to pay expenses or allowances back to the MOD because I had _misinterpreted _the rules I would stand a 50/50 chance of losing my job with immediate effect purely through administrative action. If it was more than a couple of grand I'd be courts martialed, probably go to prison and certainly lose my pension.
> 
> Not what happens to MP's...


They should be sent to the south georgia hundreds


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> Implying that MPs are held to lower standards than members of the armed forces?



Wasn’t a submarine commander recently relieved of his duties cos of a sexual relationship with a colleague? But Felon is still an MP.


----------



## chilango (Nov 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wasn’t a submarine commander recently relieved of his duties cos of a sexual relationship with a colleague? But Felon is still an MP.



What’s long and hard and full of seamen?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wasn’t a submarine commander recently relieved of his duties cos of a sexual relationship with a colleague? But Felon is still an MP.



Yup, the colleague was also relieved of their duties.

Both have effectively lost their jobs.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 1, 2017)

chilango said:


> What’s long and hard and full of seamen?



And round


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> These?
> 
> Woman 'reported sexual assault by MP four times but was ignored'
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: 'Date rape drug' in Commons bar - Tory aide tells police her drink was spiked in MPs' drinking den


Yep. The front page this eve looks like this (sorry if massive pic)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?


A _Cliveden party_ of disgraced former Defence Secretaries


----------



## tim (Nov 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?



A robertson of disgraceful defence secretaries.


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 1, 2017)

A Profumo ?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> A Profumo ?



Ahem



DaveCinzano said:


> A _Cliveden party_ of disgraced former Defence Secretaries


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 1, 2017)

officially he was the " Secretary of State for War" - so they're both wrong anyway


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 1, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> officially he was the " Secretary of State for War" - so they're both wrong anyway


Speak for yourself


----------



## tim (Nov 1, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Only a matter of time I reckon



Till he get's forgiven and returns to the cabinet


----------



## hot air baboon (Nov 1, 2017)

well you _*would*_ say that wouldn't you


----------



## tim (Nov 1, 2017)

chilango said:


> How many lost by-elections till the govt falls?



They won't lose much sleep over Sheffield Hallam.


----------



## shifting gears (Nov 1, 2017)

Appears that Newsnight tonight is going to examine sexual-harassment in general rather than directly address the recent parliamentary revelations..... hmmmm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds like this sort of stuff was an open secret - or not even a secret. Yet this bloke won the selection for a very safe seat. They either have very serious personnel problems or there's some serious not giving a shit going on.



Either?

Both.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> If it's an document put together by Tory staff to compare notes - as it's claimed it is - then that it's a mixture of unconfirmed and possibly inaccurate gossip and more serious allegations is totally what you'd expect. It's been leaked by someone with an agenda (that Guido and the Sun are where it was leaked to makes this pretty certain), but this kind of thing just isn't controllable once it's out in the world - this will destabilise the government, and it's totally conceivable it could bring it down: so look for people who could gain from that within the party for the leak, rather than dreaming up some machiavellian conspiracy on the part of the government.



As you say, if. It doesn't look like a list that was compiled for internal purposes. Why would Amber Rudd be on it?

Having said that, a lot of stuff broke tonight so whatever, it's out, and regardless of whether my suspicions have any basis as you say it *is* destabilising the govt.


----------



## agricola (Nov 1, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> As you say, if. It doesn't look like a list that was compiled for internal purposes. Why would Amber Rudd be on it?
> 
> Having said that, a lot of stuff broke tonight so whatever, it's out, and regardless of whether my suspicions have any basis as you say it *is* destabilising the govt.



The Raab one is the interesting one - he has denied ever having an injunction, but the case he cites that he thinks it may relate to (him suing the Mail over a story about when he was DD's chief of staff) actually boiled down to the Mail being refused permission to examine a settlement (and speak to one of the parties) agreed between Raab and a third party over an employment dispute which may or may not have involved sexual discrimination.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> the Rory Stewart allegations - that he asked his researcher to do 'odd things' - have been denied. by the researcher...



I wonder how baroque the "odd things" were.  Most of these offences, while nasty, are quotidian.  Where's the Milliganesque stuff, the auto=erotic asphyxiation while wearing women's underwear and gumming a satsuma?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> it was a named researcher - on the list. same name researcher claims its bollocks. could be some form of mix up, but given the other hole in the list, it smells a bit like made up hoop.



Was probably Bob rather than Rory Stewart.  Probably asked his researcher to give him a reach-around while they sang "Father Abraham" and sank pints of gin.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wonder how baroque the "odd things" were.  Most of these offences, while nasty, are quotidian.  Where's the Milliganesque stuff, the auto=erotic asphyxiation while wearing women's underwear and gumming a satsuma?



politicians today, they've just not got the flair for public life...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I'm really confused. I can't think of any short words, words of let's say 4 letters, that would apply to Grant Shapps.



I can.  Plenty of 5 letter words too, like "fraud", "Green", "shite", "twonk" and many others.  4 letter words are best, though.  Especially "cunt".


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can.  Plenty of 5 letter words too, like "fraud", "Green", "shite", "twonk" and many others.  4 letter words are best, though.  Especially "cunt".



Is there a short word that describes sexually harassing your own alter ego?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

kebabking said:


> politicians today, they've just not got the flair for public life...



Precisely! It's like they've forgotten every bit of perversion and deviance they learned at boarding school and university!  All that ferret-molesting, playing "spunky biscuit", raping the janitor's Jack Russell, de-bagging and sodomy, and fetishising women in 1950s nurse's uniform.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> Is there a short word that describes sexually harassing your own alter ego?



No, but now I wish there was!


----------



## Raheem (Nov 1, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I can.  Plenty of 5 letter words too, like "fraud", "Green", "shite", "twonk" and many others.  4 letter words are best, though.  Especially "cunt".



You can also combine those. "Cuntfraud". "Twonkshite". It's practically a whole language of its own.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Precisely! It's like they've forgotten every bit of perversion and deviance they learned at boarding school and university!  All that ferret-molesting, playing "spunky biscuit", raping the janitor's Jack Russell, de-bagging and sodomy, and fetishising women in 1950s nurse's uniform.



amateurs the lot of them - though an honourable mention goes to the chap who was videoed (allegedly m'lud..) while having 3 blokes piss on his chest.

it almost makes you envious of the French - doubtless they have a minister who has worked his way through entire sports teams and nunneries - and of the Americans; i know Trump has silly hair, but to have a Pres who has enriched his children to the tune of billions at public expence _and_ commited treason against the US despite having been in office less than a year, it must make the heart swell with pride and the eyes to dampen somewhat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Is there a collective noun for disgraced former defence secretaries?



A shared hotel room of former defence secretaries?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wasn’t a submarine commander recently relieved of his duties cos of a sexual relationship with a colleague? But Felon is still an MP.



TBF, I thought it was a job requirement for sub skippers to have sexual relations with crew members!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2017)

chilango said:


> What’s long and hard and full of seamen?



Margaret Thatcher's coffin before it was cremated.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 1, 2017)

there are several ideas doing the rounds regarding Fallon, none are concrete, so take your pick...

i) Fallon is - in a genuinely innocent way - a touchy-feely bloke who likes a drink at parties. he can read the tea leaves and knows that there are probably hundreds of people he has touched while drunk (not neccesarily in a sexual way, he touches shoulders, arms etc.. of pretty much everyone he talks to), and knows that he can't possibly expect a a get-out-of-jail-free card as presented by Julia Hartley-Brewer in each case - so he's gone before he was pushed.

ii) theres an allegation that while an Energy minister he became overly attentive to a very pretty, and unnacountably interested in the minutae of Energy policy, woman with a pronounced Russian accent. never proven, quite possibly made up, but you never know.

iii) i +ii + he thinks defence is going to get a shoeing in the next spending round, he has already told the PM that Defence can't function on its current budget and she isn't prepared to order the Treasury to find more cash, so he's decided that its time to go.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

This is the Russian story you refer to: BLACK DOG:Michael Fallon warned away from manoeuvres of Russian blonde at drinks party | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

binka said:


> I'm finding it quite difficult to think of a Tory MP I'd be surprised to find on this list.


well, there's the female ones, I suppose...


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 2, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> well, there's the female ones, I suppose...



Amber Rudd is on it.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Amber Rudd is on it.



But not in a sex pest way - consenting adults stuff. There is a female MP on the list who's activities _might_ be regarded as pesty, but the language used is ambiguous.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> But not in a sex pest way - consenting adults stuff. There is a female MP on the list who's activities _might_ be regarded as pesty, but the language used is ambiguous.



Lots of them (well, some) aren't in a sex pest way. They're for potential embarrassments to the party...through affairs. She is supposed to be bonking the PPS to the Chancellor.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2017)

paul staines being predictably revolting about this on the radio 4 media show - "it happens everywhere in society because of our highly sexualised culture" - dismissing the argument that this is about unequal power relations and accountability. He then follows this up by saying that "not all these women are innocent victims" but "predatory" careerists using their sexuality to obtain leverage over these poor men. 

One shudders to think what his own particular sexual peccadilloes might consist of...


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> One shudders to think what his own particular sexual peccadilloes might consist of...



Oranges, stockings & poppers no doubt.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 2, 2017)

Names unredacted here The unredacted spreadsheet of 40 Tory MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

Boris is on that list and he has gone VERY quiet...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> well, there's the female ones, I suppose...


don't know why that surprises you, streathamite. in this respect at least the tories are an equal opportunity party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

one point that was made on the today programme this morning is that fallon has set the bar for resignations with touching someone's knee fifteen years ago - FIFTEEN YEARS!

so anything more serious than that, or anything more recent, and ministerial resignations will be demanded outside the house if not in.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

He hasn't though has he? There's something (or many things) about to emerge about him.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 2, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Names unredacted here The unredacted spreadsheet of 40 Tory MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour



I wonder what the word next to Liam Fox is? pervert?


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

it's _Adam Werrity_


----------



## ignatious (Nov 2, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Names unredacted here The unredacted spreadsheet of 40 Tory MPs accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour



The one here is fully unredacted:-

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie - Craig Murray


----------



## Poi E (Nov 2, 2017)

Go Craig.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> don't know why that surprises you, streathamite. in this respect at least the tories are an equal opportunity party.


Yes, true!


----------



## IC3D (Nov 2, 2017)

Some of these appear to be outing gays and accusing women of promiscuity. Seems seedy alongside the harassment accusations. All very Tory to the bone.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

So the things I'm enjoying most this morning is first the resignation statement.  In his rush to get the statement out Fallen appears to have used the phrase '...something that was acceptable 10-15 years ago' when he actually meant to say '........something I would (and did) get away with 10-15 years ago'.  Its an easy mistake to make I guess and an obvious oversight.

Secondly is how him resigning now is being spun as an act of honour and decency.  I'm not 100% convinced that being forced to resign because of a complete lack of honour and decency does in itself represent a honorable and decent act.  What do I know though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> So the things I'm enjoying most this morning is first the resignation statement.  In his rush to get the statement out Fallen appears to have used the phrase '...something that was acceptable 10-15 years ago' when he actually meant to say '........something I would (and did) get away with 10-15 years ago'.  Its an easy mistake to make I guess and an obvious oversight.
> 
> Secondly is how him resigning now is being spun as an act of honour and decency.  I'm not 100% convinced that being forced to resign because of a complete lack of honour and decency does in itself represent a honorable and decent act.  What do I know though?


what you do know is he's shafted anyone who has done anything similar more recently and is not so accommodating in submitting their resignation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> He hasn't though has he? There's something (or many things) about to emerge about him.


yes. but the reason he has given for his resignation - regardless of what comes out subsequently - undermines the efforts of other sex pests to remain in post.


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2017)

As kb, and Fallon himself, has said. It's not about the knee touching. There's more coming on him. He knows it's going to be bad.

I wonder if he told May what he's done and that's why she sacked him?


----------



## Fez909 (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but the reason he has given for his resignation - regardless of what comes out subsequently - undermines the efforts of other sex pests to remain in post.


Depends what they've done. Other knee gropers wouldn't be under pressure to resign if they've 'only' done what's he's been known to have done so far.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> As kb, and Fallon himself, has said. It's not about the knee touching. There's more coming on him. He knows it's going to be bad.
> 
> I wonder if he told May what he's done and that's why she sacked him?


so you say. however, the general impression given has been that hand on knee 15 years ago led to resignation. it doesn't so much matter what happens in the westminster bubble, now the chain reports of hand on knee -> resignation has been given by the media it will be harder for other sex pests to remain in post.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what you do know is he's shafted anyone who has done anything similar more recently and is not so accommodating in submitting their resignation.



work being the hotbed (are we allowed hotbeds anymore?) of gossip and speculation that it is, the concensus of opinion is that both Fallon and May decided that he could not survive the stream of 'handsy at parties', 'likes a drink', and 'wasn't he a bit friendly with that Russian woman?' stories that are inevitably coming down the road, so knew he had to go (it also suggests that while his relationship with May was still one of genuine support and friendship, he has felt for some time that she's simply not listening to his begging, and its getting to begging, for more money for the MOD) - the concensus also supports the view that the deep, long-held _loathing_ that Fallon, and May, have for both Boris Johnson and Liam Fox has coloured the way that has resigned with the very deliberate intention of seeing them in personal disgrace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> Depends what they've done. Other knee gropers wouldn't be under pressure to resign if they've 'only' done what's he's been known to have done so far.


a couple of things.

the first thing, and repeating myself is getting rather dull, the perception has been given that fallon has departed because of this negligible incident around 2003. this being the case pressure which might not previously have been there, from the press, from the public, for a resignation may well now be. second, pressure to resign will not likely come from within the conservative party, regardless pretty much of the behaviour revealed, in part because so many of them have been at it themselves and in part because the government's grip on power is quite feeble. pressure to resign will come from other sources.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> work being the hotbed (are we allowed hotbeds anymore?) of gossip and speculation that it is, the concensus of opinion is that both Fallon and May decided that he could not survive the stream of 'handsy at parties', 'likes a drink', and 'wasn't he a bit friendly with that Russian woman?' stories that are inevitably coming down the road, so knew he had to go (it also suggests that while his relationship with May was still one of genuine support and friendship, he has felt for some time that she's simply not listening to his begging, and its getting to begging, for more money for the MOD) - the concensus also supports the view that the deep, long-held _loathing_ that Fallon, and May, have for both Boris Johnson and Liam Fox has coloured the way that has resigned with the very deliberate intention of seeing them in personal disgrace.


well we'll see.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 2, 2017)

Fun Thursday game: what can we think of that was by some measure acceptable in 2002/2007 and isn't acceptable now?

Was he in Nickelback?


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> there are several ideas doing the rounds regarding Fallon, none are concrete, so take your pick...
> 
> i) Fallon is - in a genuinely innocent way - a touchy-feely bloke who likes a drink at parties. he can read the tea leaves and knows that there are probably hundreds of people he has touched while drunk (not neccesarily in a sexual way, he touches shoulders, arms etc.. of pretty much everyone he talks to), and knows that he can't possibly expect a a get-out-of-jail-free card as presented by Julia Hartley-Brewer in each case - so he's gone before he was pushed.
> 
> ...



I just don't think scenarios 1 & 3 are plausible.  

Regarding the first one people know the difference between some drunk knob invading your personal space and being _tactile _rather than some drunk knob getting handy and lecherous. Given the seriousness of some of the allegations there is no way he would be resigning over drunkenly putting his arm around people.

As for scenario 3, well he's just resigned in disgrace which would seem an odd way of saying 'I no longer fancy the job'.  Surely you'd just pull the 'more time with the family' card or say you want to concentrate on 'local constituency issues close to your heart'?

Scenario 2 is possible but people have probably known about that for a long time, so why now?  I just think the most likely thing is that he's a been a low level sleaze for a long time and there have been a slew of complaints about him.  The one incident we know about was clearly enough for the H-B to tell him to f-off do we honestly think that was a one off?  Guys who cross that line are happy to chance their arm every time, because you never know etc.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Fun Thursday game: what can we think of that was by some measure acceptable in 2002/2007 and isn't acceptable now?
> 
> Was he in Nickelback?



Maybe he thought England (senior men's team) could win an international football tournament?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

IC3D said:


> *Some of these appear to be outing gays and accusing women of promiscuity*. Seems seedy alongside the harassment accusations. All very Tory to the bone.


 All very true, there's an element of abuse in whoever compiled the list. Whoever did it clearly didn't have the protection of young parliamentary researchers as their main priority.

Having been all high minded and said the above I still can't resist being intrigued by some of the detail... _likes to be pissed on by three men_.  Very _specific_, this micturatory triad.


----------



## Sue (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I just don't think scenarios 1 & 3 are plausible.
> 
> Regarding the first one people know the difference between some drunk knob invading your personal space and being _tactile _rather than some drunk knob getting handy and lecherous. Given the seriousness of some of the allegations there is no way he would be resigning over drunkenly putting his arm around people.
> 
> ...



Yep. The 'genuinely innocent, touchy feely after a few drinks' excuse has been used by and about sleazy men ever since I can remember.

And touching up someone in a work context has never been fucking acceptable. This 'times have changed' line that's being pushed in general is really, really annoying me.


----------



## pesh (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Fun Thursday game: what can we think of that was by some measure acceptable in 2002/2007 and isn't acceptable now?
> 
> Was he in Nickelback?


Psy-trance promoter?


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

That list definitely looks like it was compiled in case there’s a need for leverage against the people on it, certainly not a list of things that you (list compiler) intend to do anything about .


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> That list definitely looks like it was compiled in case there’s a need for leverage against the people on it, certainly not a list of things that you (list compiler) intend to do anything about .



Yeah its pressure points isn't it?  That's probably the best thing you can say about it the other option is that its a total load of old bollocks.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> All very true, there's an element of abuse in whoever compiled the list. Whoever did it clearly didn't have the protection of young parliamentary researchers as their main priority.



Im guessing the author is someone close to staines - that's if he didn't write it up himself.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Ruth Davidson increases the pressure on May to
May urged to end 'locker room culture' after Fallon resignation
References to the Augean Stables and 'locker room culture'. Clearly an attempt to stop May merely 'managing' the crisis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Ruth Davidson increases the pressure on May to
> May urged to end 'locker room culture' after Fallon resignation
> References to the Augean Stables and 'locker room culture'. Clearly an attempt to stop May merely 'managing' the crisis.


may couldn't manage a small shop


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

Had to look up the mythological reference. Good that, immortal cattle producing mountains of shit that’s never been cleaned out.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Im guessing the author is someone close to staines - that's if he didn't write it up himself.


Looks like the work of somebody trying to be clever, but in mixing serious allegations with salacious shite they reveal their own prejudices and purposes.  But if it was Staines, what would the purpose be, to bring May down or to bring down some of the names on the list?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Had to look up the mythological reference. Good that, immortal cattle producing mountains of shit that’s never been cleaned out.


we could divert the thames through the commons. while it was sitting.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Ruth Davidson increases the pressure on May to
> May urged to end 'locker room culture' after Fallon resignation
> References to the Augean Stables and 'locker room culture'. Clearly an attempt to stop May merely 'managing' the crisis.


unfortunatly parliament seems to lack anyone of herculean stature. Its all spivs, theives, sex pests and dangerous ideolouges who haven't cleaned thier own shitter in 10 years let alone mucked out the mythical stable


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Looks like the work of somebody trying to be clever, but in mixing serious allegations with salacious shite they reveal their own prejudices and purposes.  But if it was Staines, what would the purpose be, to bring May down or to bring down some of the names on the list?


I did a bit of googling, and it's mostly people who campaigned for remain fwiw. Not sure if that means anything though.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Looks like the work of somebody trying to be clever, but in mixing serious allegations with salacious shite they reveal their own prejudices and purposes.  But if it was Staines, what would the purpose be, to bring May down or to bring down some of the names on the list?



Im guessing - self promotion for his blog + he's a natural bully and seems to like being disruptive for the sake of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I did a bit of googling, and it's mostly people who campaigned for remain fwiw. Not sure if that means anything though.


it means there's another list


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Maybe - I'm not sure what the split was though - the government line was remain, so you'd still expect a majority of the party to campaign in support of the govt. it might just reflect that.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> may couldn't manage a small shop


 
Running a small shop require vision, dedication, interpersonal skillz, financial acumen, dealing with shirty punters demanding credit for booze and efficient stock rotation. She has non of those attributes. She is useless


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> may couldn't manage a small shop


But she does talk Cretan bull.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 2, 2017)

Sue said:


> Yep. The 'genuinely innocent, touchy feely after a few drinks' excuse has been used by and about sleazy men ever since I can remember.
> 
> And touching up someone in a work context has never been fucking acceptable. This 'times have changed' line that's being pushed in general is really, really annoying me.


 
Yep - 20 years ago I knew that open leching and touching up was verboten - how come the rest of the UK seemed to take this stuff on board, yet our masters felt they were above it all ?


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Yep - 20 years ago I knew that open leching and touching up was verboten - how come the rest of the UK seemed to take this stuff on board, yet our masters felt they were above it all ?


Surely the last couple of weeks has demonstrated - if somehow you didn't know - that the rest of the UK hasn't taken it onboard at all?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Had to look up the mythological reference. Good that, immortal cattle producing mountains of shit that’s never been cleaned out.


Let the Punishment Fit the Crime

Forced to push a bolder uphill for all eternity - David Brexit Davis
Have his liver pecked out by an eagle for all eternity - Fallon
Left in a pool of water with food Number 10 permanently out of reach - Gove
Fitted to a bed and be either stretched or have bits chopped off - Any of the cunts
To gaze on his own reflection in a lake till he starves - Johnson
Killed by the hair of the Gorgon - Fabricant


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> we could divert the thames through the commons. while it was sitting.


Or just go with William Morris and make it a store for real shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Or just go with William Morris and make it a store for real shit.


it's a store for 650 real shits.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 2, 2017)

Fallon replaced by the chief whip.  

'So, we need a new defence secretary. Who haven't you got any dirt on then?'


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Fallon replaced by the chief whip.
> 
> 'So, we need a new defence secretary. Who haven't you got any dirt on then?'


"What about X?"
- Nah, likes getting pissed on
"Fuck. Okay, what about Y?"
- Yeah, she'd be good. Hang on, just checking... oh shit, asks assistants to do _odd things_
"Kinnell. What about Z?"
- Yeah, Z would good. Oh, hang on, Z is _Fallon_"
"Bollocks. And could you take your hand off my knee?"


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Presumably he'll be straight out again when it emerges he's been using MPs sex crimes to keep them in line...


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

crikey.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Presumably he'll be straight out again when it emerges he's been using MPs sex crimes to keep them in line...




i always think of george galloway when i see that video, the big brother face staring at you


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Hard to know whether Michel Barnier will be laughing or crying this morning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> nah, I've got Gove in the 'creep' column.



He's definitely deep in the creep.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's definitely deep in the creep.



Vine's screeching column basically gave the game away.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 2, 2017)

...


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Williamson seems to be a very unpopular appointment with the party. Good stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2017)

toynbee said that its one more scandal/fuckup till the wheels come off, which means may is secure for now


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Williamson seems to be a very unpopular appointment with the party. Good stuff.


Yep, plenty of anger being reported at the appointment, that it shows her to be week etc:
Gavin Williamson's appointment as defence secretary triggers backlash - Politics live


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

kebabking said:


> work being the hotbed (are we allowed hotbeds anymore?) of gossip and speculation that it is, the concensus of opinion is that both Fallon and May decided that he could not survive the stream of 'handsy at parties', 'likes a drink', and 'wasn't he a bit friendly with that Russian woman?' stories that are inevitably coming down the road, so knew he had to go (it also suggests that while his relationship with May was still one of genuine support and friendship, he has felt for some time that she's simply not listening to his begging, and its getting to begging, for more money for the MOD) - the concensus also supports the view that the deep, long-held _loathing_ that Fallon, and May, have for both Boris Johnson and Liam Fox has coloured the way that has resigned with the very deliberate intention of seeing them in personal disgrace.



I'm not sure that Johnson or Fox have a sense of personal shame or honour larger than an atom, so expecting them to sense that their behaviour disgraces them, their party and Parliament enough that they resign their ministerial permissions is a fantasy on Fallon's behalf, *IF* that's a reason for his departure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

pesh said:


> Psy-trance promoter?



Gabber dj?


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> toynbee said that its one more scandal/fuckup till the wheels come off, which means may is secure for now



A real boost for May that.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A real boost for May that.


Every fucking bit of this, along with every bit of the brexit makes her look worse and worse... but then her failure with the 2017 election means she has to at least try to cling on till the end of Brexit. Must be twisting her filthy rotten guts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Vine's screeching column basically gave the game away.



Yep.  I really should write to her, thanking her for shanking her hubby and his colleagues.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Williamson seems to be a very unpopular appointment with the party. Good stuff.



Unsurprising.  He's even more of a nasty careerist worm than Liam Fox is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> toynbee said that its one more scandal/fuckup till the wheels come off, which means may is secure for now



Sadly true.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Basically, it's like _House of Cards_, where Kevin Spacey plays every character.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Basically, it's like _House of Cards_, where Kevin Spacey plays every character.



And every character thinks that they have the ruthlessness, sharp wits and persuasiveness of Kyser Soze.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Williamson seems to be a very unpopular appointment with the party. Good stuff.



its a pretty unpopular appointment within the MOD as well - he's an ultra-loyalist and the _Cabinet Office _mini defence review is out within the next few weeks. Fallon was known to be very unhappy with it and is known to have repeatedly challenged May over it in private, this bloke however won't bat an eyelid.

Fallon wasn't lionised by any stretch of the imagination, but he was at least considered to be the MOD's man in government regardless of how effective he was at securing funding he'd previously been promised - and that generated a certain degree of loyalty towards him with regards _unauthorised media briefings. _Williamson, unless he pulls something pretty spectacular out of the hat in the very short term, will get none of that, and it'll be open season with leaks left, right and centre.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Basically, it's like _House of Cards_, where Kevin Spacey plays every character.


Very good.  your own work?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Very good.  your own work?


Yes.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> And every character thinks that they have the ruthlessness, sharp wits and persuasiveness of Kyser Soze.


"The Usual Suspects ask their assistants to do _odd things_".


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> may couldn't manage a small shop


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> "The Usual Suspects ask their assistants to do _odd things_".


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Farage has been noticeably quiet about all this. I'd have expected a 'political correctness gone mad' tweet at the very least by now.  Surely there has to be a bit of cross party solidarity for the gropers and lechers?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2017)

I wonder if it might not be the booze with fallon and/or some of the others. 

Yes, one of them is being explicitly claimed as drunk all the time, but with a job like politics I'd be astounded if there weren't a whole stack of people with quite concerning alcohol dependency (in turn, fuelling many of these other behaviours).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Farage has been noticeably quiet about all this. I'd have expected a 'political correctness gone mad' tweet at the very least by now.  Surely there has to be a bit of cross party solidarity for the gropers and lechers?


And gripers


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Farage has been noticeably quiet about all this. I'd have expected a 'political correctness gone mad' tweet at the very least by now.  Surely there has to be a bit of cross party solidarity for the gropers and lechers?



Probably more a case that he is nervously watching what is going on over the water and shredding every piece of paperwork in his house.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Basically, it's like _House of Cards_, where Kevin Spacey plays every character.


Well, I can guess what will be in my dreams tonight. Thanks for that.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I wonder if it might not be the booze with fallon and/or some of the others.
> 
> Yes, one of them is being explicitly claimed as drunk all the time, but with a job like politics I'd be astounded if there weren't a whole stack of people with quite concerning alcohol dependency (in turn, fuelling many of these other behaviours).



I don't see why it would be booze alone.  Loads of them are open and proud piss-heads, its what they do when pissed up which is the issue it would seem.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Probably more a case that he is nervously watching what is going on over the water and shredding every piece of paperwork in his house.


Yes, libel laws aside, I've always thought he's a combination of pretty much celebrating his own boozing and shagging along with the possibility of something darker.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I don't see why it would be booze alone.  Loads of them are open and proud piss-heads, its what they do when pissed up which is the issue it would seem.


Piss heads as in binge drinkers, goes down differently with the public than "govt minister starts every day with half a bottle of vodka".


----------



## Mumbles274 (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> _House of Cads_


Ftfy


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Piss heads as in binge drinkers, goes down differently with the public than "govt minister starts every day with half a bottle of vodka".



i'd think more of them tbh.  If they are all doing that suddenly the state we're in makes sense, I had assumed they were naturally shit.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Farage has been noticeably quiet about all this. I'd have expected a 'political correctness gone mad' tweet at the very least by now.  Surely there has to be a bit of cross party solidarity for the gropers and lechers?



He's gone full "blame Jews" in a bid to increase favour with US right. Perhaps he doesn't much care what happens here anymore


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Mumbles274 said:


> Ftfy


_Roust of Spads_, unfortunately.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> He's gone full "blame Jews" in a bid to increase favour with US right.


It's almost as if he was dodgy all along!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 2, 2017)

Is it just me or is Williamson a bit of a familiar face?







I think I once saw him in a car park, shouting the word 'Dan'.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2017)

If by familiar face you mean 'cunt', then yeah.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Is it just me or is Williamson a bit of a familiar face?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


was this in a dogging hotspot?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

God, I love a bit of braid me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> He hasn't though has he? There's something (or many things) about to emerge about him.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm only replying to your worthwhile posts pickmans, so if you don't get a response to the first one there's no need to bother trying again. Cheers,


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Is it just me or is Williamson a bit of a familiar face?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like the love child of Gary Lineker and Prince Edward. There's probably another list with 'likes to appear semi-naked on sports TV' next to his name.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm only replying to your worthwhile posts pickmans, so if you don't get a response to the first one there's no need to bother trying again. Cheers,


i wasn't expecting you to respond.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Piss heads as in binge drinkers, goes down differently with the public than "govt minister starts every day with half a bottle of vodka".



Never seems to dent Churchill's popularity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Never seems to dent Churchill's popularity.


Brandy. Wouldn't get out of bed without a double in the war years apparently. I bet it wasn't cheap shit like Napoleans either


----------



## Dan U (Nov 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> paul staines being predictably revolting about this on the radio 4 media show - "it happens everywhere in society because of our highly sexualised culture" - dismissing the argument that this is about unequal power relations and accountability. He then follows this up by saying that "not all these women are innocent victims" but "predatory" careerists using their sexuality to obtain leverage over these poor men.
> 
> One shudders to think what his own particular sexual peccadilloes might consist of...



I hate to stick up for Staines, but I think that was Michael White, ex of the Guardian saying that. Female members of the Lobby went batshit on twitter shortly afterwards.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

is michael white ex-guardian? this is good news.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> Brandy. Wouldn't get out of bed without a double in the war years apparently. I bet it wasn't cheap shit like Napoleans either



And yet he's honoured today with a statue in parliament square and in the golden tins guzzled by alkies across the land


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> is michael white ex-guardian? this is good news.



dear


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 2, 2017)

Dan U said:


> I hate to stick up for Staines, but I think that was Michael White, ex of the Guardian saying that. Female members of the Lobby went batshit on twitter shortly afterwards.


That doesn't surprise me; White is a total dick.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2017)

after the 2015 election his entire column was just basically you are all scum and deserve whats coming. I stopped winding myself up with his stuff ages ago but assumed he was still there.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 2, 2017)

Dan U said:


> I hate to stick up for Staines, but I think that was Michael White, ex of the Guardian saying that. Female members of the Lobby went batshit on twitter shortly afterwards.



I thought i caught whites name - but when i checked on the bbc radio 4 page it listed staines as one of the guests - so I assumed it was him coming out with the cuntery (as its exactly the sort of shit he does come out with). In that case,  Its a shame White's not still at the guardian, then we could all enjoy the shitbag being sacked. What a cunt.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 2, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> I thought i caught whites name - but when i checked on the bbc radio 4 page it listed staines as one of the guests - so I assumed it was him coming out with the cuntery (as its exactly the sort of shit he does come out with). In that case,  Its a shame White's not still at the guardian, then we could all enjoy the shitbag being sacked. What a cunt.



It is an understandable mistake to make!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

... and another one:
Scottish Tories suspend former candidate over sexual assault allegation


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Presumably he'll be straight out again when it emerges he's been using MPs sex crimes to keep them in line...


re this, Tim Shipman reckons he knows where the bodies are buried



Someone should tell Tim that right now is the one time that this isn't a strength...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> re this, Tim Shipman reckons he knows where the bodies are buried
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Tim that right now is the one time that this isn't a strength...



quite so. if gw does anything rash he might if lucky become leader of the opposition

dear


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> re this, Tim Shipman reckons he knows where the bodies are buried
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Tim that right now is the one time that this isn't a strength...



I would but I deleted the app.


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 2, 2017)

This is what deserves more attention.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2017)

chaos is a ladder, as petyr baelish said


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

danny la rouge said:


> View attachment 119423
> 
> This is what deserves more attention.


Presumably Boris Johnson will be apoplectic - a soft brexiteer appointed who knows where the bodies are buried.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

> George Eaton (@georgeeaton)
> 
> Female Tory MP on Gavin Williamson in the tea room: "a self-serving cunt". Gavin Williamson: the cunning Conservative faces his biggest test as Defence Secretary
> 
> November 2, 2017


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

The hunt is on


> 16:20
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> chaos is a ladder, as petyr baelish said



Any news on him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The hunt is on


yeh the wild hunt


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 2, 2017)

> George Eaton (@georgeeaton)
> 
> Female Tory MP on Gavin Williamson in the tea room: "a self-serving cunt". Gavin Williamson: the cunning Conservative faces his biggest test as Defence Secretary
> 
> November 2, 2017





Wilf said:


>


Yeah, but what distinguishes him from the other 316 serving Tory MPs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yeah, but what distinguishes him from the other 316 serving Tory MPs?


he's the defence secretary

like his illustrious predecessor in the post, john profumo


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The hunt is on



no great surprise, not least because it appears that several of the claims are demonstratably untrue - but could still ruin marriages. _if_ the PCP, or a sizable proportion of it, thinks that far more than 'several' of the allegations are also untrue, and that the exercise was as much mallicious as anything else, then a witch hunt is no great shock.

i'm not an enormous fan of MP's, given their chiselling greed, and, to be frank, requiring a standard of behaviour from me with significant negative consequences should i clip the bar that they wouldn't consider applying to themselves - but if i believed that someone at work who knew me, who had perhaps met my wife and kids, was spreading false rumours that i'd had an affair, or was 'handsy' or asked my staff to do 'odd' things, or any of the other things that could easily end my marriage and career, then a witch hunt would be my chosen course of action as well. 

its pretty clear that this list isn't a 'steer clear of this bloke in taxi's or dark rooms' warning amongst potentially vunerable staff, some of it is that perhaps, but the author has thrown in a load of deeply nasty gossip/allegation/smear, and then released it. not much sympathy from me...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> chaos is a ladder, as petyr baelish said





Spoiler



Didn't serve him well in the end though, did it?


----------



## emanymton (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Didn't serve him well in the end though, did it?


Liked, but spoiler.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Yeah, but what distinguishes him from the other 316 serving Tory MPs?


To help you, I've compiled an alphabetical list:

The Cunt who is Business secretary
The Cunt who is Chancellor:
The Cunt who is Chief secretary to the Treasury: 
The Cunt who is Defence secretary
The Cunt who is Deputy prime minister
The Cunt who is Education secretary
The Cunt who is Energy and climate change secretary
The Cunt who is Environment secretary
The Cunt who is Foreign secretary
The Cunt who is Health secretary
The Cunt who is Home secretary
The Cunt who is Justice secretary
The Cunt who is Local government secretary
The Cunt who is Prime minister
The Cunt who is Transport secretary
The Cunt who is Work and pensions secretary


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> To help you, I've compiled an alphabetical list:
> 
> The Cunt who is Business secretary
> The Cunt who is Chancellor:
> ...


Executive summary: they're all cunts


----------



## JimW (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the wild hunt
> 
> View attachment 119435


I recognise that from a book cover...one of The Dark is Rising lot?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Liked, but spoiler.


I know, _or now I do_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

JimW said:


> I recognise that from a book cover...one of The Dark is Rising lot?


Aye


----------



## Wilf (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Executive summary: they're all cunts


A summary _of_ the executive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> A summary _of_ the executive.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

The list looked exactly like the kind of thing you'd compile in case leverage were needed, to keep people in line, so just what you might have if you were say the chief whip, who has just been promoted to defence secretary. Is that conspiracy theory stuff?


----------



## tim (Nov 2, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Hard to know whether Michel Barnier will be laughing or crying this morning.



Waiting nervously for the inevitable release of the Euroletch list.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Liked, but spoiler.


Your spoiler spoiler’s the spoiler, but so’s this spoiler spoiler spoiler.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> The list looked exactly like the kind of thing you'd compile in case leverage were needed, to keep people in line, so just what you might have if you were say the chief whip, who has just been promoted to defence secretary. Is that conspiracy theory stuff?



I think the problem with conspiracy theories is they often assume the supposed perpetrators are malevolent geniuses with total control not the bungling arses in a total mess they often are. What you have there though is entirely consistent with bungling arses in a total mess. So...


----------



## Poi E (Nov 2, 2017)

Those with clean hands have nothing to fear


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Those with clean hands have nothing to fear



In all seriousness, none of them have clean hands.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 2, 2017)

All joking aside it is worthwhile repeating that no-one should give a fuck about whatever consensual activities anyone indulges in. But when it comes to the exploitation of a power relationship then I fucking hope it hurts them.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 2, 2017)

Top 3 stories on the top stories page of BBC news?  Interest rate rise.

It's what people are talking about up and down the country.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

This list might be shit but there is definitely a feeling at the moment, after Weinstein and "me too" then Spacey & that photographer and now this, a feeling of critical mass being reached or a boil being lanced - from where I am it feels kind of great, like a relief, sort of gleeful, but also with some fear of the backlash.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2017)

Jon-of-arc said:


> Top 3 stories on the top stories page of BBC news?  Interest rate rise.
> 
> It's what people are talking about up and down the country.




Mark Carney’s just stuck it up every mortgage holder without their consent


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

incoming.


----------



## chilango (Nov 2, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Didn't serve him well in the end though, did it?


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

"bad behaviour" ? Strange choice of words. I feel worried about the backlash to this if its successfully made out to be a PC gawn mad witch hunt by vengeful women, as it is in many quarters already.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

I think it's just a lack of details atm. Seems like the way to do it though - suspend whip, and investigate. Added bonus that it makes May look more like a cunt too.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


>


Apparently some people seem to think I have posted a spoiler.  I wouldn't worry, I haven't even seen the latest series of GoT.  I was more posting generically about Baelish's story arc.  Anyway, I have put my comment into a spoiler in case it actually is a spoiler.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the wild hunt
> 
> View attachment 119435


Loved those books as a kid


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> incoming.



thats not going to be biased then,

Just tweeted her ( my 3rd ever tweet , ) asking how much the tories are paying her


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

oh shut up.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

chilango said:


> How many lost by-elections till the govt falls?


It's very, very unlikely (as things stand right now) that this will precipitate that many by-elections, if any.
There's only four ways things an MP can do to force one: die, resign, get declared insane, or get jailed, technically for more than a year


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Hopkins has been suspended from the party while allegations of groping and creepy text messages are investigated (he was previously suspended for the same stuff in 2012 I believe).


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh shut up.



Yawn


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Hopkins has been suspended from the party while allegations of groping and creepy text messages are investigated (he was previously suspended for the same stuff in 2012 I believe).


but to be fair , anyone of the fuckers from any party who has been accused need to be investigated,  , shame TM didnt suspend Fallon though


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

Of course. And the BBC's political editor needs to report it when it happens too. 

'yawn'


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

I've little time for Laura Kuenssberg, but at least check something out before assuming she's just posting from tory central office.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

fair comment, i think my personal detest for Laura Kuenssberg overtook me for a min


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I've little time for Laura Kuenssberg, but at least check something out before assuming she's just posting from tory central office.



Indeed. I got quite angry with something she said on the news when discussing Fallons resignation last night, but I will wait until I can quote her accurately before ranting further.


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

elbows said:


> Indeed. I got quite angry with something she said on the news when discussing Fallons resignation last night, but I will wait until I can quote her accurately before ranting further.


I recently started following her on twitter - every tweet has a hundred bellends asking her how much the tories are paying her. It's pretty fucked tbh.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Just tweeted her ( my 3rd ever tweet , ) asking how much the tories are paying her


You must be very proud.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> I recently started following her on twitter - every tweet has a hundred bellends asking her how much the tories are paying her. It's pretty fucked tbh.



The Canary


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> You must be very proud.


nah i dont do pride, sorry , not got enough self love


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> As kb, and Fallon himself, has said. It's not about the knee touching. There's more coming on him. He knows it's going to be bad.
> 
> I wonder if he told May what he's done and that's why she sacked him?


as I heard it, she asked him for categorical assurances that there were no other damaging revelations to come, he could not give that, so she forced him to resign


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

elbows said:


> Indeed. I got quite angry with something she said on the news when discussing Fallons resignation last night, but I will wait until I can quote her accurately before ranting further.



Found time to transcribe the bit I hated, not sure it was worth it.



> 'But I think, thirdly, and where Theresa Mays supporters may find some comfort from all of this, if indeed some can be found, after such a sorry affair and a sorry end to a cabinet career, is that its been suggested to me tonight that fresh concerns about Sir Michael were put to number 10 through the course of today. And almost as soon as that happened Theresa May took the view that basically he would have to go. Now, number 10 are not getting into that conversation at all this evening, they are not confirming that account of things in any way, they just don't want to get into the why's and wherefores of what exactly has happened. But it does show that when Theresa May promised to take this seriously, losing one of her senior cabinet colleagues is evidence that she is doing that, but of course that also creates a potential problem if this kind of thing emerges about one of her other significant senior colleagues, she is going to have to take the same kind of action, whatever the political cost.'


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> Hopkins has been suspended from the party while allegations of groping and creepy text messages are investigated (he was previously suspended for the same stuff in 2012 I believe).



Current BBC wording is...



> Labour sources say a complaint of sexual harassment was made against Mr Hopkins a couple of years ago.
> 
> It was handled internally and the MP was reprimanded at the time, the BBC understands.
> 
> However, new allegations have been made about the same incident this week.



Labour suspends MP Kelvin Hopkins


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

There's full details in the Telegraph on the allegations themselves - here

I misread the date for the previous allegation though soz.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I wonder if it might not be the booze with fallon and/or some of the others.
> 
> Yes, one of them is being explicitly claimed as drunk all the time, but with a job like politics I'd be astounded if there weren't a whole stack of people with quite concerning alcohol dependency (in turn, fuelling many of these other behaviours).


very likely, given the THIRTEEN heavily subsidised bars and the late sittings


----------



## Weller (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Is it just me or is Williamson a bit of a familiar face?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually called Alan Partridge here as hes my local MP given a safe seat and during election we had many hundreds of his face on posters on sticks peering out of the hedgerows it made him look like a bit of a pervert himself especially as some got out of their cars to rip around the posters just leaving the face it caught on in at least a couple of country lanes


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> There's full details in the Telegraph on the allegations themselves - here
> 
> I misread the date for the previous allegation though soz.



Thanks, will take a look shortly.

I think what wound me up with the Kuenssberg stuff I quoted was the way the desire to get back to a political machination narrative brushes very uneasily up against the actual issue of sexual harassment. And all the usual language about 'sorry end to a cabinet career' doesn't exactly fill me with joy at the priorities on show.

Not that this is a mess reserved for journalists I don't like or journalists in general, many of us may get overexcited about the political ramifications from time to time, but surely it is possible to do both without such an uneasy downplaying of the underlying behaviour and misuse of power.

This shit article by Martin Kettle further illustrates the ugly words that may be used when trying to focus on the political aspects only. He is openly uneasy with the way he does this and sticks caveats in as a result but they only make it worse in my eyes!

If Fallon-style scandal drives our politics, Theresa May cannot survive | Martin Kettle



> Nevertheless, provisionally, and on the basis of what we have been told so far, it is hard to think of a minister – especially such a senior one – resigning over an apparently less serious “private scandal” than this in British political history.
> 
> That’s quite a claim, and I am well aware that it may look idiotic in light of future events, perhaps very quickly. Nevertheless Fallon has not, as far as we know, done anything criminal or irrevocably sackable. But if what we know, and what has appeared in print, is more or less the full story, then there are two larger implications for British politics.





> So weak is the prime minister, in fact, that she may well have created a precedent with the Fallon case. Another ministerial embarrassment of this kind could bring her down. After Fallon – if his “previous conduct” is not significantly worse than we know already – any minister who is confirmed to have acted inappropriately in the past will have to go too.
> 
> This is the other large implication of the case. It is no accident, as the Trotskyists sometimes say, that the problem of “private scandal” has moved to the heart of politics. Our culture, turbocharged now by social media, gorges more than ever on intimacies and indiscretions. But the problem is complex and there are many sides to it.





> Politicians, in my experience, are a variable mix – often within one person – of a strong service ethic, an enormous craving for approval and vindication, and a flair for risk. They aren’t alone in this – most people have done things they are ashamed of. Most are decent people who lead unimpeachable lives.
> 
> It’s not that male MPs have become more predatory than in the past. On the whole, perhaps naively, I think the reverse is true. The problem is that sometimes the boundary between the serious and the foolish is still unclear, and the media – social as well as tabloid – have the means, motive and, from time to time, the opportunity to blur it at will. There is not much that politicians can do except try to behave better and observe sensible rules.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2017)

tbf, the point made by Kettle is similar to the one made by Pickman's a few pages back: if this is all there is to the Fallon sacking, she will have to sack every other minister caught out doing that


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> nah i dont do pride, sorry , not got enough self love


You don't have to answer this, obvs, but can you explain what motivated you to do the tweet ? Did you think it would have some effect in the world ?


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2017)

This just in re: fallon:


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, the point made by Kettle is similar to the one made by Pickman's a few pages back: if this is all there is to the Fallon sacking, she will have to sack every other minister caught out doing that



Yeah, and I'm not criticising that point. It's just something about the way these journalists approach trying to get back to their zone of comfort or interest, to be able to make such political points without the 'baggage' of the real stories of harassment etc. I know, its difficult for them for reasons including libel laws, and a lot of Kettles squirming in that article is because what has emerged publicly so far doesn't smell like the whole story, but that is partly what I'm moaning about and since he went into other shit territory with one or two of his other points, I thought I'd use him as an example.

My point with all of this waffle is perhaps not coming across clearly and may not be that important, I don't know, I'm just trying and probably partly failing to describe some of my displeasure and unease with coverage in the last 24 hours.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> You don't have to answer this, obvs, but can you explain what motivated you to do the tweet ?


I dont mind answering  to be truly honest I really dont know. poor attempt at trolling in a moment of madness ? 

perhaps thats why its only my 3rd ever tweet and now ive been pulled up on it i feel a bit ashamed of myself


----------



## elbows (Nov 2, 2017)

killer b said:


> This just in re: fallon:



Perhaps 'just in the sun' would be a more contextual way of putting it! 

Their article certainly had no trouble finding some shits to talk to on the subject.



> A source close to Sir Michael said last night: “He doesn’t remember what he is supposed to have said in the committee. But he doesn’t deny making comments that someone might have taken offence at.
> 
> “He may have said something that Andrea was offended by, but he categorically denies saying something as appalling as he knows where she could warm her hands. That is an appalling slur from Leadsom.”





> The figure close to Sir Michael insisted: “If you’re offended by something, why wait six years to say it?
> 
> “Is this her way of securing her political survival? Nobody’s going to dare to sack a whistleblower are they?”
> 
> ...


----------



## agricola (Nov 2, 2017)

elbows said:


> Yeah, and I'm not criticising that point. It's just something about the way these journalists approach trying to get back to their zone of comfort or interest, to be able to make such political points without the 'baggage' of the real stories of harassment etc. I know, its difficult for them for reasons including libel laws, and a lot of Kettles squirming in that article is because what has emerged publicly so far doesn't smell like the whole story, but that is partly what I'm moaning about and since he went into other shit territory with one or two of his other points, I thought I'd use him as an example.
> 
> My point with all of this waffle is perhaps not coming across clearly and may not be that important, I don't know, I'm just trying and probably partly failing to describe some of my displeasure and unease with coverage in the last 24 hours.



A big part of it (probably the main part tbh) is not wanting to be shunned and cut off by that crowd after a hack exposes what one / some of them are up to.


----------



## xenon (Nov 2, 2017)

Where is this spreadsheet to download anyway? By the way  Little finger gets his throat cut.  Maybe we can learn from fiction.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 3, 2017)

.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2017)

You know, I reckon if there was a Tory Battle Royale, Leadsom would probably win it.

Andrea who?

*arrow to the throat*


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 3, 2017)

BigTom said:


> As much as i dislike Jess Phillips, she has spent much of her working life working in women's refuges and charities supporting victims of domestic abuse. She's one of the only MPs i can think of who i think will actually go at this properly. I hope i have her pegged right as someone with some principles when it comes to this issue and that she won't let this go in a horse trade for some career bullshit.



She worked for one charity supporting female victims of domestic abuse as their Business Development Manager (i.e. funding applications etc) before that she worked for her parent's business.

Since entering Parliament in 2015 her profile has been significantly raised by various sensational headlines (I told Dianne Abbott to fuck off / I would stab Jeremy Corbyn / I think a night out in Birmingham is like Cologne on new years eve etc), she's supplemented her MP salary by £100k++ with a book all about her, lobbies hard on internet censorship and claims to have been the victim of torrents of twitter abuse on at least 4 separate headline generating occasions, three of which involved over 600 'rape threats' in one night..

So i doubt principles top her values set sadly.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 3, 2017)

I'm not a Jess Phillips fan but I've no doubt she does receive a huge amount of horrible shit as well - any woman that puts her head over the parapet will do. I think it's important to remember that and in the context of this thread particularly I think putting scare quotes around 'rape threats' is very suspect tbh.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

check this prick's post history before bothering to engage huh.


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2017)

Petronella Wyatt on the Today programme doing the 'women gave up their right to moan about such things when they wanted to be treated like men, it's a bit of fun, nothing wrong with it as long as everyone has good manners, why are women making a fuss over nothing' bollocks and, of course, women being offended by men holding doors open for them (which I have to say I've never, ever encountered in real life). What an appalling woman.

She also kept talking over the woman giving the other (reasonable) point of view then complained she wasn't getting a chance to talk. Absolutely dreadful.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 3, 2017)

Sue said:


> Petronella Wyatt on the Today programme doing the 'women gave up their right to moan about such things when they wanted to be treated like men, it's a bit of fun, nothing wrong with it as long as everyone has good manners, why are women making a fuss over nothing' bollocks and, of course, women being offended by men holding doors open for them (which I have to say I've never, ever encountered in real life). What an appalling woman.
> 
> She also kept talking over the woman giving the other (reasonable) point of view then complained she wasn't getting a chance to talk. Absolutely dreadful.



That'll be Woodrow Wyatt's daughter. The one who had a four year affair with Boris Johnson. 

Her credentials aren't exactly great.


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> That'll be Woodrow Wyatt's daughter. The one who had a four year affair with Boris Johnson.
> 
> Her credentials aren't exactly great.


Don't know anything about her except what I heard earlier and that was more than enough.


----------



## keybored (Nov 3, 2017)

Sue said:


> Don't know anything about her except what I heard earlier and that was more than enough.


She was either trying too hard to be edgy or she's as hatstand as her dad was.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2017)

She wrote a piece for the mail a few years back calling ascot races _chavscot _and demanding _vulgar _people be denied entry.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

The BBCs commitment to _balance_ is fairly unbalanced isn't it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 3, 2017)

Sue said:


> Don't know anything about her



Enjoy:



> ...I, too, earn between £80,000 and £100,000 a year, yet a rejected credit card is only the start of my financial woes. I’ve even come to the point where a visit from the bailiffs is a very realistic prospect — a troubling predicament I’d lived with for years.
> 
> But how did I, a privately educated, privileged Oxbridge graduate come to be part of what I call the Broke Generation? My friends come from similarly well-heeled backgrounds. We work hard. Ten or 15 years ago, this would have guaranteed financial security, yet it has become increasingly difficult for us to make ends meet...
> 
> ...Time was when a salary of £120,000 allowed one to live the life of a potentate. I know. My late father, the politician Woodrow Wyatt, never earned more than £130,000, yet he maintained a Grade II-listed house (albeit rented) in the same London street as Sir Paul McCartney, with a cook and a butler...[etc]


Petronella Wyatt: It's hell being posh but poor | Daily Mail Online


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

odd her claiming to be an oxbridge graduate - according to her wiki (I looked her up in horror this morning) she left oxford after two weeks, claiming bullying for being right wing...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 3, 2017)

It's terrible isn't it. These days a hundred grand a year is barely enough to sustain a respectable coke habit.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> odd her claiming to be an oxbridge graduate - according to her wiki (I looked her up in horror this morning) she left oxford after two weeks, claiming bullying for being right wing...


Even her linkedin just says 'won a place at Oxford University to read History' - i think she must have done that herself. Everyone else would be too embarrassed.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2017)

I imagine it's useful in the circles she moves in to claim Oxbridge and hope no-one looks too closely, bit like Katie Hopkins and Sandhurst.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 3, 2017)

Awkward:



> ...David Cameron’s hand was in mine. His fingers were warm, with an apple-whiteness. It was one in the morning, and the occasion was the birthday party of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, a family friend, in spring 1992. David was at the time Lamont’s special adviser and a young-man-about-town...We had been dancing, and in his patent Boden shoes, which matched his black tie, David was delineated of feature, slim and lithe. In the soft light he had the fleeting look of a young Valentino and was already exhibiting the assured footwork that would characterise his rise.
> 
> Dancing is very much like politics. In David’s dancing, there was a sneakiness as well. On one occasion his hands violated the neutrality of my posterior and had to be removed. Doubtless it was inadvertent. But he had a cleanness about him then; a freshness of manner – though just how fresh I was soon to find out.



Petronella Wyatt, Chronicler of Cameron's inner circle of rivals recalls her dates with Dave | Daily Mail Online


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> The BBCs commitment to _balance_ is fairly unhinged isn't it?



FTFY


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2017)

I once saw it described as having an expert cabinet maker come in to talk and for balance bringing in a bloke who doesn't believe in chairs


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

It's not just that though: what gets balanced is ideological - we don't get a marxist brought in for _balance_ when some shiny fuck from the Adam Smith Institute or the CBI is on talking about the latest productivity figures for example.


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Enjoy:
> 
> 
> Petronella Wyatt: It's hell being posh but poor | Daily Mail Online


These fucking people. Pickman's model's South Georgian canals are way too good for them.


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Awkward:
> 
> 
> 
> Petronella Wyatt, Chronicler of Cameron's inner circle of rivals recalls her dates with Dave | Daily Mail Online


She'd struggle to get a gig with Mills and Boon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

Sue said:


> These fucking people. Pickman's model's South Georgian canals are way too good for them.








yeh. you see the mountains? the former mps etc who will be digging the canals will be digging 40' wide notches through those mountains, down to the level at which water can flood the canals. without the benefit of mechanical assistance.


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you see the mountains? the former mps etc who will be digging the canals will be digging 40' wide notches through those mountains, down to the level at which water can flood the canals. without the benefit of mechanical assistance.



the Penguin Venice, they will call it in years to come


----------



## Sue (Nov 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. you see the mountains? the former mps etc who will be digging the canals will be digging 40' wide notches through those mountains, down to the level at which water can flood the canals. without the benefit of mechanical assistance.


I see you've thought this through.


----------



## chilango (Nov 3, 2017)

Stop ruining South Georgia for me


----------



## kebabking (Nov 3, 2017)

chilango said:


> Stop ruining South Georgia for me



Too right, SG is utterly beautiful, I don't want it ruined by dreadful people in boiler suits who break wind in the halls of the mighty....


----------



## teqniq (Nov 3, 2017)

Leopard seals however might be interested in a new source of protein.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 3, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Leopard seals however might be interested in a new source of protein.



I was chased by a Leopard Seal on SG once, I was doing to the 'how close can I have my picture taken with this fucking massive set of teeth' thing, and the answer was 'too close..'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I wonder if it might not be the booze with fallon and/or some of the others.
> 
> Yes, one of them is being explicitly claimed as drunk all the time, but with a job like politics I'd be astounded if there weren't a whole stack of people with quite concerning alcohol dependency (in turn, fuelling many of these other behaviours).



TBF Bob Stewart was known to "like his ale" even back when he was a colonel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Is it just me or is Williamson a bit of a familiar face?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He also looks a bit Lembit Opik, pre-faceplant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the wild hunt
> 
> View attachment 119435



The Dark Is Rising.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 3, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF Bob Stewart was known to "like his ale" even back when he was a colonel.



Spent many an evening enjoying slivovica with Serb forces.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 3, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Spent many an evening enjoying slivovica with Serb forces.



As much as you can enjoy drinking slightly plum-flavoured paraffin, anyway!


----------



## Poi E (Nov 3, 2017)

Only the best maraska for Bob. Even if it was ustase.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)




----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

oh dear.

Rosie Winterton challenged Jeremy Corbyn over promotion of Kelvin Hopkins to Shadow Cabinet


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh dear.
> 
> Rosie Winterton challenged Jeremy Corbyn over promotion of Kelvin Hopkins to Shadow Cabinet



None of the leaders of the 3 main parties (in England and Wales) are especially young.  They're all quite seasoned parliamentarians so the things they've got used to down the years and what has become the norm will be very hard to shift and they will all be tarnished with them.  I doubt any of them are the people to fix the problem because they are all fully entrenched in the system and essentially part of the problem.  Dunno, we'll see.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

I understand how this happened, but it looks appalling. Could do with him actually saying something soon though I think.


----------



## RainbowTown (Nov 3, 2017)

"Looks appalling."

Well, it is appalling. 

But no surprise. Labour are probably just as much up to their eyes in this than the Tories. Corbyyn and May, eh?  What a pair.The tweedledum and tweedledee of UK politics. Pathetic doesn't even cover it. Bemused contempt probably does.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> I understand how this happened, but it looks appalling. Could do with him actually saying something soon though I think.



Yes sorry I wasn't explaining.  Just sorta musing over the mess that is and how exposed Corbyn is.  The quick suspensions are good but I agree make a big statement and get on the front foot.  At the moment all the parties are offering up bland nothings, a clear statement and strategy is required.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 3, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


> "Looks appalling."
> 
> Well, it is appalling.
> 
> But no surprise. Labour are probably just as much up to their eyes in this than the Tories. Corbyyn and May, eh?  What a pair.The tweedledum and tweedledee of UK politics. Pathetic doesn't even cover it. Bemused contempt probably does.



Whilst its bloody awful its a bit much to hang an entire culture which is as old as Parliment itself on two people.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> I understand how this happened, but it looks appalling. Could do with him actually saying something soon though I think.


If this is anything like true - and there's every reason for thinking it is - Corbyn deserves as much shit as May is getting.  In fact, unless I've missed something in the last couple of days, Corbyn looks to have had more cases reported directly to him than May has.

FWIW, a government lead by Corbyn might well be marginally better for victims than one lead by any of the Tories. But when it comes to willingness to take action within your own organisation, you really show your true colours.  As the BBC for example showed over Savile.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2017)

I wonder if anyone in the country is surprised by any of these recent revelations. Hope I’m wrong but doubt there’s much genuine shock around.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If this is anything like true - and there's every reason for thinking it is - Corbyn deserves as much shit as May is getting.  In fact, unless I've missed something in the last couple of days, Corbyn looks to have had more cases reported directly to him than May has.


Not sure, there's only this one I know about? 

Stephen Bush's piece here has it about right I think.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> Not sure, there's only this one I know about?
> 
> Stephen Bush's piece here has it about right I think.


Probably my mistake. I had it mind that one of the cases mentioned, perhaps the one's raised by John Mann (?), had at least the implication that Corbyn knew. Thinking about it again, this might be the first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If this is anything like true - and there's every reason for thinking it is - Corbyn deserves as much shit as May is getting.  In fact, unless I've missed something in the last couple of days, Corbyn looks to have had more cases reported directly to him than May has.
> 
> FWIW, a government lead by Corbyn might well be marginally better for victims than one lead by any of the Tories. But when it comes to willingness to take action within your own organisation, you really show your true colours.  As the BBC for example showed over Savile.


Yeh. But a Corbyn government is going to be nice cop to auld May's nasty cop. It's not like Corbyn would be super good, he'd just manage capitalism with nicer intentions.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 3, 2017)

Now spreading to the devolved parliaments with the resignation of Carl Sargeant, a Welsh Labour big beast and longtime minister,  and his immediate suspension from the Labour party after 'shocking and distressing' allegations.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 3, 2017)

Someone’s got to be digging on the DUP.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2017)

bendeus said:


> Now spreading to the devolved parliaments with the resignation of Carl Sargeant, a Welsh Labour big beast and longtime minister,  and his immediate suspension from the Labour party after 'shocking and distressing' allegations.


I like the way in that story he stepped down after he was informed of allegations against him, like spacey - and like hari was amazed to find out what he had done.


----------



## RainbowTown (Nov 3, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Whilst its bloody awful its a bit much to hang an entire culture which is as old as Parliment itself on two people.



Well, they are both in charge of their parties at the moment (aren't they?). So they have a responsibilty of sorts, an accountability. This has fell on their watch. Tough luck.

 Also, as 'fine', long standing MP's of numerous years, another thought spring to mind. In all those years they themselves NEVER EVER saw anything untoward? Really? Hmmmmmmm... 

And if they did why didn't either of them EVER speak up against it? 

And when  both were finally told about it (like I say, before that both were completely oblivious to it all. Yes, really. Really) why didn't they act more decisively? (ie boot the culprits out on their arses _el pronto)_?

Why leave it until now, when their hands have been forced?

Both as bad as one another.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Someone’s got to be digging on the DUP.



Less MPs so lower probability I suppose


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2017)

It's clear that a major point of the Westminster Sex-pest scandal is being missed, how deliberately I don't know.

As with child sex abuse and other crimes, parties strongly appear to have sat on allegations, frankly as a tradition, either for purpose of cover-up or blackmail.

This systemic issue is now obscured by the feeding frenzy on resignations / possible resignations, sensationalism over individual cases and party political point scoring.

The interests of victims is far from the top of the list.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2017)

There's quite a famous clip of a former chief whip or MI5 guy (I think) admitting that paedos were known about but it was sat on for blackmail. Anyone remember what to look for to find it on YT?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2017)

I know we've had this, but still...it's the key thing really at the mo. 



Note, start of TMs response "I'm very clear" - i.e - "I'm about to obfuscate".

She doesn't deny her wanton failure. She's a cover up merchant for sex-pests. Any half decent media would be like a dog with a bone on this.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

It's all over the internet this week, you should be able to find it easily enough. Odd that you've missed it.


----------



## ignatious (Nov 3, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's quite a famous clip of a former chief whip or MI5 guy (I think) admitting that paedos were known about but it was sat on for blackmail. Anyone remember what to look for to find it on YT?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I know we've had this, but still...it's the key thing really at the mo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



she learned it all from margaret hodge, the paedophiles' friend.

when hodge became minister for children in 2003 it was like when kissinger got the peace prize.


----------



## RainbowTown (Nov 3, 2017)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's quite a famous clip of a former chief whip or MI5 guy (I think) admitting that paedos were known about but it was sat on for blackmail. Anyone remember what to look for to find it on YT?




Thatcher......Cyril Smith....that nugget of information has been quietly cast aside in the current goings on.

ITwo comments on that:

(1) Her reputation by rights should be in tatters now. But, of course, it won't be. 

(2) Criminal prosecution should not only have been pursued against Smith when he was alive, but all those who contributed to the cover up should have been charged as well. Including Thatcher.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


> Thatcher......Cyril Smith....that nugget of information has been quietly cast aside in the current goings on.
> 
> ITwo comments on that:
> 
> ...


to be fair there are so many reasons thatcher's rep should be in tatters, and of course there are so many parts of the country where it is in tatters.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 3, 2017)

ignatious said:


>




That's the one. Thanks.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2017)

Anyone else find this really bizrre?

Apparently Kelvin Hopkins has released his formal statement to the Skawkbox website.

Excl: Kelvin Hopkins formal statement

Now I'm not going to say that Hopkins is definitely guilty of what he is accused of, how could I possibly know? What I am going to say though, is that if these conspiracy-theory clickbait pro-Corbyn websites like Skawkbox and The Canary are going to be used, and use, stories like this in order to paint sexual harassment allegations against Labour MPs as part of the overall anti-Corbyn media effort then that is quite a worrying development.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2017)

That's not him releasing  it to them though is it? It them reporting on a PR he did last night. They just threw in first and exclusive.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

Now Lewis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> Now Lewis.


there's morse to come

dear


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> That's not him releasing  it to them though is it? It them reporting on a PR he did last night. They just threw in first and exclusive.



Oh OK, didn't pick up on that.


----------



## bendeus (Nov 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> I like the way in that story he stepped down after he was informed of allegations against him, like spacey - and like hari was amazed to find out what he had done.


Yeah. I thought the same. 'shocking and distressing' are his words to describe how the allegations make him feel rather than the actual gravity of the offence - whatever it might be - that he's accused of.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> oh dear.
> 
> Rosie Winterton challenged Jeremy Corbyn over promotion of Kelvin Hopkins to Shadow Cabinet



This looks pretty serious for JC, but its curious that it briefly appeared as the top story on the BBC then vanished (although the video interview is still there). Have the Labour press people found a way of keeping a lid on it for the time being?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2017)

Charlie Elphicke having whip removed by Tories.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This looks pretty serious for JC, but its curious that it briefly appeared as the top story on the BBC then vanished (although the video interview is still there). Have the Labour press people found a way of keeping a lid on it for the time being?



Looks like fairly standard story rotation to me, especially given the number of uk politics stories incoming at the moment.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 3, 2017)

Oh... now here is a surprise... not.  He must have gone well over the line for the Tories to actually suspend him. 

Tory MP Charlie Elphicke suspended


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 3, 2017)

Basically we need 650 by-elections ASAP

EtA, or guillotines in parliament Sq. Tiny guillotines at about waist height.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Oh... now here is a surprise... not.  He must have gone well over the line for the Tories to actually suspend him.
> 
> Tory MP Charlie Elphicke suspended



Referred to police too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2017)

Fingers said:


> Oh... now here is a surprise... not.  He must have gone well over the line for the Tories to actually suspend him.
> 
> Tory MP Charlie Elphicke suspended



Normally you’d need to be filmed nuts deep in a Labrador to invoke that.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2017)

The Sunday papers have had all week to work on this, it'll be interesting to see what they do. If I'm remembering right, the expenses scandal followed this sort of trajectory


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> This looks pretty serious for JC, but its curious that it briefly appeared as the top story on the BBC then vanished (although the video interview is still there). Have the Labour press people found a way of keeping a lid on it for the time being?


Difficult to know how all this will pan out. This is one of the things that hit during his time. Perhaps a mea culpa along the lines that he thought it had been resolved [a reprimand?] plus he was under a shitload of pressure at the time. I'd buy it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 3, 2017)

Well.



Chaos reigns


----------



## Fingers (Nov 3, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Well.
> 
> 
> 
> Chaos reigns




Christ!


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> Looks like fairly standard story rotation to me, especially given the number of uk politics stories incoming at the moment.



It doesn't seem to have rotated, just disappeared, and it also doesn't seem to be being covered on the main news websites, even though it's clearly a big story. I might be wrong, but I think there has been some frantic blower action to persuade news editors they can't safely run with it.


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 3, 2017)

Anyone know of a former Conservative researcher now working for Mandelson? Such a person being touted as the author of the list.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Anyone know of a former Conservative researcher now working for Mandelson? Such a person being touted as the author of the list.


Who is behind the toutage?


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> It doesn't seem to have rotated, just disappeared, and it also doesn't seem to be being covered on the main news websites, even though it's clearly a big story. I might be wrong, but I think there has been some frantic blower action to persuade news editors they can't safely run with it.



Corbyn 'warned over harassment claim MP'

edited to add - the video is still top of the sidebar on the politics section, and when you go to the page with the video it has links to related stories which include the one I just linked to.


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 3, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Who is behind the toutage?



Jason Groves in the Mail tomorrow.

E2a - old news, anyway, Express had a story today that Joe Armitage -the bloke in question - was being widely accused of, and fiercely denying, authorship. 

I still think it’s a collation of multiple lists.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

Ivan Lewis: creep.

Labour MP Ivan Lewis Has Apologised For Making Some Female Colleagues "Uncomfortable"


----------



## Raheem (Nov 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> Corbyn 'warned over harassment claim MP'
> 
> edited to add - the video is still top of the sidebar on the politics section, and when you go to the page with the video it has links to related stories which include the one I just linked to.



Ah, OK. So, in that case it's me overestimating how big the story is.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

Raheem said:


> Ah, OK. So, in that case it's me overestimating how big the story is.



Not really, and as you pointed out it was the top story on the BBC new front page earlier today. You aren't underestimating the size of the story, just how quickly news priorities are shifted round during the course of a day where other 'hot' political stories keep breaking. 

Not that I want to be complacent about this either, and I will certainly be keeping an eye on the overall longevity of that part of the story.

Also makes sense to compare and contrast with how the BBC handle the equivalent 'Theresa May was told about ...' stories, of which I'm sure there has been at least one instance of this week already. I don't think its their 'favourite' sort of angle unless its reached the point where it could be a fatal blow to a party leader.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

The Elphicke story already has a _May Knew_ angle, _and_ it's serious enough to be handed to the police. That's the big one for today, although Corbo still isn't off the hook.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Well.
> 
> 
> 
> Chaos reigns


So he doesn't know what he's accused of, but does know he didn't do it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> The Elphicke story already has a _May Knew_ angle, _and_ it's serious enough to be handed to the police. That's the big one for today, although Corbo still isn't off the hook.



Whats the May knew angle on this one? I've seen no reference made to that yet in news stories.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

dunno, I saw it somewhere earlier - it was reported to the party just after she became leader apparently.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2017)

There's a Lambeth councillor who has had the nickname "Gropey ****" for a long time because of their inappropriate conduct. Let's hope some people step forward.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Less MPs so lower probability I suppose



I bet that formula doesn't work based on the DUP MP's I remember


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Anyone else find this really bizrre?
> 
> Apparently Kelvin Hopkins has released his formal statement to the Skawkbox website.
> 
> ...



Now I've read his statement I think he's		definitely a wrong 'Un.

"* On 16 February 2015 I did send a text message to Ava which included the reported words saying Ava was “charming and sweet natured” and that “a nice young man would be lucky to have you as a girlfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…”. She in fact replied to my text on the same day:"*


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

ha yes - he's a total creep.


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> Corbyn 'warned over harassment claim MP'
> 
> edited to add - the video is still top of the sidebar on the politics section, and when you go to the page with the video it has links to related stories which include the one I just linked to.



The only thing that gives me pause there is that nowhere does it say that Corbyn knew about the complaint before he appointed Hopkins; indeed most of the actual criticism - the lack of action taken, the advice given to the complainant that nothing could be done with anonymity, and conceivably the non-recording of it actually rests with Rosie Winterton.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> The only thing that gives me pause there is that nowhere does it say that Corbyn knew about the complaint before he appointed Hopkins; indeed most of the actual criticism - the lack of action taken, the advice given to the complainant that nothing could be done with anonymity, and conceivably the non-recording of it actually rests with Rosie Winterton.


Yeh but Corbyn ruined Christmas, there is nothing he can't be blamed for


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

The most recent version of the story has Winterton warning Corbyn when he was appointing him though...


----------



## TopCat (Nov 3, 2017)

Tory MP Charlie Elphicke suspended after 'serious allegations' - Tory MP Charlie Elphicke suspended


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

agricola 



killer b said:


> oh dear.
> 
> Rosie Winterton challenged Jeremy Corbyn over promotion of Kelvin Hopkins to Shadow Cabinet


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> The most recent version of the story has Winterton warning Corbyn when he was appointing him though...



The behaviour was reported to Winterton in 2014 and by all accounts she issued a verbal reprimand after advising the victim that without waiving anonymity nothing could be done, despite her being Chief Whip at the time and in a position to investigate and take action.  

I just think its a bit mad that two years later its Corbyn's fault for appointing Hopkins to a post, when nothing was done to begin with.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

What could she have done?


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

I mean, I reckon issuing a warning and then tipping off the leader that he's probably a creep is about as much as you could really do with an anonymous report of an harassy text. There certainly wasn't enough there to withdraw the whip.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> What could she have done?



Could have asked him to resign or threaten leaking it to be fair.



killer b said:


> I mean, I reckon issuing a warning and then tipping off the leader that he's probably a creep is about as much as you could really do with an anonymous report of an harassy text. There certainly wasn't enough there to withdraw the whip.



If it''s not "enough" to withdraw the whip are we saying he's too much of a wrong Un for government but not too much of a wrong Un for the backbenches?


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> I just think its a bit mad that two years later its Corbyn's fault for appointing Hopkins to a post, when nothing was done to begin with.



Do you apply the same standard in cases such as Thatcher considering whether to give a knighthood to someone with a dodgy reputation?


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> What could she have done?



Have an in-depth chat with the victim, speak to other people who work / worked closely with Hopkins - basically work out whether anyone else was at risk or if there is a pattern of behaviour and support the victim if an investigation was required and anonymity had to be waived.  If what she found was serious enough then she could have withdrawn the whip, even started looking at whether he should have been the Labour candidate in the 2015 election for his constituency (which is after all what Corbyn did with Danczuk for 2017).  She could have done lots of things and was in a position to do them.  Was the warning even on Hopkin's record?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 3, 2017)




----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> Do you apply the same standard in cases such as Thatcher considering whether to give a knighthood to someone with a dodgy reputation?



TBH the clearest Thatcher parallel here would be if John Nott had got rid of most of the Navy and then criticized the Government for not having a Navy to respond to the Falklands conflict.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 3, 2017)

party dress diet.

Guess that's the winter equivalent of the beach-ready diet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> Have an in-depth chat with the victim, speak to other people who work / worked closely with Hopkins - basically work out whether anyone else was at risk or if there is a pattern of behaviour and support the victim if an investigation was required and anonymity had to be waived.  If what she found was serious enough then she could have withdrawn the whip, even started looking at whether he should have been the Labour candidate in the 2015 election for his constituency (which is after all what Corbyn did with Danczuk for 2017).  She could have done lots of things and was in a position to do them.  Was the warning even on Hopkin's record?


I guess that's about right, although we've no way of knowing whether all of this wasn't done. She did warn Corbyn though, which is what_ he's _getting flak for.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2017)

agricola said:


> TBH the clearest Thatcher parallel here would be if John Nott had got rid of most of the Navy and then criticized the Government for not having a Navy to respond to the Falklands conflict.



I'll take your avoidance of the question as a failure to rise above the business of politics, how predictable.


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

killer b said:


> I guess that's about right, although we've no way of knowing whether all of this wasn't done. She did warn Corbyn though, which is what_ he's _getting flak for.



I know, I just find it odd that in a scandal that is about victims at Westminster reporting harassment and nothing being done about it, that someone to whom harassment was reported to in person, by the victim, and who appears to have done nothing about it (edit) beyond giving a verbal reprimand (at least until the accused got offered a job two years later) appears to have escaped all criticism.


----------



## agricola (Nov 3, 2017)

elbows said:


> I'll take your avoidance of the question as a failure to rise above the business of politics, how predictable.



Alright then - if there is an incident with Thatcher whereby someone whose actual job it was to deal with malpractice, who was made aware of malpractice by a person and did nothing / very little about it, and who then went on to try and block a knighthood awarded to that person because of the malpractice they were told about then yes, that is a suitable parallel to this.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2017)

Sue said:


> Petronella Wyatt on the Today programme doing the 'women gave up their right to moan about such things when they wanted to be treated like men, it's a bit of fun, nothing wrong with it as long as everyone has good manners, why are women making a fuss over nothing' bollocks and, of course, women being offended by men holding doors open for them (which I have to say I've never, ever encountered in real life). What an appalling woman.
> 
> She also kept talking over the woman giving the other (reasonable) point of view then complained she wasn't getting a chance to talk. Absolutely dreadful.


well, she had an affair with Johnson and had a child with him, so I really doubt both her tastes and judgement


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 3, 2017)

DaveCinzano said:


> Enjoy:
> 
> 
> Petronella Wyatt: It's hell being posh but poor | Daily Mail Online


excellent work, Mr C . that really does say it all about her


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> there's morse to come
> 
> dear


<groans at pun>


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2017)

editor said:


> There's a Lambeth councillor who has had the nickname "Gropey ****" for a long time because of their inappropriate conduct. Let's hope some people step forward.


That one occurred to me too


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 4, 2017)

agricola said:


> Have an in-depth chat with the victim, speak to other people who work / worked closely with Hopkins - basically work out whether anyone else was at risk or if there is a pattern of behaviour and support the victim if an investigation was required and anonymity had to be waived.  If what she found was serious enough then she could have withdrawn the whip, even started looking at whether he should have been the Labour candidate in the 2015 election for his constituency (which is after all what Corbyn did with Danczuk for 2017).  She could have done lots of things and was in a position to do them.  Was the warning even on Hopkin's record?


I agree with this. chief whip is responsible for conduct and discipline of PLP. She could have done so much more - it's a bit rich, her parking all the blame on Corbyn now


----------



## Raheem (Nov 4, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I agree with this. chief whip is responsible for conduct and discipline of PLP. She could have done so much more - it's a bit rich, her parking all the blame on Corbyn now



tbf, I'm not sure she has said anything about it yet.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 4, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I agree with this. chief whip is responsible for conduct and discipline of PLP. She could have done so much more - it's a bit rich, her parking all the blame on Corbyn now



Blame the woman. The revolution must be protected.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

Guys, it's ok. Corbyn can fuck up sometimes too y'know.


----------



## LiamO (Nov 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Less MPs so lower probability I suppose




Any journalist willing to shine a light in the DUP's darkest corners would be richly rewarded for their endeavoors by the rich vein of their dodgy behaviour to number of MPs ratio


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> I'm not a Jess Phillips fan but I've no doubt she does receive a huge amount of horrible shit as well - any woman that puts her head over the parapet will do. I think it's important to remember that and in the context of this thread particularly I think putting scare quotes around 'rape threats' is very suspect tbh.



The reason I used 'scare quotes' is because there were no rape threats.

Buy a copy of Jess Phillips' biography if you don't believe me.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

killer b said:


> check this prick's post history before bothering to engage huh.



Please stop engaging with me, it's not really adding anything to the discussion.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

teqniq said:


> I imagine it's useful in the circles she moves in to claim Oxbridge and hope no-one looks too closely, bit like Katie Hopkins and Sandhurst.



Do you mean Ben Clarke?

Hopkins did actually go to Sandhurst.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

LiamO said:


> Any journalist willing to shine a light in the DUP's darkest corners would be richly rewarded for their endeavoors by the rich vein of their dodgy behaviour to number of MPs ratio



Or sinn fein for that matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> The reason I used 'scare quotes' is because there were no rape threats.
> 
> Buy a copy of Jess Phillips' biography if you don't believe me.


Do the contents then flow by osmosis?


----------



## newbie (Nov 4, 2017)

Streathamite said:


> I agree with this. chief whip is responsible for conduct and discipline of PLP. She could have done so much more - it's a bit rich, her parking all the blame on Corbyn now


Ms Etemadzadeh does not appear to share your view,  she's quoted as saying


> "I myself tweeted to Jeremy Corbyn about this incident during the cabinet reshuffle. I told him that he shouldn't demote Rosie Winterton because she stood by me when I reported an MP for misbehaviour.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> The reason I used 'scare quotes' is because there were no rape threats.
> 
> Buy a copy of Jess Phillips' biography if you don't believe me.



This is a helpful article clarifying what happened on twitter that day. Including that she never claimed to have received '600 rape threats'.
I set out to troll her — why all this fuss about 600 rape tweets?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 4, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Blame the woman. The revolution must be protected.



Oh give over.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


>




Interesting contrast of the two headlines there 

Not much love for Leadsom from the Mail. Is that odd given she's a clear Brexiter or does the Mail not care much about Brexit really?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 4, 2017)

newbie said:


> Ms Etemadzadeh does not appear to share your view,  she's quoted as saying


I've no idea about the rights and wrongs of this case, but _tweeting_ something at Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem like a recipe for being heard.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I've no idea about the rights and wrongs of this case, but _tweeting_ something at Jeremy Corbyn doesn't seem like a recipe for being heard.


I don't think newbie was giving that as evidence that Corbyn knew, but that the victim had been satisfied with Winterton's actions after the complaint.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Do the contents then flow by osmosis?



 Eh?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> The reason I used 'scare quotes' is because there were no rape threats.
> 
> Buy a copy of Jess Phillips' biography if you don't believe me.



I have literally seen rape threats made to her on twitter. You are wrong.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

Anyway, I think it's fairly clear how this happens. Each party only has at best a few hundred MPs, which isn't actually that many to fill the various ministerial roles that need filling. The kind of people who want to become MPs are narcissists and psychopaths for the most part, and once you've excluded the obvious headbangers, the ideological enemies, the total incompetents and the comprehensively educated, you've literally just got the sex offenders left to choose from. Little surprise that up till now they've been given the jobs and the leaders have crossed their fingers and hoped for the best.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is a helpful article clarifying what happened on twitter that day. Including that she never claimed to have received '600 rape threats'.
> I set out to troll her — why all this fuss about 600 rape tweets?



Thanks. Yes it sets out a fair bit of context. It's probably fair to say that on that occasion she never claimed to have received 'rape threats' but she still wanted to see a self employed father of two locked up over the incident. Also she's made other extremely disingenuous claims about 'rape threats' (scare quotes my emphasis) and despite not claiming to have received the '600' discussed in the Times article she still wrote an article in the Torygraph claiming she got thousands!: By ignoring the thousands of rape threats sent to me, Twitter is colluding with my abusers 

There have been four in total over the last three years. I posted a link to a short video about them but the mods deemed it to be 'inappropriate content' for some reason.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2017)

killer b said:


> . The kind of people who want to become MPs are narcissists and psychopaths for the most part.



really? im sure some of them are, im sure such types are over represented - but _most_ of them? How many mps have you actually met on which to base this?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I have literally seen rape threats made to her on twitter. You are wrong.



I don't want to appear to be a total dick but I'd really appreciate it if you could sign post me to your evidence. Twitter is very open source and searchable and I've researched this quite closely but have yet to see one.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I don't want to appear to be a total dick but I'd really appreciate it if you could sign post me to your evidence. Twitter is very open source and searchable and I've researched this quite closely but have yet to see one.



I'm not going to trawl twitter for that, I've literally seen them and there are articles in mainstream newspapers talking about them and that's good enough for me.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2017)

Why are you so interested in this Eye Is Bloke. Do you feel that the hardworking misogynist trolls of twitter are being unfairly maligned in general or is specifically about this woman in particular?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I don't want to appear to be a total dick but I'd really appreciate it if you could sign post me to your evidence. Twitter is very open source and searchable and I've researched this quite closely but have yet to see one.



I'd say the impression you're giving is leaning more towards 'creepy weirdo' tbh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Eh?


Usually you need to read a book to access the information within, but I would be very interested in a book whose contents flowed into your mind on purchase. Think of all the time that could be saved


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> really? im sure some of them are, im sure such types are over represented - but _most_ of them? How many mps have you actually met on which to base this?


hey tim, you know how sometimes people will obviously exaggerate something for comedic / rhetorical effect?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> I'm not going to trawl twitter for that, I've literally seen them and there are articles in mainstream newspapers talking about them and that's good enough for me.



And yet the only examples she gives in her book aren't rape threats, none of the numerous mainstream newspaper articles you are retreating to as sufficient evidence provide examples, despite all the sensational headlines the police have never investigated, she has never reported any to the police and as i say twitter is a very searchable:
rape to:jessphillips - Twitter Search


----------



## newbie (Nov 4, 2017)

killer b said:


> I don't think newbie was giving that as evidence that Corbyn knew, but that the victim had been satisfied with Winterton's actions after the complaint.


indeed, so attempts to deflect from Corbyn to Winterton are unlikely to be effective.  But then politics is a murky business, and that isn't suspended because of the seriousness of some of the allegations. The Times/Mail headlines are one aspect of that.  

In trying to find where I read that quote from Ms Etemadzadeh I looked at her twitter feed.  She's a heavy duty Remainer with a background of retweeting the likes of Blair and Ali Campbell.  Winterton was apparently very involved in choosing the shadow cabinet that subsequently resigned en mass, that's why she was sacked.  There are political sides evident here.

Hopkins was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, along with Corbyn, McDonnel & Abbott. Winterton appears much closer to Progress. 

So while Streathamite (and I) would prefer to politically take aim at Winterton, I'm guessing that Ms Etemadzadeh would prefer to undermine Corbyn, iyswim.  No idea to what extent that is a factor in this story, this week.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Why are you so interested in this Eye Is Bloke. Do you feel that the hardworking misogynist trolls of twitter are being unfairly maligned in general or is specifically about this woman in particular?



No and no.

Presumably I'm interested in it for similar reasons to you participating in this thread. More specifically I'm interested in it because I'm pro democracy and anti- censorship


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

newbie said:


> indeed, so attempts to deflect from Corbyn to Winterton are unlikely to be effective.  But then politics is a murky business, and that isn't suspended because of the seriousness of some of the allegations. The Times/Mail headlines are one aspect of that.
> 
> In trying to find where I read that quote from Ms Etemadzadeh I looked at her twitter feed.  She's a heavy duty Remainer with a background of retweeting the likes of Blair and Ali Campbell.  Winterton was apparently very involved in choosing the shadow cabinet that subsequently resigned en mass, that's why she was sacked.  There are political sides evident here.
> 
> ...


Yeah - I think being aware of our own biases as well as those of the various people involved in the stories is crucial right now.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2017)

killer b said:


> hey tim, you know how sometimes people will obviously exaggerate something for comedic / rhetorical effect?



Obviously. But i dont like this constant depiction of mps as a breed apart, uniquely venal, sociopathic, incompetent, corrupt etc etc. Certainly they mostly come from privileged backgrounds but most of them are smart, driven, ambitious and are generally very good communicators (the days of some gout riddled tory oaf being gifted a safe seat in the shires by birthright are over) . Some are driven - for better or worse - by ideology. Yes you can throw ego and narcissism in there - but that is the nature of what happens to people when they are in positions of power. The point is that it is the system that creates the environment in which normal people end up behaving in abnormal - and abusive  - ways.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 4, 2017)

Yeah I think pretending that abusive behaviour is only perpetrated by "abusive individuals" is a big mistake. Abuse is done by normal people every day. It's done by people that are seen beyond their targets as "nice people", "good people", colleagues, friends, family members.


----------



## killer b (Nov 4, 2017)

I'm not pretending any such thing ta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Too right, SG is utterly beautiful, I don't want it ruined by dreadful people in boiler suits who break wind in the halls of the mighty....


It's ok, they're only expected to be there a month or so. Naturalists have been consulted, including David Attenborough, who tell me that they will be welcomed with open mouths arms by sections of the local fauna


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> And yet the only examples she gives in her book aren't rape threats, none of the numerous mainstream newspaper articles you are retreating to as sufficient evidence provide examples, despite all the sensational headlines the police have never investigated, she has never reported any to the police and as i say twitter is a very searchable:
> rape to:jessphillips - Twitter Search



Can you stop now please.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Interesting contrast of the two headlines there
> 
> Not much love for Leadsom from the Mail. Is that odd given she's a clear Brexiter or does the Mail not care much about Brexit really?



Well I had the misfortune to have routinely read the fucking Daily Mail during the first few John Major post-Thatcher years (my Dad had it delivered, the arse), and the only thing I really remember about it was they bloody loved Tory in-fighting and put related stuff on the front page all the time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> There have been four in total over the last three years. I posted a link to a short video about them but the mods deemed it to be 'inappropriate content' for some reason.



And how many should she have to put up with?. For 'free speech ?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> And how many should she have to put up with?. For 'free speech ?



None. 

Obviously.

As I stated in my original post, I don't think someone who is prepared to exploit and undermine the trauma of victims of sexual abuse, by making repeated grossly exaggerated and disingenuous claims about being bombarded with 'rape threats' for their own political purposes and personal profit is the most appropriate person to be shuffling round various TV studios proselytising on the current sexisminsiter scandal. That's all.

In my humble subjective opinion her behaviour damages the chances that women like the labour activist who came forward a couple of days ago will be believed.

But seemingly if she claimed that Jeremy Corbyn touched her on the knee tomorrow, we should simply believe her and prepare for a new leadership contest....?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Can you stop now please.



Can you stop reading my posts please. They appear to be triggering you.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> None.
> 
> Obviously.
> 
> ...


Go away.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2017)

Wasn’t someone banned recently for appearing out of nowhere with a post calling Jess P a slut or similar?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> Go away.



Can you stop reading my posts please. They appear to be triggering you.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Wasn’t someone banned recently for appearing out of nowhere with a post calling Jess P a slut or similar?



Don't know but it certainly wasn't me if that's what you're implying.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Can you stop reading my posts please. They appear to be triggering you.


I’ll stop reading your posts soon, as you’ll be banned, you misogynist shit.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> I’ll stop reading your posts soon, as you’ll be banned, you misogynist shit.



How am I a misogynist? Also you're the one resorting to pejorative language but I'm not 12 so whatever...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Can you stop reading my posts please. They appear to be triggering you.



What do you mean by "triggering"?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> How am I a misogynist? Also you're the one resorting to pejorative language but I'm not 12 so whatever...


Your blog and your nutty obsessive YouTube channel make it plain that you are dodgy alt-right type with the usual misogyny in tow. But someone who think they're  cut above people like tommy robinson. You probably admire the _clear thought_ of a James Damore.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> How am I a misogynist? Also you're the one resorting to pejorative language but I'm not 12 so whatever...


Because you are trying to minimise rape threats, that's why. As everyone else can see. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about _uppity women_ generally.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> Because you are trying to minimise rape threats, that's why. As everyone else can see. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about _uppity women_ generally.


Do check his youtube channel - i'm not going to link to it but searching username will take you to the blog and links therein to the youtube channel.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2017)

Eye Is Bloke you have a broken link on your website where I tried to learn more about your views on "sluts".


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 4, 2017)

Yeah; when I tried it I got this message


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> Because you are trying to minimise rape threats, that's why. As everyone else can see. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about _uppity women_ generally.



I am doing nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite.

Judging by the replies I'm getting a lot of people appear to have well and truly supped heavily from the cool aid cup. Anyway I defended my position with fairly robust evidence, if anyone wants to address that or heaven forbid take a stab at debunking it I'm happy to discuss. Otherwise it's pointless resounding to lots of straw man insults. 

As you were I have better places to be.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Eye Is Bloke you have a broken link on your website where I tried to learn more about your views on "sluts".


apparently its alright because one (misrepresented) piece of research found lots of women say it too


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

bimble said:


> Eye Is Bloke you have a broken link on your website where I tried to learn more about your views on "sluts".



Not sure why, it works for me but to save you the bother and ironically enough it's about Jess Phillip's view about "sluts" not mine.

Bye.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Anyway I defended my position with fairly robust evidence,


you really have not



> As you were I have better places to be.


You really dont


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2017)

You'd better get back to your loonblog, or youtube audience of 2. bye.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 4, 2017)

Cool aid? Yeah fuck off.


----------



## rekil (Nov 4, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Do check his youtube channel - i'm not going to link to it but searching username will take you to the blog and links therein to the youtube channel.


Don't give it the clicks. This screenie will do. 



Spoiler







Pathetic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2017)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Cool aid? Yeah fuck off.


its kool aid anyway


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Can you stop reading my posts please. They appear to be triggering you.



I'm not feeling triggered, offended or upset, I'm just bored by your obsession with minimising rape threats and I don't think anyone here wants you breaking up the thread with your little "peccadilloes".

Jess Philips is a scumbag. You won't find many fans of her on here. But nobody is interested in your obsession with the exact number of rape threats she received.


----------



## chilango (Nov 4, 2017)

Fucking weirdo. Yuk.


----------



## pesh (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I don't want to appear to be a total dick


you sure?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 4, 2017)

copliker said:


> Don't give it the clicks. This screenie will do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"social justice warriors - a warning from history".  

i wish these twats from gamers gate et al would just stick to porn sites and calling each other "faggot" whilst playing call of duty.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

Ok. So I've reflected on what people have said and I don't often say this but you're right, it doesn't matter how many actual rape threats she got. It matters that pretty much the full political spectrum of newspapers have reported that she does regularly get bombarded with them and in fairness they can't all be wrong.

As numerous papers have established, they are being exclusively sent from Corbyn supporting 'brocalists', who as everyone knows, are the very worst type of misogynists.  I hope this current scandal weeds out the lot of them so we can all get on with a kinder, gentler and more effective type of politics that actually does something about the human catastrophe that welfare reform has brought upon this country.

Finally, not that it really matters but I've voted liberal my entire life and am absolutely a bit of a dick.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Ok. ...As numerous papers have established, they are being exclusively sent from Corbyn supporting 'brocalists', who as everyone knows, are the very worst type of misogynists...



Would you care to expand on this hierarchy of misogynists  and give some evidenced examples? 

Also how does this universalist condemnation (the weirdly presumptive and excluding 'as everyone knows' claim) fit in with the 'kinder, gentler' politics you say you're after?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## agricola (Nov 4, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> "social justice warriors - a warning from history".
> 
> i wish these twats from gamers gate et al would just stick to porn sites and calling each other "faggot" whilst playing call of duty.



Or at least play _Warband_, where they can be hacked to death, impaled by lances and shot with arrows.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2017)

edit probably not the best thread to have this discussion on


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Would you care to expand on this hierarchy of misogynists  and give some evidenced examples?
> 
> Also how does this universalist condemnation (the weirdly presumptive and excluding 'as everyone knows' claim) fit in with the 'kinder, gentler' politics you say you're after?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


But answer came there none


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Would you care to expand on this hierarchy of misogynists and give some evidenced examples?



Eh?



Louis MacNeice said:


> Also how does this universalist condemnation (the weirdly presumptive and excluding 'as everyone knows' claim) fit in with the 'kinder, gentler' politics you say you're after?



Condemning anyone who be low enough to send a woman a rape threat fits perfectly with the type of politics I'm after. I think the bigger question is why you would have a problem with that?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> But answer came there none


See what you've done Pickman's model


----------



## snadge (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Condemning anyone who be low enough to send a woman a rape threat fits perfectly with the type of politics I'm after. I think the bigger question is why you would have a problem with that?



Not a very high bar that, I think the majority of parties in the UK subscribe to that, maybe the Islamist party may not though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 4, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Ok. So I've reflected on what people have said and I don't often say this but you're right, it doesn't matter how many actual rape threats she got. It matters that pretty much the full political spectrum of newspapers have reported that she does regularly get bombarded with them and in fairness they can't all be wrong.
> 
> As numerous papers have established, they are being exclusively sent from Corbyn supporting 'brocalists', who as everyone knows, are the very worst type of misogynists.  I hope this current scandal weeds out the lot of them so we can all get on with a kinder, gentler and more effective type of politics that actually does something about the human catastrophe that welfare reform has brought upon this country.



Damascene conversion then. Good job team...? 



EYEisBloke said:


> Ok. So I've reflected on what people have said and I don't often say this but you're right, it doesn't matter how many actual rape threats she got. It matters that pretty much the full political spectrum of newspapers have reported that she does regularly get bombarded with them and in fairness they can't all be wrong.
> 
> As numerous papers have established, they are being exclusively sent from Corbyn supporting 'brocalists', who as everyone knows, are the very worst type of misogynists.  I hope this current scandal weeds out the lot of them so we can all get on with a kinder, gentler and more effective type of politics that actually does something about the human catastrophe that welfare reform has brought upon this country.
> 
> Finally, not that it really matters but I've voted liberal my entire life and am absolutely a bit of a dick.



No argument here. You seem remarkably sanguine about your actions. Almost..._unrepentant.



snadge said:



			Not a very high bar that, I think the majority of parties in the UK subscribe to that, *maybe the Islamist party may not though.*

Click to expand...

_
Off you fuck poppet.

This is supposed to be a thread dealing with wrong 'uns *hopefully* getting found out and experiencining some kind of consequences for a change, and perhaps even discussing how things can be improved/what the political fall out of all this will be. Let's please keep it that way.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2017)

Sir Roger Gale warns of the slippery slope to come, the bollock.



> But Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale told BBC Radio 4: "We're in danger of getting into a situation where nobody half bright, half sensible, half decent, will want to go into the House of Commons - and that will not be good for democracy.



This is not a witch hunt, says Harman


----------



## snadge (Nov 4, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> _
> 
> _
> Off you fuck poppet.
> ...



The political fall out will be that MPs will be deselected and hounded out, grievances that span decades will emerge and the cunts will tar, feather and lie for their own benefit, bereft of any inappropriate conduct.

Once these people enter the sphere of power, their morality is none existent.

If you think you can change any of this, you are being naive.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2017)

elbows said:


> Sir Roger Gale warns of the slippery slope to come, the bollock.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a witch hunt, says Harman



We had that argument during the expenses scandal, didn't we.


----------



## mx wcfc (Nov 4, 2017)

I was channel hopping and came across a politics program, where a woman was asked "is this a witch hunt?"

"No", she said, "witch hunts involved men chasing down women for acts they could not possibly have committed and then murdering them"  (not verbatim, but you get my drift).  

Fair point, well made, I thought.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 4, 2017)

We aren't talking about schoolkids, those in their teens or even twenties. But rather people middle aged and above, who have persued a career. They literally come out with the 'if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear' line, now here we are. Due process SHOULD be observed but this is not looking good.

Funnily enough, half of these time wasting nobodies condemn US. On what grounds?: political social and indeed moral. There is an idea, promoted by them, that he who limps through difficult circumstance should be cast out, should prostrate themselves and be punished, should sit in the dark and count themselves lucky.

It turns out your persecutors are actually examples of gobshites. That in itself is not enough, it will blow over to some extent, that said, make the buggers suffer.

I don't know what the difference is. One person is no less important, deserving or valuable than many others put together. Yet the many serve the few. This is not necessarily a shit country. There are people who want it to be but I believe the people themselves will win through. To temper or explain: people want justice. They are drawn to it. Its a universal hunger. Corruption is its enemy.

Justice will come, it may look hopeless at times but the circumstances can change swiftly. The citadels which underpin injustice are flimsy, they grow old and need replacing. We need to get over their 'authority'. Keep it basic, they have better media skills and cultivate political connections, they can attack but they cannot win.

The interest of the people, the decency of the people will overcome.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2017)

Another reason Fallon got the chop:

Revealed: why Michael Fallon was forced to quit as defence secretary



> The cabinet heavyweight’s shock departure on Wednesday followed a phone call from the journalist, Jane Merrick, who informed Downing Street that he had lunged at her and attempted to kiss her on the lips in 2003 after they had lunched together.
> 
> The revelation was the tipping point for No 10, which the _Observer_ understands had been compiling a list of alleged incidents involving Fallon since claims against him were first made.





> Merrick’s account offers a corrective to the suggestion that Fallon was forced out because of his alleged comments to Leadsom. Rather, it seems a pattern of allegedly unacceptable behaviour over the course of many years was the real reason for his spectacular fall. Leadsom told No 10 and the whips’ office about Fallon’s alleged comments early last week. However, the _Observer_ understands she insisted on anonymity and did not want to make a formal complaint. When her allegations leaked, fingers were pointed at the former chief whip, Gavin Williamson, who replaced Fallon. Williamson’s office has denied that he had any role in the leak.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 4, 2017)

Pie gets it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2017)

J Ed said:


> We had that argument during the expenses scandal, didn't we.



Yes and I don't remember it convincing many people. Not that the sight of the old guard putting their feet in their mouths in salute of some long lost era of power usually does.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2017)

Jo Brand and swathes of the audience get it. Well at least one of many it's on offer is covered here.

Jo Brand silences all-male panel on Have I Got News for You – video


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Pie gets it.



No, I think he misses the point. We or indeed people I've heard away from urban _are not doing any such conflating_.  _Whoever drew up the list_ has done the conflating - it reflects the morality of the political insider, whether it be some kind of guido type creature or party insider, the idea that things can be reduced down to leverage. FWIW, I think there are roughly 3 sorts of things on the list(s): things that amount to at actual or close to sexual assault/things that might be problematic in a work relationship of massive power disparities and few HR type reporting systems/things that are irrelevant or are there merely for political blackmail potential. Most people are well able to see those distinctions.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Condemning anyone who be low enough to send a woman a rape threat fits perfectly with the type of politics I'm after. I think the bigger question is why you would have a problem with that?



Please go back and re-read my questions; they're quite clear. If you didn't actually mean to type that everybody knows  'Corbyn supporting 'brocalists'...are the very worst type of misogynists', then that is your problem not mine.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2017)

elbows said:


> Sir Roger Gale warns of the slippery slope to come, the bollock.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a witch hunt, says Harman


Right. So they're bright, decent and sensible now?


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2017)

elbows said:


> the bollock.


This is such a good insult.

I wonder if there's any connection between all this coming out everywhere now (following the fall of Weinstein it seems) and the fact that a man who proudly bragged about grabbing women by the pussy got elected president.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 5, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Please go back and re-read my questions; they're quite clear. If you didn't actually mean to type everybody knows  'Corbyn supporting 'brocalists'...knows, are the very worst type of misogynists', then that is your problem not mine.



If I understood your question I would have answered it but I didn't, so I didn't. Is that why you didn't answer my question?

As it happens, I have to make a slight correction to my earlier post...so apologies for that. Having re-read the relevant cuttings I don't think it's accurate to say that the rape threats are being exclusively sent by 'brocalists', only that it is heavily implied that the very vast majority of them are.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read the dogs abuse that i got earlier for expressing an opinion so... to clarify the 'everybody knows' comment is slightly facetious and is a reference to Jess Phillips' personal hierarchy of misogynists: Labour MP Jess Phillips gets 600 rape threats in one day | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read the dogs abuse that i got earlier for expressing an opinion so... to clarify the 'everybody knows' comment is slightly facetious and is a reference to Jess Phillips' personal hierarchy of misogynists: Labour MP Jess Phillips gets 600 rape threats in one day | Daily Mail Online


You are nicholas parsons and I demand my £5


----------



## J Ed (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> If I understood your question I would have answered it but I didn't, so I didn't. Is that why you didn't answer my question?
> 
> As it happens, I have to make a slight correction to my earlier post...so apologies for that. Having re-read the relevant cuttings I don't think it's accurate to say that the rape threats are being exclusively sent by 'brocalists', only that it is heavily implied that the very vast majority of them are.
> 
> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read the dogs abuse that i got earlier for expressing an opinion so... to clarify the 'everybody knows' comment is slightly facetious and is a reference to Jess Phillips' personal hierarchy of misogynists: Labour MP Jess Phillips gets 600 rape threats in one day | Daily Mail Online



Not the thread for either a discussion of the weaponisation of misogyny on the left, plenty of discussion of that on here elsewhere in the past and I'm sure there will be plenty more, or your own personal bleating.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 5, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Not the thread for either a discussion of the weaponisation of misogyny on the left, plenty of discussion of that on here elsewhere in the past and I'm sure there will be plenty more, or your own personal bleating.



Baa.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> If I understood your question I would have answered it but I didn't, so I didn't. Is that why you didn't answer my question?
> 
> As it happens, I have to make a slight correction to my earlier post...so apologies for that. Having re-read the relevant cuttings I don't think it's accurate to say that the rape threats are being exclusively sent by 'brocalists', only that it is heavily implied that the very vast majority of them are.
> 
> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read the dogs abuse that i got earlier for expressing an opinion so... to clarify the 'everybody knows' comment is slightly facetious and is a reference to Jess Phillips' personal hierarchy of misogynists: Labour MP Jess Phillips gets 600 rape threats in one day | Daily Mail Online


Why are you obsessed with this (non) issue? Even if your claims were true, is it really the most important issue? More important than the rapes and assaults that are undoubtedly going on?


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2017)

If anything of any value might come out of this it'd be because people manage to resist trying to turn it into a labour v tory or left v right issue, which it clearly is not.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> Why are you obsessed with this (non) issue? Even if your claims were true, is it really the most important issue? More important than the rapes and assaults that are undoubtedly going on?



Why do you think 100's of labour members sending MPs rape threats is a 'non issue'? Does it only count when Tories do it?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Why do you think 100's of labour members sending MPs rape threats is a 'non issue'? Does it only count when Tories do it?



No one has said it's a non issue; indeed J Ed has pointed out that this has been discussed here at length and will be again. You seem to be working on the assumption that this is a Labour forum. It's not. There are many places you could go and have the argument you seem to want (Corbynista misogynists do exist), but this really isn't one of them. Why not spend some time having a good dig into these boards, and then when you've got a much more informed and nuanced handle on what this little backwater of the internet is all about, come back and have a go at really engaging? You might even learn something.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is such a good insult.


----------



## belboid (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Why do you think 100's of labour members sending MPs rape threats is a 'non issue'? Does it only count when Tories do it?


I’m talking about your denial of the fact she received such abuse, you dishonest PoS


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 5, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No one has said it's a non issue; indeed J Ed has pointed out that this has been discussed here at length and will be again. You seem to be working on the assumption that this is a Labour forum. It's not. There are many places you could go and have the argument you seem to want (Corbynista misogynists do exist), but this really isn't one of them. Why not spend some time having a good dig into these boards, and then when you've got a much more informed and nuanced handle on what this little backwater of the internet is all about, come back and have a go at really engaging? You might even learn something.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Thanks, that's probably fair advice under the circumstances. A few years back I hung around for an excellent thread on the peadophille allegations that were swirling round parliament and was v impressed / informed by the quality of contributions. That's the thing that inspired me to see what U75's take on the current shenanigans was.

I can appreciate that regulars may feel like a 'newbie' contribution may already have been done to death but from my perspective my point about MP's who are prepared to knowingly grossly exaggerate abuse claims for political purposes is entirely relevant to this thread, as is the very recent claim about a female MP being subjected to over 600 rape threats in one night after criticizing the behaviour of some men in her party.

And even if for some reason it wasn't, I wouldn't describe some of the comments and insults thrown at me as especially 'nuanced'.

But again, appreciate the advice - I'll have a look around and see if it helps convince me there's any point hanging around.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 5, 2017)

Pretty good first engagement. No flounce.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> I’m talking about your denial of the fact she received such abuse, you dishonest PoS



Sorry if you feel I've been dishonest in some way (?!). To clarify, you were quoting my post about the very recent claim about a female MP being subjected to over 600 rape threats in one night after criticizing the behaviour of some men in her party - my response is in that context.

My views about the validity of such claims had been done to death earlier in this thread and I accept that you / pretty much everyone else don't agree with me and / or don't believe it matters whether it's one threat or hundreds in a night on at least four separate occasions, over the last three years, involving three very distinct groups of attackers who all have ideological differences with the Member of Parliament they are very publicly threatening to rape.

And that's fine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Please go back and re-read my questions; they're quite clear. If you didn't actually mean to type that everybody knows  'Corbyn supporting 'brocalists'...are the very worst type of misogynists', then that is your problem not mine.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I want to know what a "brocalist" is.

Perhaps the poster means "broc*i*alist"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Right. So they're bright, decent and sensible now?



Reality is that they're *not even* half-bright, half-decent or half-sensible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You are nicholas parsons and I demand my £5



Pfft.  Parsons has much more _sang-froid._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Baa.



Why are you quoting your male parent?


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I want to know what a "brocalist" is.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2017)

Fucks sake.


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> Fucks sake.
> View attachment 119709



Hitchens in berk-a shock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2017)

manages to blame the sixties and the decline of marriage and formal courtship as well. Might as well ding all the bells.


----------



## Espresso (Nov 5, 2017)

The newsreader on ITV now referred to Amber Rub when starting a story on this. 
Unfortunate. To say the least. 
Didn't correct himself or apologize, either.


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is such a good insult.
> 
> I wonder if there's any connection between all this coming out everywhere now (following the fall of Weinstein it seems) and the fact that a man who proudly bragged about grabbing women by the pussy got elected president.



Thanks, it was in part inspired by a Nathan Barley line, something like 'lets chop some sense into this bollock'.

Not that I would even bother attempting that with Peter Hitchens, a man apparently untouched by the progress made during many hundreds of orbits round the sun.

As for the Trump stuff, I think momentum had been building already for some years but would be surprised if that shit hadn't accelerated things stateside.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2017)

Daniel Poulter, Tory former minister, accused of putting hand up MPs’ skirts

Minister denies computer porn allegations


Some updates. Interesting that Poulter was reported by a male Tory MP and he claims whips weren't interested at all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2017)

Oh and the article mentions a male Tory MP who is accused of sexual assaulting a Labour MP but not been named yet.


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Daniel Poulter, Tory former minister, accused of putting hand up MPs’ skirts
> 
> Minister denies computer porn allegations
> 
> ...



The Green one is interesting - given that its a fairly easy thing to prove or disprove, Green hasn't denied porn being on there ("_the police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my parliamentary computer_" is how he worded it) and Quick will be in front of a Commons committee imminently.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

The whole internecine nature of 'self regulation' is beautifully in play in this bit of reporting.  Amber Rudd announcing there's no place for this in politics, confirming a cabinet office inquiry into Damien Green and that it will look into his computer porn sideline - all line _in the sand, let's sweep it out_ stuff - but then defending the fucking whips office where she worked:


> “I was a whip myself and I don’t recognise some of those more lurid stories that are told about the short of things whips knew and did,” said Rudd, who was a junior whip briefly in 2013 and 2014. “That isn’t the parliament I know. That isn’t the whips’ office where I worked.”


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

agricola said:


> The Green one is interesting - given that its a fairly easy thing to prove or disprove, Green hasn't denied porn being on there ("_the police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my parliamentary computer_" is how he worded it) and Quick will be in front of a Commons committee imminently.


I noted the slightly convoluted wording too, particularly:



> "The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."


 The underlined bit is certainly open to the interpretation that there was material but that it may not have been hard core and/or pornographic.

Green didn't go as far as saying 'there was nothing of any sort, this is complete invention and I would ask the police to confirm that is the case - even if that means breaching the normal confidentiality practices that surround police investigations'. 

I won't pretend to have a handle on what's going on in terms of the poker playing and bluffing Green is probably involved in, mainly because I can't remember the details of the raid on his office.  However it does look like a final ploy to save his career and invites a leak from the Met, that there were 'materials' of some kind. If it is that, it's almost certainly a failed strategy, he certainly looks a bit friendless today.  Probably resign or be suspended within 24 hours.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2017)

agricola said:


> The Green one is interesting - given that its a fairly easy thing to prove or disprove, Green hasn't denied porn being on there ("_the police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my parliamentary computer_" is how he worded it) and Quick will be in front of a Commons committee imminently.



Is it acceptable/ legal for the copper to come out with that claim against Green? IIRC no charges were brought against him and if the porn wasn’t illegal has this ex-cop breached some trust/law?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is it acceptable/ legal for the copper to come out with that claim against Green? IIRC no charges were brought against him and if the porn wasn’t illegal has this ex-cop breached some trust/law?


Not 100% sure on this, but Quick seems to have only made the porn claim now, at the point where green was accused of sex pesting, saying he wants to speak to the Cabinet Office inquiry.  At one level it's probably just the final stage in his (Quick's) battle with Green over the fallout of the raid on Green's office. But as he can claim this is just to provide evidence to the Cabinet Office and some time after he left the police, he gets a pass.  His motives are not necessarily good, but he hasn't done anything wrong _administratively_ (assuming of course that the porn thing is true).


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 5, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Sorry if you feel I've been dishonest in some way (?!). To clarify, you were quoting my post about the very recent claim about a female MP being subjected to over 600 rape threats in one night after criticizing the behaviour of some men in her party - my response is in that context.
> 
> My views about the validity of such claims had been done to death earlier in this thread and I accept that you / pretty much everyone else don't agree with me and / or don't believe it matters whether it's one threat or hundreds in a night on at least four separate occasions, over the last three years, involving three very distinct groups of attackers who all have ideological differences with the Member of Parliament they are very publicly threatening to rape.
> 
> And that's fine.



What is this cunt doing here?


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2017)

Is it illegal to watch porn on your work computer? The mixing in of ever more irrelevant things under the vague banner of 'sleaze' just fuels the Peter Hitchens type takes and is frustrating and depressing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2017)

any place of work that has an IT policy (and they should have one) would have breaching said policy with grot a matter for disciplinary process. Literally gross misconduct


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2017)

mind you the rules and regs of parliamentarians seems to run different to the real world


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> Is it illegal to watch porn on your work computer? The mixing in of ever more irrelevant things under the vague banner of 'sleaze' just fuels the Peter Hitchens type takes and is frustrating and depressing.


Assuming it was legal porn, the answer must be no. Seem to remember Danczuk implying he cracked one off at work.  As DC said, MPs are much less regulated than any other workplace, to the point where they are not actually employees - and seem to employ their own staff as something akin to servants (something that is a dimension of the wider abuse story itself).

All that aside, don't feel I'm being overly sanctimonious or vanilla to think I'd rather not have the honourable member using his publicly funded internet/computer to, ahem, stimulate his own member. *

edit: * fwiw, I admit that might sound a bit dailymailish. But my objections are more along the lines of office staff and cleaners having to see or deal with the results of wanking members.  I rather doubt that MPs are used to 'cleaning up'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2017)

bimble said:


> Is it illegal to watch porn on your work computer? The mixing in of ever more irrelevant things under the vague banner of 'sleaze' just fuels the Peter Hitchens type takes and is frustrating and depressing.



Doesn't really matter now - if Green had just said "Yeah, what of it?" it might but now he's denying it so if it's true he's a liar.

Don't as rule think masterbating at work should be criminalised but I'm cool with it being criminalised for MP's.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Doesn't really matter now - if Green had just said "Yeah, what of it?" it might but now he's denying it so if it's true he's a liar.
> 
> Don't as rule think masterbating at work should be criminalised but I'm cool with it being criminalised for MP's.


If we were to have some sort of theoretical discussion about the liberated workplace of the future, I imagine we might be okay with people having a bit of erm... _me time_ at work. But unless you are a lighthouse keeper, the chances of fellow workers being exposed to this ermm... coming across you are too high for it ever to be okay IMHO.  Anyway, that's me dragging it off in the wrong direction. It isn't about any theoretical rights to toss off at work, it's more that having pr0n on your work computer, in the case of MPs, seems to be part of a wider pattern of gropey sleaziness.


----------



## BemusedbyLife (Nov 5, 2017)

I don't know if Parliament has one but any properly configured firewall would block porn sites anyway, ours does along with facebook and twitter and any other distractions (not Urban though). Following a big virus incident a year ago the IT helpdesk randomly recalls laptops for scanning, I do 1 week in 4 on the helpdesk and I fairly regularly find porn on scanned laptops (which every single culprit has denied responsibility for, so I certainly wouldn't believe Green) 
It gets reported up the management chain since it's company property even if the porno wasn't viewed at work, but as far as I know no action has ever been taken unless someone is having a quiet word, but some folks have got caught more than once. 
Never seen anything truly dodgy though, all I've ever found are naked ladies. I suspect that if anything illegal was found there would be real consequences (hope so at least), There is one manager who is seriously homophobic and we have a pool (stll unclaimed) going for the first person to find gay porn on his laptop.


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is it acceptable/ legal for the copper to come out with that claim against Green? IIRC no charges were brought against him and if the porn wasn’t illegal has this ex-cop breached some trust/law?



If he was still an officer then it would probably be gross misconduct and a job-losing offence, even if it was true.  As he is retired / has quit then the only legal concerns he would have is if it is a libel or not.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 5, 2017)

Who the fuck watches porn _at work_? Ffs, do some work 

Desperate shit.


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Who the fuck watches porn _at work_?



The people who went through Damian Green's computer?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 5, 2017)

I heard today on R4 that the Westminster IT system blocks some 800 attempts _per day _to access porn.

Again, if a civil servant, soldier or police officer did it our disciplinary systems would crash in with some speed and great force - disciplinary systems mandated by Parliament...

Wankers.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> Wankers.



Well, QED.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 5, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Well, QED.


Not sure I need the demonstrandum, thank you. It's tea time


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Who the fuck watches porn _at work_? Ffs, do some work
> 
> Desperate shit.


People editing porn films


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I heard today on R4 that the Westminster IT system blocks some 800 attempts _per day _to access porn.
> 
> Again, if a civil servant, soldier or police officer did it our disciplinary systems would crash in with some speed and great force - disciplinary systems mandated by Parliament...
> 
> Wankers.


A lot of them pay for discipline


----------



## mx wcfc (Nov 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I heard today on R4 that the Westminster IT system blocks some 800 attempts _per day _to access porn.
> 
> Again, if a civil servant, soldier or police officer did it our disciplinary systems would crash in with some speed and great force - disciplinary systems mandated by Parliament...
> 
> Wankers.



and anyone in any big private sector business would be sacked on the spot for even trying. (which doesn't invalidate what you said)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> A lot of them pay for discipline



Not the right kind.


----------



## bemused (Nov 5, 2017)

I see some MPs are asking for an independent body for people to report abuse to. Isn't it simply time to end MPs employing their own staff, ending years of political patronage and move all these people into the Civil Service? If an MP needs a researcher, secretary, etc that can work for the Government and use the standard HR practices to protect them.  Whenever they are caught doing something shitty we end up with another public body to make sure they don't do it anymore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2017)

bemused said:


> Whenever they are caught doing something shitty we end up with another public body to make sure they don't do it anymore.


a solution presents itself


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 5, 2017)

bemused said:


> I see some MPs are asking for an independent body for people to report abuse to. Isn't it simply time to end MPs employing their own staff, ending years of political patronage and move all these people into the Civil Service? If an MP needs a researcher, secretary, etc that can work for the Government and use the standard HR practices to protect them.  Whenever they are caught doing something shitty we end up with another public body to make sure they don't do it anymore.



Civil servants can't be used in party political contexts (in theory anyway) and that's part of the job of an MP's staff?


----------



## agricola (Nov 5, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Civil servants can't be used in party political contexts (in theory anyway) and that's part of the job of an MP's staff?



MP's staff shouldn't be used for party political contexts either, and nor should any of their publicly-funded stationery, interwebs or travel allowance.


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I heard today on R4 that the Westminster IT system blocks some 800 attempts _per day _to access porn.
> 
> Again, if a civil servant, soldier or police officer did it our disciplinary systems would crash in with some speed and great force - disciplinary systems mandated by Parliament...
> 
> Wankers.



 I'd just like to access my work e-mail mod IT systems immune to hacking as no one would notice if it was hacked or not.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I heard today on R4 that the Westminster IT system blocks some 800 attempts _per day _to access porn.
> 
> Again, if a civil servant, soldier or police officer did it our disciplinary systems would crash in with some speed and great force - disciplinary systems mandated by Parliament...
> 
> Wankers.



They'd be in a very sticky situation.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 5, 2017)

Conservative Whip refers himself to police over behaviour claims


----------



## elbows (Nov 5, 2017)

ruffneck23 said:


> Conservative Whip refers himself to police over behaviour claims



It's hard to resist quoting from that one.



> Mr Story, who was 26 at the time, said Mr Pincher poured him a whisky, massaged his neck and whispered: “You’ll go far in the Conservative Party.”





> He was also accused of “touching up” former Labour MP Tom Blenkinsop, who told him to “f*** off”.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> People editing porn films



No wonder public policy is a fucking mess then


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

BemusedbyLife said:


> I don't know if Parliament has one but any properly configured firewall would block porn sites anyway, ours does along with facebook and twitter and any other distractions (not Urban though). Following a big virus incident a year ago the IT helpdesk randomly recalls laptops for scanning, I do 1 week in 4 on the helpdesk and I fairly regularly find porn on scanned laptops (which every single culprit has denied responsibility for, so I certainly wouldn't believe Green)
> It gets reported up the management chain since it's company property even if the porno wasn't viewed at work, but as far as I know no action has ever been taken unless someone is having a quiet word, but some folks have got caught more than once.
> Never seen anything truly dodgy though, all I've ever found are naked ladies. I suspect that if anything illegal was found there would be real consequences (hope so at least), There is one manager who is seriously homophobic and we have a pool (stll unclaimed) going for the first person to find gay porn on his laptop.


 I would imagine parliament has gold standard protection for its IT in terms of protection, but just about nil with regards to what MPs can view.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 5, 2017)

elbows said:


> It's hard to resist quoting from that one.


In the lines they come out with, some of these fuckers sound like the dreadful gropey bosses from some awful 1960s sitcom. Which, transported to the 21st Century is exactly what they are. It really is the banality of evil.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 6, 2017)

Jon-of-arc said:


> What is this cunt doing here?



Holding a mirror up to your hypocritically abusive, gendered language?

If you can't debunk the elephant in the chat room, a more effective strategy would be just to ignore it.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Nov 6, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Holding a mirror up to your hypocritically abusive, gendered language?
> 
> If you can't debunk the elephant in the chat room, a more effective strategy would be just to ignore it.



Fuck off.  No one wants you here.  CUNT.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 6, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Holding a mirror up to your hypocritically abusive, gendered language?
> 
> If you can't debunk the elephant in the chat room, a more effective strategy would be just to ignore it.



Self awareness not your thing then? Or was your post just being ironic?

Having had a look at your you tube offerings, they seem to be almost entirely elephant.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2017)

Espresso said:


> The newsreader on ITV now referred to Amber Rub when starting a story on this.
> Unfortunate. To say the least.
> Didn't correct himself or apologize, either.



Makes her sound like a cheapo pipe tobacco. Result!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2017)

This is probably not going to be too popular but isn't some of this going too far? I've got a bit habituated to some of this over the the last weeks and the real stuff is getting lost amongst the noise of the low level or, imo, irrelevant revelations which is probably the intention of some of the leakers. 

Obviously the genuine cases of abuse and harassment need to be looked at. Corbyn probably has some questions to answer regarding Hopkins, situations where people have been upset or put under pressure to do things must be dealt with, serial sex pests outed, and any rape claims should be thoroughly investigated by the police. But blokes with a penchant for fucking other consenting blokes, someone putting their hand on someone's knee (who wasn't particularly bothered by it) 10 years ago, people using prostitutes or having legal porn on their computer when Noah was a boy; who gives a toss?

This weekend Mrs Spy and I were talking about a situation that occurred last week. One of her female colleagues heard a senior director call her "gorgeous". The colleague has been badgering Kris to make a complaint which is the last thing she's going to do. She's worked with the bloke for over 10 years and he's never been in the slightest sleazy (unless you count calling her "gorgeous", which she doesn't), is a hugely supportive boss and a genuinely well liked fellow who we also know socially. The colleague said that if she wasn't going to make a formal complaint then Kris should at least tell him not to do it again. And risk ruining a perfectly good relationship over something that doesn't bother her? Perhaps fucking up his career? Really?

Are there situations where some of what's being termed abusive or harassing are really being pumped-up beyond reason?


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2017)

No one is being done for merely 'putting their hand on someone's knee' - that was just one incident in what seems to be (from the other reports) a pattern of behaviour. No one is saying everyone on that Tory list is an evil abuser who should be punished. These are complete misnomers. The only people complaining about possible witchhunts are shitebags like EYEisWanker, or the lefties I mentioned above trying to minimise their own history of sexual abuse.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2017)

oh I found a website for EYE. Its all about jess philips and rape threats. Like the videos.And the posts here. Obsessed.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2017)

belboid said:


> No one is being done for merely 'putting their hand on someone's knee' - that was just one incident in what seems to be (from the other reports) a pattern of behaviour. No one is saying everyone on that Tory list is an evil abuser who should be punished. These are complete misnomers. The only people complaining about possible witchhunts are shitebags like EYEisWanker, or the lefties I mentioned above trying to minimise their own history of sexual abuse.



It's not just patterns of behaviour though is it. There are loads of "one-off" scenarios in the mix. I don't think it's witch-hunting but perhaps that an atmosphere is being created where people are immediately encouraged to report or condemn behaviour that previously wouldn't be considered outrageous and if looked at dispassionately now probably still wouldn't. In quite a few cases it's simply nobody else's fucking business. At what point is career, and possibly family destruction deserved?


----------



## belboid (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's not just patterns of behaviour though is it. There are loads of "one-off" scenarios in the mix. I don't think it's witch-hunting but perhaps that an atmosphere is being created where people are immediately encouraged to report or condemn behaviour that previously wouldn't be considered outrageous and if looked at dispassionately now probably still wouldn't. In quite a few cases it's simply nobody else's fucking business. At what point is career, and possibly family destruction deserved?


The one you quoted was. In the other 'cases', nothing seems to have happened. No one has had their career anything like destroyed for single incidents, or for consensual sex.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2017)

in fact the reportage of the consensual sex and gossip such as that is serving to give cover and provoke thoughts like yours spy.
and give the likes of hitchens ammo to go on like loon. Not that he requires much prodding.


----------



## agricola (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This is probably not going to be too popular but isn't some of this going too far? I've got a bit habituated to some of this over the the last weeks and the real stuff is getting lost amongst the noise of the low level or, imo, irrelevant revelations which is probably the intention of some of the leakers.
> 
> Obviously the genuine cases of abuse and harassment need to be looked at. Corbyn probably has some questions to answer regarding Hopkins, situations where people have been upset or put under pressure to do things must be dealt with, serial sex pests outed, and any rape claims should be thoroughly investigated by the police. *But blokes with a penchant for fucking other consenting blokes, someone putting their hand on someone's knee (who wasn't particularly bothered by it) 10 years ago, people using prostitutes or having legal porn on their computer when Noah was a boy; who gives a toss?*
> 
> ...



No-one in this scandal at least is being investigated for consensual sex or using prostitutes though; having legal, not work-related porn on a work computer would be a sacking offence in almost any workplace, and the putting their hand on someone's knee bit ten years ago was Fallon's version of what happened (the initial and more damaging claim is in Finger's post #5) and wasn't the sole reason why he resigned.  This scandal is just about them again being found to have lower standards and to be much more exploitative of their position than everyone else is.


----------



## elbows (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This is probably not going to be too popular but isn't some of this going too far? I've got a bit habituated to some of this over the the last weeks and the real stuff is getting lost amongst the noise of the low level or, imo, irrelevant revelations which is probably the intention of some of the leakers.


 


> Are there situations where some of what's being termed abusive or harassing are really being pumped-up beyond reason?



Not many subjects will escape such pumping up by wide sections of the media in this country. It seems inevitable, and although it can distract from the important stuff it seems unlikely the two will be properly separated any time soon.

Also need to keep in mind that some of the stuff that doesn't seem like it should belong is out there to act as a proxy for more serious stuff that the papers etc don't think they can report at that moment in time, for reasons including libel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2017)

agricola said:


> No-one in this scandal at least is being investigated for consensual sex or using prostitutes though; having legal, not work-related porn on a work computer would be a sacking offence in almost any workplace


An MP isn't in just any workplace, though. MPs are elected representatives who in theory at least are not and should not be answerable to some boss in Westminster. There are decent reasons why the list of reasons an MP can be dismissed from the house of commons is so restricted. The end result of this is likely to be govt taking greater control over MPs' affairs, which is not a great thing.


----------



## agricola (Nov 6, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An MP isn't in just any workplace, though. MPs are elected representatives who in theory at least are not and should not be answerable to some boss in Westminster. There are decent reasons why the list of reasons an MP can be dismissed from the house of commons is so restricted.



Indeed, but this behaviour (or indeed the other things like caning expenses, exploiting the position for financial or sexual gain and employing relatives) is not one of those reasons. 

If MPs want to be sacrosanct representatives and defenders of our freedoms then they can (a) start acting like it and (b) stop ruining it for the rest of us  -lets not forget that (when he was at the DWP and in a position to do something about it) Green only a year ago suggested the jobs of the future would be "exciting", in that they would have no holiday or sick pay, no pension and no guaranteed hours - sadly his bill to bring in the same conditions at Westminster has not so far come to light.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This is probably not going to be too popular but isn't some of this going too far? I've got a bit habituated to some of this over the the last weeks and the real stuff is getting lost amongst the noise of the low level or, imo, irrelevant revelations which is probably the intention of some of the leakers.
> 
> Obviously the genuine cases of abuse and harassment need to be looked at. Corbyn probably has some questions to answer regarding Hopkins, situations where people have been upset or put under pressure to do things must be dealt with, serial sex pests outed, and any rape claims should be thoroughly investigated by the police. But blokes with a penchant for fucking other consenting blokes, someone putting their hand on someone's knee (who wasn't particularly bothered by it) 10 years ago, people using prostitutes or having legal porn on their computer when Noah was a boy; who gives a toss?
> 
> ...


 I think you've got this wrong (well, not the stuff about Kris, that's a situation for her and you to discuss). The collation of the serious, the not quite as serious and the purely innocent/nothing to do with us cases is the fault of the person(s) who wrote the list. Whoever did it is more used to using information as a commodity rather than appearing to really give a shit about victims.  But it's the underlying issues that matter, not the conflations to be found in the list.  And in that sense, whilst touching someone's knee _might_ be innocent(ish) or accidental, it can be part of a pattern of behaviour. When it comes to Fallon, that's exactly the case, the Julia Hartley-Brewer stuff was one of 3 instances we now know of. In that context it wasn't as trivial as you suggest.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 6, 2017)

This is why it's been put out there isn't it. Make it the story (with a conveniently unbothered right wing journalist on the receiving end) and if you're not looking too closely it looks a bit like he's been pushed out (or done the honourable thing) for a very minor offence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 6, 2017)

agricola said:


> Indeed, but this behaviour (or indeed the other things like caning expenses, exploiting the position for financial or sexual gain and employing relatives) is not one of those reasons.


Not yet, no.


----------



## agricola (Nov 6, 2017)

I must say, this is a heroic attempt by Priti Patel to take back control of the news agenda.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 6, 2017)

agricola said:


> I must say, this is a heroic attempt by Priti Patel to take back control of the news agenda.



Just reassuring her colleagues that you can still be an absolutely awful person without being a sex pest.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's not just patterns of behaviour though is it. There are loads of "one-off" scenarios in the mix. I don't think it's witch-hunting but perhaps that an atmosphere is being created where people are immediately encouraged to report or condemn behaviour that previously wouldn't be considered outrageous and if looked at dispassionately now probably still wouldn't. In quite a few cases it's simply nobody else's fucking business. At what point is career, and possibly family destruction deserved?



By by the same token, a lot of this will have been tolerated by women for years, who felt there was no point rocking the boat despite hating the 'banter' or whatever.  And now they feel empowered to say "you know what?  Stop.  It's unprofessional and it makes me feel crap".

As to the question you end with - all workplaces have expected professional standards.  If you fuck up badly enough or frequently enough, you'll lose your job.  So, talk to the women in the workplace professionally, and you'll be fine.


----------



## bemused (Nov 6, 2017)

agricola said:


> I must say, this is a heroic attempt by Priti Patel to take back control of the news agenda.



I admitted to my wife a few weeks ago that I have a weird crush on Priti Patel. She's mocked me relentlessly ever since.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 6, 2017)

bemused said:


> I admitted to my wife a few weeks ago that I have a weird crush on Priti Patel. She's mocked me relentlessly ever since.



Lucky she's not asked for a divorce there mate!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2017)

bemused said:


> I admitted to my wife a few weeks ago that I have a weird crush on Priti Patel. She's mocked me relentlessly ever since.


And rightly so.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2017)

bemused said:


> I admitted to my wife a few weeks ago that I have a weird crush on Priti Patel. She's mocked me relentlessly ever since.


Nothing weird about _having a crush (_






 ) on one of the most physically attractive politicians in Westminster. 

"Weird" is telling your wife about it.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> "Weird" is telling your wife about it.



So what's the word for telling the Internet about it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2017)

Raheem said:


> So what's the word for telling the Internet about it?



Perverse.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 7, 2017)

Tories rocked by shock new claim of 'violent rape by senior figure'

this sounds nasty.


----------



## hipipol (Nov 7, 2017)

Tory party
AFTV
There is a bizarre correlation


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

The point discussed upthread, about Parliament employing MP's staff directly, was discussed at the all party 'How to Stop our Fellow MPs Sexually Assaulting People Summit'. Caroline Lucas encountered, rather predictably, 'resistance' to that idea. At least there was agreement that MPs would be educated about 'consent'. It really is astonishing - if not remotely surprising - that we've got to a point where our law makers have to be given advice about securing consent, to avoid them carrying out sexual assaults. Cunts.



> The Green party leader, Caroline Lucas, told the Guardian the summit had been “broadly constructive and helpful”, with a common agreement on the need for urgent action.
> 
> Lucas said there had been some resistance to her proposal for parliament to directly employ MPs’ staff, rather than the politicians themselves being ultimately responsible. “At the moment, there is not support for that, which I did feel was disappointing. I think it’s really clear that 650 MPs are not qualified employers,” she said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

Kaka Tim said:


> Tories rocked by shock new claim of 'violent rape by senior figure'
> 
> this sounds nasty.


they are the nasty party


----------



## bemused (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The point discussed upthread, about Parliament employing MP's staff directly, was discussed at the all party 'How to Stop our Fellow MPs Sexually Assaulting People Summit'. Caroline Lucas encountered, rather predictably, 'resistance' to that idea. At least there was agreement that MPs would be educated about 'consent'. It really is astonishing - if not remotely surprising - that we've got to a point where our law makers have to be given advice about securing consent, to avoid them carrying out sexual assaults. Cunts.



I hope Lucas makes a lot of noise about this.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Now I've read his statement I think he's		definitely a wrong 'Un.
> 
> "* On 16 February 2015 I did send a text message to Ava which included the reported words saying Ava was “charming and sweet natured” and that “a nice young man would be lucky to have you as a girlfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…”. She in fact replied to my text on the same day:"*


Having read his statement in full [here: Excl: Kelvin Hopkins formal statement] I'm not so sure.

Consider: "*a nice young woman would be lucky to have you as a boyfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…" *sounds very much like the kind of gentle rejection a woman might give a man she didn't want to just fuck off and die.

I'm not saying septuagenarians can't be randy goats, but this is very thin fare.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

What are you on about? You think that's the creepy old fuck letting the 20-odd year old down gently?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Let me translate. What he's saying there is 'You may not have considered me as a sexual partner due to the fact that I'm old enough to be your grandad. However, I am both willing and able, and have a stock of cock-shots ready to go the moment you give the word'


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 7, 2017)

Yeah, what killer b said. If he did send that text message then he's a scumbag. It's sexual harassment.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

Good dancers though.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Having read his statement in full [here: Excl: Kelvin Hopkins formal statement] I'm not so sure.
> 
> Consider: "*a nice young woman would be lucky to have you as a boyfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…" *sounds very much like the kind of gentle rejection a woman might give a man she didn't want to just fuck off and die.
> 
> I'm not saying septuagenarians can't be randy goats, but this is very thin fare.


 Her allegations against him are of course not just about this text. But to stick with this: the most generous interpretation is that it's the sort of thing an older person might say to a younger person, yes. But two points. The first is that it's still a highly inappropriate thing to say, to someone you have just met in a professional context - and goes back to the notion that MPs should start seeing themselves as actual fucking employees (as per post 889). But the inclusion of the word 'lover' in the test rules out such a generous reading of the text anyway. He's a fucking creep.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> What are you on about? You think that's the creepy old fuck letting the 20-odd year old down gently?


Like I say, read the rest of the statement. Your next post is even more fucking ridiculous.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

It's a fucking chirpse. That you can't see it's a chirpse isn't my problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Like I say, read the rest of the statement. Your next post is even more fucking ridiculous.


Wow, your reading is that the 25 year old came onto the 74 year old and he simply looked for the best least harmful way to let her down?

 Tell me, were you still in the SWP at the time of the delta-rape?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Hopkins' statement just says _everything she says isn't true, apart from the one thing she has evidence for, which is not what it looks like_. Funny that.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Her allegations against him are of course not just about this text. But to stick with this: the most generous interpretation is that it's the sort of thing an older person might say to a younger person, yes. But two points. The first is that it's still a highly inappropriate thing to say, to someone you have just met in a professional context - and goes back to the notion that MPs should start seeing themselves as actual fucking employees (as per post 889). But the inclusion of the word 'lover' in the test rules out such a generous reading of the text anyway. He's a fucking creep.


I agree, inappropriate choice of words, but hardly damning. And if he distressed her that much why contact him a year later looking for work? 

Gimme a break!


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Well.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I agree, inappropriate choice of words, but hardly damning. And if he distressed her that much why contact him a year later looking for work?
> 
> Gimme a break!


But we are not in agreement, I don't think the 'inappropriate choice of words' defence is available.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, your reading is that the 25 year old came onto the 74 year old and he simply looked for the best least harmful way to let her down?
> 
> Tell me, were you still in the SWP at the time of the delta-rape?


Not what I said.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Not what I said.


Well maybe then you could clarify what you meant in this post:



> Having read his statement in full [here: Excl: Kelvin Hopkins formal statement] I'm not so sure.
> 
> Consider: "*a nice young woman would be lucky to have you as a boyfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…" *sounds very much like the kind of gentle rejection a woman might give a man she didn't want to just fuck off and die.
> 
> I'm not saying septuagenarians can't be randy goats, but this is very thin fare.



What do the middle lines mean? What were you suggesting?


----------



## xenon (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> It's a fucking chirpse. That you can't see it's a chirpse isn't my problem.



Agree with your point but what's chirpes mean?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I agree, inappropriate choice of words, but hardly damning. And if he distressed her that much why contact him a year later looking for work?
> 
> Gimme a break!


 Would you trot that line out to the actresses abused by Weinstein who went on to appear in his films?


----------



## xenon (Nov 7, 2017)

The more you here about this stuff... I know it's easy, dangerous,  to handwave away as them lot, not like normal people. Sure misogyny, sexual harassment is a problem across society...  But what a bunch of fucking freaks.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Would you trot that line out to the actresses abused by Weinstein who went on to appear in his films?


Or the victims who remained in the SWP?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

xenon said:


> Agree with your point but what's chirps mean?


A cheeky drive-by flirt. Not in itself a damning thing, but in the context of the power differentials at play here, pretty dodgy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2017)

as for them going on 'don't be a groper' courses I can only think of that bloke on the E&D course you do for work who rolls his eyes a lot, does not join the conversation and has no intention of changing but knows he has to be there.

half of them wouldn't turn up. Its relegated to lucas, a leader of one of the smaller parties to push for any change and the most fundamental one is straight out of the window because nobody want to give up the right to employ family and friends and hand out cushy non jobs for reciprocal favours.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> What do the middle lines mean? What were you suggesting?


I'm suggesting it's the kind of thing an older person might say to a younger to pick them up a bit.

The timeline here is he's forced his crotch into her after a meeting at Essex Uni. She's then organised a group visit to the HoC, but turns up on her own. Maybe he got the impression she's an Ava-no-mates.

Also, her reply "*Oh thank you Kelvin for such kind words. I was ill last week for a couple of days and also I had run for NUS delegate – they announced the results and I got elected with the highest number of votes!! So sorry if I couldn’t speak to you last week x" *invites further contact, but he doesn't follow up. Hardly Weinstein.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I agree, inappropriate choice of words, but hardly damning. And if he distressed her that much why contact him a year later looking for work?


Christ. Sort yourself out.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Hardly Weinstein.


_He's not a serial rapist who abused his position of power for decades, so there is no problem here at all._


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> A cheeky drive-by flirt. Not in itself a damning thing, but in *the context of the power differentials at play here, pretty dodgy*.


 To me, that underpins the issue of 'so why did they contact him again/appear in the films/stay in the party'.  I went as far as saying I found it 'depressing' that actors who had been abused went back to Weinstein or Miramax to continue their career (on that thread).  I think that's the right word - not victim blaming, just _depressing,_ that the power relations in play leave that as the only route to the chosen career, with Weinstein and others as the most gruesome gatekeepers.  The other thing is that it's psychologically complicated. It can take time to process experiences, it can be hard to break your loyalty to an organisation even when it abuses you.  There are lots of reasons why victims end up 'coming back'.  _But coming back isn't evidence that the fucking abuse didn't happen in the first place._


----------



## Silas Loom (Nov 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody want to give up the right to employ family and friends and hand out cushy non jobs for reciprocal favours.



They aren't non-jobs. And there's something about the ability to exert patronage which is intrinsically appealing, especially to the over-50s. It goes well beyond nepotism or sex pestery. It involves pride in one's judgment of people, intimations of one's own political and personal mortality - all sorts of factors. That needs to be acknowledged before the system is reformed and desexualised.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ. Sort yourself out.


Seriously, explain to me why she'd even talk to him about a job when she has other contacts in the House of Commons.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> as for them going on 'don't be a groper' courses I can only think of that bloke on the E&D course you do for work who rolls his eyes a lot, does not join the conversation and has no intention of changing but knows he has to be there.
> 
> half of them wouldn't turn up. Its relegated to lucas, a leader of one of the smaller parties to push for any change and the most fundamental one is straight out of the window because nobody want to give up the right to employ family and friends and hand out cushy non jobs for reciprocal favours.


Spot on.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Seriously, explain to me why she'd even talk to him about a job when she has other contacts in the House of Commons.


Essentially, you don't believe her and you believe him?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Essentially, you don't believe her and you believe him?


So he can't be anything but a sex pest? There's no defence, he must be a liar and she wholly truthfull?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> Seriously, explain to me why she'd even talk to him about a job when she has other contacts in the House of Commons.


Because of attitudes like yours, frankly. 

The persistence of the idea that sexual harassment is just something women have to put up, that she's just making a mountain out of a molehill (or less), etc those attitudes that allow those with power to exploit it.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> So he can't be anything but a sex pest? There's no defence, he must be a liar and she wholly truthfull?


On the first sentence, if she's right about the crotch rubbing + suggestions they should go to his office - emphatically. And when you add in the text, I'm much more inclined to believe her. As with anything, this is largely about 2 people and their differing accounts, but yes, with the wording of the text I'm much more inclined to believe her. Equally, _why would she lie_?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> The persistence of the idea that sexual harassment is just something women have to put up, that she's just making a mountain out of a molehill (or less), etc those attitudes that allow those with power to exploit it.


So when you've already interned for one MP and shared platforms with / campaigned for several others, why approach the man whose harassment has caused you such distress? I agree, she shouldn't have to put up with harassment, so why contact him for a favour?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

When a man tells a woman she would make someone a good lover, I'd say 99% of the time the _someone_ he means is him. Hopkins confirmed that he meant him in the very next sentence. He's bang to rights there. 100% sex Pest.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> When a man tells a woman she would make someone a good lover, I'd say 99% of the time the _someone_ he means is him. Hopkins confirmed that he meant him in the very next sentence. He's bang to rights there. 100% sex Pest.


And the ideal man to go to looking for a job in politics.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

You have no idea what women have to put up with do you? If they excluded every man who made creepy inappropriate remarks from their contacts, they would get nowhere. So they compromise.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2017)

Well this is a bit demoralising isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> Well this is a bit demoralising isn't it?


it's like the last month or so of public discourse simply hasn't happened.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> And the ideal man to go to looking for a job in politics.


She may well have been networking with other MPs to get a job as well.  Look, some people are desperate to get into a chosen career, some people (particularly women) may feel they may have to put with an element of this shit to get into the job they want. It may well be that the published list of abusive MPs framed the whole thing differently and emboldened her to come forward.  Lots of ifs and possibles. But what is odd is your preference for his version of events, even with the evidence of the text.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> So when you've already interned for one MP and shared platforms with / campaigned for several others, why approach the man whose harassment has caused you such distress? I agree, she shouldn't have to put up with harassment, so why contact him for a favour?


Because of the types of views, like yours, that make this something that women have to put up with.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> it's like the last month or so of public discourse simply hasn't happened.


Yep and it contains the notion that there's a high hurdle, a specific test for 'real abuse'.  Everything short of that is neatly disposed of as normal interaction, banter, ill advised phrasing, rather than what it really is: the day to day reality of abusive power relations.

Without conflating things too much, the 'it's hardly Weinstein' line reminds me of a thread on John Peel's behaviour (where the 'yeah, but it's not Savile' line was trotted out). No, it isn't but that's no fucking defence.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep and it contains the notion that there's a high hurdle, a specific test for 'real abuse'.  Everything short of that is neatly disposed of as normal interaction, banter, ill advised phrasing, rather than what it really is: the day to day reality of abusive power relations.
> 
> Without conflating things too much, the 'it's hardly Weinstein' line reminds me of a thread on John Peel's behaviour (where the 'yeah, but it's not Savile' line was trotted out). No, it isn't but that's no fucking defence.


That's part of the problem here. There is no fucking defence. There's also no context, no corroboration and one creepy text.

None of which brings him within a country mile of Peel.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> That's part of the problem here. There is no fucking defence. There's also no context, no corroboration and one creepy text.
> 
> None of which brings him within a country mile of Peel.


Didn't say he was the same as Peel, it was the parallel in terms of the defence you've mounted, the 'it's hardly Weinstein' line.  Things may not be as bad as other things, but they are what they are. And on the face of it, her account is more plausible, backed up as it is by the text.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Crikey. Looks like the welsh assembly member who was suspended the other day has topped himself.

Suspended Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant found dead


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Didn't say he was the same as Peel, it was the parallel in terms of the defence you've mounted, the 'it's hardly Weinstein' line.  Things may not be as bad as other things, but they are what they are. And on the face of it, her account is more plausible, backed up as it is by the text.


On the face of it, the text does put him in a bad light. 

"Hardly Weinstein" was just a throwaway line [ill advised], the defence was that unlike killer b 's expectation he didn't follow up on that one remark. That's what I would have expected of a sex pest. That's why I'm not convinced the bad light is wholly accurate.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

So it _was _a creepy chirpse after all, but stops short of harassment because he didn't persevere?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Crikey. Looks like the welsh assembly member who was suspended the other day has topped himself.
> 
> Suspended Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant found dead


shocked at that! was just going to post it


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> So it _was _a creepy chirpse after all, but stops short of harassment because he didn't persevere?


But you said it meant he was ready to persevere:


killer b said:


> Let me translate. What he's saying there is 'You may not have considered me as a sexual partner due to the fact that I'm old enough to be your grandad. However, I am both willing and able, and have a stock of cock-shots ready to go the moment you give the word'


And yet he didn't. So maybe it didn't mean what you said.

Either way, there's no way back for him now. He could get out with an apology and re-education, but he's out at the next election.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

'the moment you give the word'


----------



## bemused (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Crikey. Looks like the welsh assembly member who was suspended the other day has topped himself.



That's awfully sad. I'm hoping it was natural causes and not suicide.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 7, 2017)

bemused said:


> That's awfully sad. I'm hoping it was natural causes and not suicide.


course it's going to be suicide


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

bemused said:


> That's awfully sad. I'm hoping it was natural causes and not suicide.


I'm hoping I'll win the euromillions tonight.


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> 'the moment you give the word'


"*Oh thank you Kelvin for such kind words."
*
My impression of these situations is that would be taken as encouragement, not as "never contact me again."


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

ddraig said:


> course it's going to be suicide


Probably, but he does look like a heart attack waiting to happen. Stress really can tip the balance, as I know.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Have you never flirted with someone before? There's plenty of ways to signal you aren't interested that are less confrontational than 'never speak to me again' - which is a nuclear option, especially if it's someone you want to keep onside. The first way is to reply, but in that reply simply _not acknowledge_ an approach has been made.

In this case it seems that was enough. Doesn't make the original approach any less inappropriate though.

edit: i missed a word out that changes the meaning totally lol


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 7, 2017)

I wonder if this will re-surface?? REID 'THE SEX PEST'

By the way at the bottom of the search page this appears..... 





> _ Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more _https://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq


https://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq_https://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq_


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Have you never flirted with someone before? There's plenty of ways to signal you aren't interested that are less confrontational than 'never speak to me again' - which is a nuclear option, especially if it's someone you want to keep onside. The first way is to reply, but in that reply simply acknowledge an approach has been made.
> 
> In this case it seems that was enough. Doesn't make the original approach any less inappropriate though.


Having never flirted by text I wouldn't know, so I'll bow to your expertise. An inappropriate flirt.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 7, 2017)

Fedayn said:


> By the way at the bottom of the search page this appears.....


That appears every time you search for any name whatsoever (in Europe).


----------



## Wilf (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Have you never flirted with someone before? There's plenty of ways to signal you aren't interested that are less confrontational than 'never speak to me again' - which is a nuclear option, especially if it's someone you want to keep onside. The first way is to reply, but in that reply simply acknowledge an approach has been made.
> 
> In this case it seems that was enough. Doesn't make the original approach any less inappropriate though.


Just as an aside, I'd always go with the notion that sexual abuse isn't inherently about the age or attractiveness of either party, it's about power.  However, even accepting for self delusions, the age difference in this case in itself should have left him in no doubt that there was no mutual attraction. With that in mind, the text either has him at best as an inappropriate chancer or, more likely, someone who thought there was the possibility of a trade - essentially, sex for access to jobs.  As with anything in human affairs, there's the possibility I've got that wrong, it's never easy to be certain about situations and motivations.  But again, that doesn't factor in allegations of groping, talk of going back to his office. That's the problem.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2017)

Even the usually cautious BBC say they understand he took his own life.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

elbows said:


> Even the usually cautious BBC say they understand he took his own life.


this would be the usually cautious bbc that has just been party to outing the queen for using tax havens.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> You have no idea what women have to put up with do you? If they excluded every man who made creepy inappropriate remarks from their contacts, they would get nowhere. So they compromise.



And you, somehow, do?


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And you, somehow, do?



Fuck off.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And you, somehow, do?


Well, yes. I'm able to listen to women and read about what women experience, as all of us are.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

elbows said:


> Fuck off.


also this though.


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the usually cautious bbc that has just been party to outing the queen for using tax havens.



They had a year to sift through everything and steady their nerve.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Well, yes. I'm able to listen to women and read about what women experience, as all of us are.



But that wasn't the point of your post - you appeared to be suggesting that you held some uniquely informed position on the subject of 'what women go through' and that other folk might not. This is a separate point from the ability, willingness, and basic comprehension skills possibly needed to listen, and the truthfulness of any wider point about what (apparently) 'women go through'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> But that wasn't the point of your post - you appeared to be suggesting that you held some uniquely informed position on the subject of 'what women go through' and that other folk might not. This is a separate point from the ability, willingness, and basic comprehension skills possibly needed to listen, and the truthfulness of any wider point about what (apparently) 'women go through'.



you're like mr logic only without his wit, eloquence or charm.


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

I appeared to be suggesting nothing of the sort. I think you need to work on your own _basic comprehension skills_.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> But that wasn't the point of your post - you appeared to be suggesting that you held some uniquely informed position on the subject of 'what women go through' and that other folk might not. This is a separate point from the ability, willingness, and basic comprehension skills possibly needed to listen, and the truthfulness of any wider point about what (apparently) 'women go through'.


no, you just want to pick holes and find fault with someone who can and does see it differently to you


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 119866
> you're like mr logic only without his wit, eloquence or charm.



Or logic, being as his basic point was wrong.


----------



## JimW (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> But that wasn't the point of your post - you appeared to be suggesting that you held some uniquely informed position on the subject of 'what women go through' and that other folk might not. This is a separate point from the ability, willingness, and basic comprehension skills possibly needed to listen, and the truthfulness of any wider point about what (apparently) 'women go through'.


Fuck knows where you get that from.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> But that wasn't the point of your post - you appeared to be suggesting that you held some uniquely informed position on the subject of 'what women go through' and that other folk might not. This is a separate point from the ability, willingness, and basic comprehension skills possibly needed to listen, and the truthfulness of any wider point about what (apparently) 'women go through'.


----------



## Beats & Pieces (Nov 7, 2017)

ddraig said:


> no, you just want to pick holes and find fault with someone who can and does see it differently to you



Not at all, but seeing the responses I doubt there is any further point engaging here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Not at all, but seeing the responses I doubt there is any further point engaging here.


fuck off then bnp


----------



## ddraig (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Not at all, but seeing the responses I doubt there is any further point engaging here.


you don't have a coherent point though, just a speculative snipe


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

ddraig said:


> you don't have a coherent point though, just a speculative snipe


he has all the nous of a lobotomised snipe


brainier than bnp: a snipe recently


----------



## killer b (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> Not at all, but seeing the responses I doubt there is any further point engaging here.


as if it's taken you til now to work that out.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2017)

Beats & Pieces said:


> And you, somehow, do?


You're out of this thread sunshine. Bye.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 7, 2017)

Sacked Labour minister found dead

never heard of this fellow - Carl Sargeant - would hope it wasn't taking his own life


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Sacked Labour minister found dead
> 
> never heard of this fellow - Carl Sargeant - would hope it wasn't taking his own life



We were talking about this before Beats & Pieces temporarily derailed the thread. He was a figure in Welsh politics so thats why many weren't aware of him, and even the BBC said that it is though that he took his own life.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 7, 2017)

cheers- I have been out all day


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2017)

Honestly a bit surprised that this is the first suicide.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

killer b said:


> Hopkins' statement just says _everything she says isn't true, apart from the one thing she has evidence for, which is not what it looks like_. Funny that.



It's all a bit _Danczukian_ in its appeal to the probity of the author.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2017)

19force8 said:


> I agree, inappropriate choice of words, but hardly damning. And if he distressed her that much why contact him a year later looking for work?
> 
> Gimme a break!



People sometimes work for employers they dislike, if they're the only employer option for that sort of job.

Arm or leg?


----------



## 19force8 (Nov 7, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> People sometimes work for employers they dislike, if they're the only employer option for that sort of job.
> 
> Arm or leg?


Got all that. If there was any doubt BnP sealed the deal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Honestly a bit surprised that this is the first suicide.


Someone has to set an example


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 8, 2017)

_Pour encourager les autres_


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Carl Sargeant begged for details of sex claims | Daily Mail Online

Carl Sargeant forged a political career promoting social justice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Carl Sargeant begged for details of sex claims | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Carl Sargeant forged a political career promoting social justice



And your point is? 

Remember this is a place for discussion:

*Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files *are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users. Do not post up huge reams of *cut and paste text*, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.​Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

editor said:


> You're out of this thread sunshine. Bye.



Any chance I could get in on this as well before I'm dragged down to the standard currently on display here.

Apparently I've just breached your guidelines, specifically:

*Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files *are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users. Do not post up huge reams of *cut and paste text*, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version

Also where does one go if they want to play slap a spice girl in 2017?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> And your point is?
> 
> Remember this is a place for discussion:
> 
> *Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files *are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users. Do not post up huge reams of *cut and paste text*, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.​Cheers - Louis MacNeice



For anyone struggling with self awareness or selective pedantry issues this morning I'd like to clarify that I think these two articles have relevance to YOUR discussion. Specifically:

1. The Labour Party never told him what he was accused of doing or what evidence / process justified their action.

Carl Sargeant begged for details of sex claims | Daily Mail Online

2. He appears to have been a committed public servant with a strong track record of doing more than just bleating about social justice issues. If an investigation into the allegations found him guilty of misconduct then obviously appropriate action should have been taken. A significantly large proportion of male feminists are revealed to be extremely manipulative and sexually abusive towards women so obviously his efforts to help abused women doesn't automatically exclude him from a possible guilty verdict but neither does it automatically condemn him.

Carl Sargeant forged a political career promoting social justice


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2017)

I think his point is something like ‘Women, now look what you’ve done’.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

The Mail's agenda looks fairly transparent reading through that and I imagine we'll be seeing 'commentators' describing him as the first casualty of political correctness/feminism/take your pick, later today. Same time, it does bring the bloke's family and their grief into focus. If he did what he is accused of doing, I've no sympathy for him, but the people around him are a different matter.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The Mail's agenda looks fairly transparent reading through that and I imagine we'll be seeing 'commentators' describing him as the first casualty of political correctness/feminism/take your pick, later today. Same time, it does bring the bloke's family and their grief into focus. If he did what he is accused of doing, I've no sympathy for him, but the people around him are a different matter.


Edit: ah, as said better by bimble while I was typing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> If he did what he is accused of doing, I've no sympathy for him



Do you know what he was accused of?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Just read the mirror piece as well. Their tone is also completely wrong. As he's just killed himself you don't want to be distressing the family further, but given the allegations against him, they could rein in the 'family man' stuff.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

I think Sargeant's death will intensify calls for due process which I've been seeing more of in recent days: I think we can all agree that due process would be a great thing, but the reason why all this is happening in the first place is because _due process has failed_.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> Do you know what he was accused of?


Specifically, no. Just the reported issues, things like: 





> The allegations ranged from groping to unwanted attention and 'inappropriate touching', it has been claimed


 ... and that it relates to 'a number of incidents'.

I'm not pronouncing him guilty and probably not really making any clear/considered. point at all. Just a feeling the press should be a bit more neutral in the reporting of this rather than seeming to build him up as a martyr in the political correctness wars (which, I suspect is where this is leading).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> For anyone struggling with self awareness or selective pedantry issues this morning I'd like to clarify that I think these two articles have relevance to YOUR discussion:
> 
> Carl Sargeant begged for details of sex claims | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Carl Sargeant forged a political career promoting social justice



Nothing to do with pedantry; just asking you to clarify why you had posted these links...something you have still failed to do.

Have the courage of your convictions EYE and some respect for these boards.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

So Sargeant was sacked without being given details of the alleged offense, or the supposed victim/s.. no chance he could even defend the allegations without knowledge of what they were. Innocent until proven guilty, its such a pleasant fiction.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Was arguing with a fair few people yesterday that it wasn't because of a "witch hunt" or pc gorn mad
there were allegations made, he was suspended and an inquiry was going to happen
he sadly didn't wait for that
in response to someone saying "what is the world coming to" along the line of "WITCH HUNT" I said that currently (and finally) women feel empowered to highlight abuse that has been going on for a long time and how could that not be a good thing.
cue men saying what wasn't abuse like touching knees/legs etc so I asked if they'd be ok with me touching a woman they knew uninvited


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> So Sargeant was sacked without being given details of the alleged offense, or the supposed victim/s.. no chance he could even defend the allegations without knowledge of what they were. Innocent until proven guilty, its such a pleasant fiction.


this kind of bollocks
what were they meant to do?? allegations were made, he was suspended not sacked and an investigation was going to be had (which he himself wanted)
no one apart from papers etc had convicted him.
the short bit I saw with Carwyn (first minister) speaking about it was that they'd listened to some women about what allegedly happened and were acting on it
what is the issue with that?
sad that Carl couldn't wait for the investigation
whether he was a good politician or respected or did good work is by the bye


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Nothing to do with pedantry; just asking you to clarify why you had posted these links...something you have still failed to do.
> 
> Have the courage of your convictions EYE and some respect for these boards.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



#983 (as amended).

'Respect'


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

He should, like others in westminster, have been told of the alleged offense, who the accusers are and have the right to respond to those allegations before being sacked or at least around the same time..

Criticism over sacking process.

Sargeant 'wasn't dealt with fairly'


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 8, 2017)

bimble said:


> I think his point is something like ‘Women, now look what you’ve done’.



Aye, and along the lines of that backlash of which you spoke.

Funny thing suicide. Generally frowned upon as a 'selfish' act by society, it seems agendas can pop up all too easily when the circumstances suit. So here, despite some people's protestations, was a man who was to face some sort of due process, would have been informed (if he wasn't already, how do we know?) of what charges were against him, would have had some inkling anyway because, yes, men do know, but for reasons best known to himself chose to commit this 'generally seen as' selfish act - which is now being alluded to as 'women, now look what you've done'.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> this kind of bollocks
> 
> sad that Carl couldn't wait for the investigation


And its not about waiting for a fucking investiagtion, its about knowing what the fuck you are suposed to have done before you have your life and career turned upside down.

How would you like to turn up for work and be fired without any details of why? Its fucking outrageous.

It also breaches procedural propriety, Employment law 101.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> And its not about waiting for a fucking investiagtion, its about knowing what the fuck you are suposed to have done before you have your life and career turned upside down.
> 
> How would you like to turn up for work and be fired without any details of why? Its fucking outrageous.


as planetgeli says, how do we know? how do you know, why are you presuming?
e2a he was suspended for inappropriate behaviour (with colleagues) pending an investigation


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> He should, like others in westminster, have been told of the alleged offense, who the accusers are and have the right to respond to those allegations before being sacked or at least around the same time..
> 
> Criticism over sacking process.
> 
> Sargeant 'wasn't dealt with fairly'


He wasn't sacked. Suspension pending investigation is absolutely commonplace, and usually quite right.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> as planetgeli says, how do we know? how do you know, why are you presuming?
> e2a he was suspended for inappropriate behaviour (with colleagues) pending an investigation


Not presuminmg anything, read the link i posted. He did not know what the charges were or who the accusers were and had asked his lawyer to find out for him, its fucking deplorable.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> Not presuminmg anything, read the link i posted. He did not know what the charges were or who the accusers were and had asked his lawyer to find out for him, its fucking deplorable.


but he did know it was about inappropriate behaviour and an investigation was about to happen, again, sadly for whatever reason he didn't wait for it

you seem quite angry, is this about the individual or men being pulled up on inappropriate behaviour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> but he did know it was about inappropriate behaviour and an investigation was about to happen, again, sadly for whatever reason he didn't wait for it
> 
> you seem quite angry, is this about the individual or men being pulled up on inappropriate behaviour?


yeh he does protest too much. i wonder if his name's about to be splashed over the media.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

belboid said:


> He wasn't sacked. Suspension pending investigation is absolutely commonplace, and usually quite right.


He was sacked and suspened, according to the BBC.


*Carl Sargeant death: Criticism over sacking process*

"Ms Rathbone, who represents Cardiff Central, said Mr Sargeant was "devastated" by the sacking."

"Mr Sargeant, who was Alyn and Deeside AM, had also been suspended by the party."

Sargeant 'wasn't dealt with fairly'


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

Come on. You should be able to be critical of the way this is being dealt with, without it being implied you're a beast.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> but he did know it was about inappropriate behaviour and an investigation was about to happen, again, sadly for whatever reason he didn't wait for it
> 
> you seem quite angry, is this about the individual or men being pulled up on inappropriate behaviour?



No im angry about lack of due process, whererver that may be.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> And its not about waiting for a fucking investiagtion, its about knowing what the fuck you are suposed to have done before you have your life and career turned upside down.
> 
> How would you like to turn up for work and be fired without any details of why? Its fucking outrageous.
> 
> It also breaches the procedural propriety, Employment law 101.


First, it's a nonsense to compare a cabinet position to a regular job. For good or ill the Prime Minister/First Minister/Leader of the Opposition has total control of cabinet positions. They can just remove/replace people as they wish, that's not the case with any other job. And Sargent still had his job as an AM.

Second, while you are generally entitled to know the exact nature allegations made against you so you can challenge them, you are not necessarily entitled to know them right at the beginning of an investigation. To not reveal the nature of allegations at the very beginning of an investigation is not necessarily against due process.

EDIT: That said, the sacking may have been motivated by political stuff I don't know. Jones could have just suspended him, but maybe Jones wanted to show that he wasn't prepared to tolerate sexual harassment.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 8, 2017)

What utter horseshit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> No im angry about lack of due process, whererver that may be.


yeh. angry. but you're spitting blood, like this was a personal affront.

is it?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> And its not about waiting for a fucking investiagtion, its about knowing what the fuck you are suposed to have done before you have your life and career turned upside down.
> 
> How would you like to turn up for work and be fired without any details of why? Its fucking outrageous.
> 
> It also breaches the procedural propriety, Employment law 101.


It's actually quite common for people to be suspended at work without knowing the full details. I'm not defending that/how employers process things, but it's not unusual. More to the point, you don't know that there was a failure of process or that it would have been dragged out for weeks. This all happened in about 48 hours (?).  Even more to the point, you neglect killer b's point:


> I think Sargeant's death will intensify calls for due process which I've been seeing more of in recent days: I think we can all agree that due process would be a great thing, but the reason why all this is happening in the first place is because _due process has failed_.


Yes, there must be very high levels of stress when accusations like this go public - whether I've any sympathy in such circumstances depends entirely on whether the person accused did what they are accused of.  But ultimately the wider story and the overall scandal is about unchecked power and abuse in politics - and the _lack_ of process.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> What utter horseshit.


Is that to me? If so you going to say how it's horseshit? Are you claiming that PM/FM/LoO cannot just sack members of their cabinet? That the employment standards apply to cabinet positions?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> which is now being alluded to as 'women, now look what you've done'.



By you and Bimble. Why is that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

belboid said:


> He wasn't sacked. Suspension pending investigation is absolutely commonplace, and usually quite right.



Yep, you're generally suspended and advised of the nature of your misconduct *after* suspension. Usually part of standard employment T & Cs, for gross misconduct.  You don't want the alleged offender to be in contact with the alleged victims.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

And again, making the point about the scandal more generally rather than Sargeant: this is about the shock of the political class having to _face up to procedure_. People who thought they were outside of the circuits of personnel, complaints, suspensions and the like (and for many aspects of their work still are), finally having to confront the reality of procedure. As the rest of us have to do on a daily basis.  Only happened because of the 'list' that was circulated, no doubt because of internal tory party battles, along with the bravery of victims who have come forward.  The elite have been forced to _fumble towards procedure_. In some cases they are dusting off things in their rule books, in other cases making it up as they go along.  But this is all about the political class exerting gropey sexualised power and then when it goes public, realising that their status as independent, 'non-employees' doesn't allow for dealing with serious allegations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> Not presuminmg anything, read the link i posted. He did not know what the charges were or who the accusers were and had asked his lawyer to find out for him, its fucking deplorable.



Or, and I'm putting this out there as a possibility, he wanted to know who his accusers were so that he could try and make deals with them, _a la_ Weinstein, in which case Sargent is the one who's deplorable, surely?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

The other thing is, I suspect he _did_ know the nature of the allegations against him. I'm not going searching again, but I think reports mentioned complaints from his _colleagues_. He wouldn't have been given transcripts or details by Carwyn Jones, might not have been given anything at all.  But it's reasonable to assume he knew what the crack was.

I'm not getting into pointless speculation for the sake of it, just making the point we shouldn't take at face value the claims he knew nothing about the accusations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Second, while you are generally entitled to know the exact nature allegations made against you so you can challenge them, you are not necessarily entitled to know them right at the beginning of an investigation. To not revel the nature of allegations at the very beginning of an investigation is not necessarily against due process.



Nope, it's standard.  It gives the disciplining authority time to investigate and substantiate the claims, and if the claims constituted "gross misconduct" then the disciplining authority (whoever that is in this case) were absolutely right to suspend Sargent, just like a majority of people accused of a gross misconduct offence are suspended.



> EDIT: That said, the sacking may have been motivated by political stuff I don't know. Jones could have just suspended him, but maybe Jones wanted to show that he wasn't prepared to tolerate sexual harassment.



After the farrago of that Lib-Dem lord being accused by multiple victims of sexually assaulting them, and not even having the whip removed from him, I suspect that most political parties adopted policies designed to show that they're not prepared to tolerate sexual harassment, at least with cases that go public (yes, I am saying that political parties are often hypocritical).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> By you and Bimble. Why is that?



If you can't work that out yourself, then you're a hopeless Jeremy Hunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> And again, making the point about the scandal more generally rather than Sargeant: this is about the shock of the political class having to _face up to procedure_. People who thought they were outside of the circuits of personnel, complaints, suspensions and the like (and for many aspects of their work still are), finally having to confront the reality of procedure. As the rest of us have to do on a daily basis.  Only happened because of the 'list' that was circulated, no doubt because of internal tory party battles, along with the bravery of victims who have come forward.  The elite have been forced to _*fumble* towards procedure_. In some cases they are dusting off things in their rule books, in other cases making it up as they go along.  But this is all about the political class exerting gropey sexualised power and then when it goes public, realising that their status as independent, 'non-employees' doesn't allow for dealing with serious allegations.



Perhaps "fumble" is a poor word choice? 

But yeah, overall the reaction of some members of the political class to being brought into the light with regard to what it is or isn't socially and legally permissible when engaging with other people, has NOT been edifying. Emma (now Baroness) Nicholson referred to the current of misogyny among male MPs over 25 years ago, back when she was an MP.  That little has changed, and that in some ways the situation appears to have deteriorated, says a great deal about the sense of privilege and entitlement our political class have.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The other thing is, I suspect he _did_ know the nature of the allegations against him. I'm not going searching again, but I think reports mentioned complaints from his _colleagues_. He wouldn't have been given transcripts or details by Carwyn Jones, might not have been given anything at all.  But it's reasonable to assume he knew what the crack was.
> 
> I'm not getting into pointless speculation for the sake of it, just making the point we shouldn't take at face value the claims he knew nothing about the accusations.


To spell out the obvious: if he had actually performed sexual harassment, he would also have a pretty good idea as to what any allegations would be likely to involve.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> To spell out the obvious: if he had actually performed sexual harassment, he would also have a pretty good idea as to what any allegations would be likely to involve.


Well, that certainly, but I'm also guessing that even within the very short period in which this unfolded he would have heard something through the usual channels, corridor conversations and the like.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Corbyn aide David Prescott suspended over harassment claims
Another one, John Presoctt's son, a Corbyn courtier.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps "fumble" is a poor word choice?
> 
> But yeah, overall the reaction of some members of the political class to being brought into the light with regard to what it is or isn't socially and legally permissible when engaging with other people, has NOT been edifying. Emma (now Baroness) Nicholson referred to the current of misogyny among male MPs over 25 years ago, back when she was an MP.  That little has changed, and that in some ways the situation appears to have deteriorated, says a great deal about the sense of privilege and entitlement our political class have.


"Perhaps "fumble" is a poor word choice?" 

But yes... and all that over the period when top down equality and diversity policies have been institutionalised and managerialised. Though politicians themselves are the authors of those policies, they somehow regard themselves as exempt.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you can't work that out yourself, then you're a hopeless Jeremy Hunt.



Moo point.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 8, 2017)

Pac man said:


> And its not about waiting for a fucking investiagtion, its about knowing what the fuck you are suposed to have done before you have your life and career turned upside down.
> 
> How would you like to turn up for work and be fired without any details of why? Its fucking outrageous.
> 
> It also breaches procedural propriety, Employment law 101.


It's not employment in the usual sense, though is it?  It's not like showing up at the office or factory only to be told to sod off and sign on the dole or become homeless and hungry.

He was still an AM, but if suspended from his party, it's hardly likely that he'd be kept in the cabinet post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Moo point.


sexist to the last i see.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> sexist to the last i see.



ad hominem


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> ad hominem


no it isn't


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no it isn't



So you can explain how my comment was sexist then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> So you can explain how my comment was sexist then.


yes.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes.



But presumably you don't care to share with the group or are about to fall back behind the classic it's so obvious I don't have to get out?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> But presumably you don't care to share with the group or are about to fall back behind the classic it's so obvious I don't have to get out?


Your raison d'etre is resentment towards women for your own inadequacies. You ooze prejudice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> But presumably you don't care to share with the group or are about to fall back behind the classic it's so obvious I don't have to get out?


no, i'm happy to share


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Your raison d'etre is resentment towards women for your own inadequacies. You ooze prejudice.





Pickman's model said:


> no, i'm happy to share



But answer came there none


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> But answer came there none


i have answered all your questions on the subject.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i have answered all your questions on the subject.



Pedantry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Pedantry.


by no means. if blame's to be apportioned, blame the person who a) can't see anything wrong with saying 'moo point' in a discussion about sexism, and b) can't frame a simple question to elicit the answer he desires: i.e., you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> But answer came there none


your posts and your website are enough for us to see your true colours


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means. if blame's to be apportioned, blame the person who a) can't see anything wrong with saying 'moo point' in a discussion about sexism, and b) can't frame a simple question to elicit the answer he desires: i.e., you.



Finally.

So please succinctly explain to me how saying 'moo point' is sexist?

Or have you just fallen back behind the classic it's so obvious I don't have to get out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Finally.
> 
> So please succinctly explain to me how saying 'moo point' is sexist?
> 
> Or have you just fallen back behind the classic it's so obvious I don't have to get out.


no, i'm falling behind the classic if can't see what's sexist about moo in the context of this discussion then you should get out


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> your posts and your website are enough for us to see your true colours



There seems to be an awful lot of projection going on here. If you think you are capable of pointing to how one single thing I've said is sexist without resorting to personal attacks, mind reading or abusive language, please do. I am comfortable in my values and in my respect for women.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

can you both stop please


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> If you think you are capable of pointing to how one single thing I've said is sexist without resorting to personal attacks, mind reading or abusive language, please do. .


i'm not sure if i could, people like you make my flesh crawl


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i'm falling behind the classic if can't see what's sexist about moo in the context of this discussion then you should get out





Orang Utan said:


> i'm not sure if i could, people like you make my flesh crawl



I didn't think so and likewise.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke
EYEisBloke (@EyeisBloke) on Twitter


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I didn't think


no more need be said


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no more need be said



Agreed. Feel free to try again when they take your stabilisers off.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> To spell out the obvious: if he had actually performed sexual harassment, he would also have a pretty good idea as to what any allegations would be likely to involve.



And if he actually hadn't...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Agreed. Feel free to try again when they take your stabilisers off.


sexist AND ageist, a whining combination


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Omnishambles continues, Dawn Butler goes on the attack over the way Sargeant was treated and then has to backtrack, saying the process was followed:
Pressure growing on Welsh Labour over death of Carl Sargeant


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> EYEisBloke
> EYEisBloke (@EyeisBloke) on Twitter



Devastating.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

yes we can see you're a prick, now fuck off please


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Devastating.



the other tweets are all about imaginary anti-men sexism though. haven't found anything else yet, it's all about one thing.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Omnishambles continues, Dawn Butler goes on the attack over the way Sargeant was treated and then has to backtrack, saying the process was followed:
> Pressure growing on Welsh Labour over death of Carl Sargeant


_Preserving the anonymity of alleged victims at each stage of the process _is the key thing here, I suspect.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> And if he actually hadn't...?


Then he's killed himself despite knowing that _whatever _the allegations are, they are false.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

If you cut down on the fat content of your diet your shit won't float.


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2017)

I think Sergeants family released a statement today that will pile on the pressure but I haven't yet looked into this story properly, just caught a bit of it on rolling news.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

elbows said:


> I think Sergeants family released a statement today that will pile on the pressure but I haven't yet looked into this story properly, just caught a bit of it on rolling news.



It's a deliberately vague statement which alludes that he was aware of the allegations and that they amounted to sexual assault.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

No 'natural justice' for Sargeant
not sure what "natural justice" means


> The family has released correspondence between Mr Sargeant's solicitor and Labour to highlight their concern.
> ...
> A family spokesperson said on Wednesday it was publishing the correspondence "in light of the continued unwillingness" of the Labour Party "to clarify the nature of the allegations made against Carl".
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> No 'natural justice' for Sargeant
> not sure what "natural justice" means





> A family spokesperson said on Wednesday it was publishing the correspondence "in light of the continued unwillingness" of the Labour Party "to clarify the nature of the allegations made against Carl".



"Up to the point of his tragic death on Tuesday morning Carl was not informed of any of the detail of the allegations against him, despite requests and warnings regarding his mental welfare," the spokesperson said.

Carl Sargeant family reveal 'groping' claims before ex-minister's death



> The family of ex-Welsh government minister Carl Sargeant have revealed he was facing claims of "groping" before his death.



He knew what he was facing.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 8, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Then he's killed himself despite knowing that _whatever _the allegations are, they are false.



If entirely innocent he died knowing that although the allegations were possibly trivial (and thus easily explained), opportunistic or malign, his career and personal reputation were destroyed and his own party had thrown him under the bus.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> "Up to the point of his tragic death on Tuesday morning Carl was not informed of any of the detail of the allegations against him, despite requests and warnings regarding his mental welfare," the spokesperson said.
> 
> Carl Sargeant family reveal 'groping' claims before ex-minister's death
> 
> ...


that statement seems quite contradictory - it reveals details but then says he wasn't informed of them


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> that statement seems quite contradictory - it reveals details but then says he wasn't informed of them



Quite, he knew. And he also knew that where the reports use the Carry On term 'groping', what that means in legal parlance is 'sexual assault'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> that statement seems quite contradictory - it reveals details but then says he wasn't informed of them


yeh. it says what heading the accusation fell under, it doesn't say who, what, where or indeed when. if i said "ou, you've been accused of murder" i imagine you'd like to know who you're supposed to have killed, where and when etc.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> If entirely innocent he died knowing that although the allegations were possibly trivial, opportunistic or malign, his career and personal reputation were destroyed and his own party had thrown him under the bus.


I'm sorry, but what?  "Trivial"?  "Opportunistic"?  If he's "entirely innocent" then neither of those two things apply.  Tell me what a "trivial" groping amounts to, please.  I think you've rather revealed yourself there.

If malign then he wouldn't be the first person to have dealt with a totally fictitious allegation and got on with his life.  Generally, where accusations are malign, the accused feels fury and a burning desire to respond.  Seems a hell of a thing to kill yourself for instead.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> If entirely innocent he died knowing that although the allegations were possibly trivial, opportunistic or malign, his career and personal reputation were destroyed and his own party had thrown him under the bus.


Hang on what constitutes "throwing him under a bus" here? The suspension or the removal from cabinet? Or both?

Are you arguing that individuals who have multiple allegations of sexual harassment made against them should not be suspended while an investigation takes place?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

I expect he would have been informed of the details of the allegations in the disciplinary meeting he presumably had coming


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Well he probably should have be informed of the details well before any disciplinary meeting so he could respond to them properly/fully. But that doesn't mean that he necessarily should have been provided with all the details at this stage of the investigation.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> No 'natural justice' for Sargeant
> not sure what "natural justice" means



I'm not surprised. It means giving the accused the right to defend themselves.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2017)

Whatever happened here in some quarters it’s clear that his death is being used to support the idea that Political Correctness hasn’t just gone mad it’s now out and about actuallly killing innocent folks in their own homes.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> If entirely innocent he died knowing that although the allegations were possibly trivial (and thus easily explained), opportunistic or malign, his career and personal reputation were destroyed and his own party had thrown him under the bus.


people like you and eyeisbloke make me sick
you don't care about Carl Sargeant or due process particularly you just want to prove it's down to them nasty wimmins and pc taking over
why do you fear equality so much?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on what constitutes "throwing him under a bus" here? The suspension or the removal from cabinet? Or both?
> 
> Are you arguing that individuals who have multiple allegations of sexual harassment made against them should not be suspended while an investigation takes place?



'Multiple allegations'? Three women. It might have been one allegation and two witnesses might it not? The thing is no one knows. And probably never will know now, as there will be a strong incentive among those involved to beef up the allegations in his (now permanent) absence.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Well he probably should have be informed of the details well before any disciplinary meeting so he could respond to them properly/fully. But that doesn't mean that he necessarily should have been provided with all the details at this stage of the investigation.


should he have been given time to get his story straight?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I'm not surprised. It means giving the accused the right to defend themselves.


he did have that right and would have at the investigation, which again (sadly) he didn't wait for
fuck off and grind you mra axe somewhere else


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> he did have that right and would have at the investigation, which again (sadly) he didn't wait for
> fuck off and grind you mra axe somewhere else


looking forward to when it changes from mra to mrsa


----------



## Espresso (Nov 8, 2017)

If anyone has denied Carl Sargeant the chance to defend himself, it's Carl Sergeant.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> people like you and eyeisbloke make me sick
> you don't care about Carl Sargeant or due process particularly you just want to prove it's down to them nasty wimmins and pc taking over
> why do you fear equality so much?


Again: you don't need an ulterior motive to be concerned about lack of due process.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> Again: you don't need an ulterior motive to be concerned about lack of due process.


you honestly think these 2 are??


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

and i know that and have concerns myself but the amount of gleeful bandwagon jumping is disgusting


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2017)

Espresso said:


> If anyone has denied Carl Sargeant the chance to defend himself, it's Carl Sergeant.


Now that's what I've been trying to say!


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> you honestly think these 2 are??


I'm not interested in anything the eyeisbloke character has to post, and won't be responding to him. But Joe Reilly isn't a fly-by-night right-wing troll, and shouldn't be lumped in with him.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> But Joe Reilly isn't a fly-by-night right-wing troll, and shouldn't be lumped in with him.


I don't know Joe Reilly, but he is clearly somebody who believes in the innocence of trivial gropers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> should he have been given time to get his story straight?


No he should be given a chance to construct a defence. Are you seriously suggesting that people should not know the details of the allegations against them until the actual disciplinary hearing? That's practically ensuring that they can be ambushed.



Joe Reilly said:


> 'Multiple allegations'? Three women. It might have been one allegation and two witnesses might it not? The thing is no one knows. And probably never will know now, as there will be a strong incentive among those involved to beef up the allegations in his (now permanent) absence.


That doesn't actually answer the question. Do you think it's unreasonable for a political party, or employer, to suspend someone while an investigation takes place? 

I don't know if the processes the Labour Party followed were fair or not but I've seen absolutely no evidence that they weren't _necessarily_ fair.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm not interested in anything the eyeisbloke character has to post, and won't be responding to him. But Joe Reilly isn't a fly-by-night right-wing troll, and shouldn't be lumped in with him.


not accused JR of that and don't think it
the over speculation by them and desperation to find anything to excuse/lessen the allegations are telling however


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> No he should be given a chance to construct a defence. Are you seriously suggesting that people should not know the details of the allegations against them until the actual disciplinary hearing? That's practically ensuring that they can be ambushed.


what do you mean by ambushed? not given time to squirm out of it is my interpretation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> should he have been given time to get his story straight?


if it had been you you'd have been puling here about how unfair it was.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if it had been you you'd have been puling here about how unfair it was.


it did happen to me once, actually, though I knew what it was about, admittedly


----------



## Raheem (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> No he should be given a chance to construct a defence. Are you seriously suggesting that people should not know the details of the allegations against them until the actual disciplinary hearing? That's practically ensuring that they can be ambushed.



No, but there can be good reasons to delay telling someone in a position of power which of the people who they have power over has made an accusation against them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it did happen to me once, actually, though I knew what it was about, admittedly


yeh. you'd have worn the ears off a stone donkey if you hadn't, with whines about the fairness of the process.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, but there can be good reasons to delay telling someone in a position of power which of the people who they have power over has made an accusation against them.


such as...


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> what do you mean by ambushed? not given time to squirm out of it is my interpretation.


Presented with evidence/allegations that they had no knowledge of and no opportunity to develop a rebuttal to, I'm sorry but you've gone to the other extreme.  If the above was followed employers/HR/prosecutors would be in clover.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Presented with evidence/allegations that they had no knowledge of and no opportunity to develop a rebuttal to, I'm sorry but you've gone to the other extreme.  If the above was followed employers/HR/prosecutors would be in clover.


and ou likes to think of himself as a union man too.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Raheem said:


> No, but there can be good reasons to delay telling someone in a position of power which of the people who they have power over has made an accusation against them.


Yes, I've said that from the start 1, 2.  That's a very different proposition to what OU is seemingly proposing.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> not sure what "natural justice" means


The right to have your side of the story heard. A fair hearing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Presented with evidence/allegations that they had no knowledge of and no opportunity to develop a rebuttal to, I'm sorry but you've gone to the other extreme.  If the above was followed employers/HR/prosecutors would be in clover.


if you haven't done something, why would you need time to develop a rebuttal? I must be missing something.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The right to have your side of the story heard. A fair hearing.



And that was denied him by his actions and his actions alone. He was also denied the opportunity of watching Corrie tonight.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> if you haven't done something, why would you need time to develop a rebuttal? I must be missing something.



Nowt to hide, nowt to fear?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> if you haven't done something, why would you need time to develop a rebuttal? I must be missing something.


yes, you are

if i accused you of being handsy and that i imagine you'd like to know the circumstances in which the event was supposed to have occurred so you could put your side of the story.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Presented with evidence/allegations that they had no knowledge of and no opportunity to develop a rebuttal to, I'm sorry but you've gone to the other extreme.  If the above was followed employers/HR/prosecutors would be in clover.


Depends on the allegations. I've had various cases where the member suspended was initially told of the general nature of the allegations, but no more than that. Gathering all the evidence you practicably can about the allegation before putting it to the alleged perpetrator is reasonable.


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> if you haven't done something, why would you need time to develop a rebuttal? I must be missing something.


"Mr OU, I put it to you that you interfered with a badger at 02.37 on the morning of 12th January 2012. Where were you at that time?"
"Er that was 5 years ago er let me think hmmm"
"STRING HIM UP THE BADGER INTERFERING BASTARD"


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> if you haven't done something, why would you need time to develop a rebuttal? I must be missing something.


So in your view there's no need for the prosecution in criminal cases to supply the defence with a list of witnesses for example? The defence should just turn up on the day with absolutely no idea about what the prosecution case is but also what charges the defendant will be facing? I'm sorry but you've just gone so far into crazy town that even the most hang'n'flog em Tory would be stunned. 

Defendants have to be given the opportunity to construct a reasonable defence by e.g. putting together a list of witnesses that are able to contradict the prosecutions case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So in your view there's no need for the prosecution in criminal cases to supply the defence with a list of witnesses for example? The defence should just turn up on the day with absolutely no idea about what the prosecution case is but also what charges the defendant will be facing? I'm sorry but you've just gone so far into crazy town that even the most hang'n'flog em Tory would be stunned.
> 
> Defendants have to be given the opportunity to construct a reasonable defence by e.g. putting together a list of witnesses that are able to contradict the prosecutions case.


orang utan's understanding of justice comes entirely from alice in wonderland.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> So in your view there's no need for the prosecution in criminal cases to supply the defence with a list of witnesses for example? The defence should just turn up on the day with absolutely no idea about what the prosecution case is but also what charges the defendant will be facing? I'm sorry but you've just gone so far into crazy town that even the most hang'n'flog em Tory would be stunned.
> 
> Defendants have to be given the opportunity to construct a reasonable defence by e.g. putting together a list of witnesses that are able to contradict the prosecutions case.


i wasn't suggesting that at all. IME there's one meeting where you're told what you've been accused of or what the problem is, then a formal one at a later date where you get a chance to address this.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i wasn't suggesting that at all. IME there's one meeting where you're told what you've been accused of or what the problem is, then a formal one at a later date where you get a chance to address this.


Yep, so you *are* given time between hearing the details of the allegation against you and  to construct a defence/mount a rebuttal. What are you arguing for then?

EDIT: Sorry but you've totally lost me, how in this situation are you not given the details of the allegations before you have to respond to them?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2017)

Ffs, Orang Utan what are you trying to argue here?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, Orang Utan what are you trying to argue here?


Not trying to make an argument at all. I was just puzzled by the family's statement, as it looked like he would be informed of the specifics of the allegations in due course.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I'm not surprised. It means giving the accused the right to defend themselves.


Are you claiming he would have been denied that right?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Actively keeping allegations from someone who is accused of a workplace disciplinary is usually shit and a management tool to stop you defending yourself. As union reps, as urban, we should recognise that. Even accepting the anonymity of accusers, someone accused of something should know about it and have a chance to mount a defence.

Same time, the daily mail and even a few on here are A) claiming the details of the case were kept from him _full stop_, when the likelihood is this was initial stages and the Labour Party hadn't even got the dates/stages in place + B) taking this as evidence of 'pc gone mad kills a bloke' type stuff.  I'm not usually up for being fair to the Labour Party, but in this case we should at least wait to hear what the process/timescale was.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Espresso said:


> If anyone has denied Carl Sargeant the chance to defend himself, it's Carl Sergeant.



Sadly there is some truth in that statement but when you are stuck in a moment of despair and breakdown it's very hard to see the bigger picture beyond that moment, especially in such a seemingly kafkaesque situation.

I struggling to see what the big debate over the last few pages is about. It's been clearly established that MP/Parliament working environment processes were woeful, if not existent, to the significant detriment of female staff. It's hardly surprising to learn that they didn't follow reasonable process when undertaking investigations, especially when full on scandal mode kicked in. 

The two things obviously aren't mutually exclusive and you don't have to be an mra (which i'm not) to want to see solid employment practices embedded in our Parliament that both protect women from harassment but also doesn't rely on some sort of insane pickman's model of guilty just because I say you are.

It's ridiculous The Good Parliament Report didn't recommend it tbh but then again the more sleazy and corrupt your MPs are, the more easily corruptible they are when needed to be.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Are you claiming he would have been denied that right?



No I'm claiming that I'm not remotely surprised that some people on this thread are struggling with a concept as simple as natural justice.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Actively keeping allegations from someone who is accused of a workplace disciplinary is usually shit and a management tool to stop you defending yourself. As union reps, as urban, we should recognise that. Even accepting the anonymity of accusers, someone accused of something should know about it and have a chance to mount a defence.
> 
> Same time, the daily mail and even a few on here are A) claiming the details of the case were kept from him _full stop_, when the likelihood is this was initial stages and the Labour Party hadn't even got the dates/stages in place + B) taking this as evidence of 'pc gone mad kills a bloke' type stuff.  I'm not usually up for being fair to the Labour Party, but in this case we should at least wait to hear what the process/timescale was.



Holy fuck! Some of you are Union Reps?!?


----------



## elbows (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Holy fuck! Some of you are Union Reps?!?



Its a broad church here, but that doesn't mean we'll tolerate you soiling the pulpit.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2017)

Him wearing the pussy hat is really creepy.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

It's very clear from the bile on your Twitter feed that you are an MRA, believe in fembots etc etc


EYEisBloke said:


> The two things obviously aren't mutually exclusive and you don't have to be an mra (which i'm not) to want to see solid employment practices embedded in our Parliament that both protect women from harassment but also doesn't rely on some sort of insane pickman's model of guilty just because I say you are.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Holy fuck! Some of you are Union Reps?!?


Yes, and what is your point caller?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

ddraig said:


> It's very clear from the bile on your Twitter feed that you are an MRA, believe in fembots etc etc



I believe in equality and fembots are fictional.

It seems highly unlikely that at this stage that any of you are going to back up any of your bigoted chauvinistic strawmen condemnation with actual facts or logic so can we just agree that you all think I'm absolute scum of the earth and get on with the actual point of the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I believe in equality and fembots are fictional.
> 
> It seems highly unlikely that at this stage that any of you are going to back up any of your bigoted chauvinistic strawmen condemnation with actual facts or logic so can we just agree that you all think I'm absolute scum of the earth and get on with the actual point of the thread.


No, you're worse than that


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Correspondence exchanges over allegations.
Carl Sargeant's family say Labour warned about his mental welfare
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/carl-sargeant-allegations-welsh-labour-13875196
They knew about the allegations for aprox 6 working days so at the very least the First Minister shouldn't have given the press more detail than the accused was afforded. Some sources that one allegation had been investigated  previously which if true makes Carwyn Jonse's time-line problematic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Sadly there is some truth in that statement but when you are stuck in a moment of despair and breakdown it's very hard to see the bigger picture beyond that moment, especially in such a seemingly kafkaesque situation.
> 
> I struggling to see what the big debate over the last few pages is about. It's been clearly established that MP/Parliament working environment processes were woeful, if not existent, to the significant detriment of female staff. It's hardly surprising to learn that they didn't follow reasonable process when undertaking investigations, especially when full on scandal mode kicked in.
> 
> ...


You daft moo a well-known sexist insult. Your moo point simply a variant.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You daft moo a well-known sexist insult. Your moo point simply a variant.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

You're projecting. Try googling it first next time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> You're projecting. Try googling it first next time.


Ah widmim


----------



## Sweet FA (Nov 8, 2017)

Fuck's sake: *moot* point. Can we leave it now?


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Seconded.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 8, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Do you think it's unreasonable for a political party, or employer, to suspend someone while an investigation takes place?
> 
> I don't know if the processes the Labour Party followed were fair or not but I've seen absolutely no evidence that they weren't _necessarily_ fair.



It is not unreasonable to suspend someone while an investigation takes place, but fairness would require that there is a solid basis (other than possible hearsay) for the investigation in the first place. In order to do that it would be necessary to confront the accused with details of the anonymous allegations to gauge his reply. Then if judged appropriate a full investigation could be launched. He might offer to stand aside or take leave of absence, but if not, a suspension may be considered necessary on operational grounds. On what operational grounds would also need to be explained. But Labour didn't even try follow this process. He was sacked from his cabinet post and had his party membership suspended. Then the media was informed and the 'details', such as they are, were leaked to the press that he was 'a groper' and  'sex pest'. Guilty as charged. Stables cleaned. Job done.  After all that, the promise of a some sort of formal right to reply in late January, ten weeks later, looks like an afterthought.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 8, 2017)

Espresso said:


> If anyone has denied Carl Sargeant the chance to defend himself, it's Carl Sergeant.



 Carwyn Jones, who actually put his head in the noose, will be delighted if everyone in Wales concurs, but I doubt it.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

watching 'Wales Live' about this now and it seems complicated by Carwyn handing it over to Labour
And speaking about it in interviews on Monday does seem unfair


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Carwyn Jones, who actually put his head in the noose, will be delighted if everyone in Wales concurs, but I doubt it.


oh ffs! any need for this?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 8, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> *Carwyn Jones, who actually put his head in the noose*, will be delighted if everyone in Wales concurs, but I doubt it.


To be honest, neither you nor I know whether Jones acted proportionately or was panicked by the whole escalating crisis around abusive politicians. As such - and the last thing I'd normally want to do is defend a politician - that's just wrong or, at the very least, a judgement before you know the facts.  And before you come back and say _Jones_ acted before knowing the facts, again, you don't know that.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 8, 2017)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, neither you nor I know whether Jones acted proportionately or was panicked by the whole escalating crisis around abusive politicians. As such - and the last thing I'd normally want to do is defend a politician - that's just wrong or, at the very least, a judgement before you know the facts.  And before you come back and say _Jones_ acted before knowing the facts, again, you don't know that.



Looks like we may learn some more facts in the morning.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 8, 2017)

False accusation is inevitable. And worse than those offences that they have accused others of. For a government? Terror is a weapon. However it has come about, it is their judgement.

This/they are dying, cannot survive. Maybe Cameron really did believe he could win.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 8, 2017)

Humberto said:


> False accusation is inevitable. And worse than those offences that they have accused others of. For a government? Terror is a weapon. However it has come about, it is their judgement.
> 
> This/they are dying, cannot survive. Maybe Cameron really did believe he could win.


?? how is it inevitable?


----------



## Humberto (Nov 9, 2017)

ddraig said:


> ?? how is it inevitable?



People might hear what they want to hear. Whilst using it to ignore the bigger picture. I'm not saying there is nothing in it by the way. Just pontificating.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> It is not unreasonable to suspend someone while an investigation takes place, but fairness would require that there is a solid basis (other than possible hearsay) for the investigation in the first place.


Agreed.



Joe Reilly said:


> In order to do that it would be necessary to confront the accused with details of the anonymous allegations to gauge his reply.


No that's nonsense, there could easily be enough evidence that the allegations have a solid enough basis for suspension while an investigation is taking place. And that informing Sargent of the full details of the allegation _at this stage_ would be both not in the interests of the alleged victims and actually prejudicial to any investigation. Not informing Sargent of the full allegations at this stage is not _necessarily_ against the processes of natural justice. 



Joe Reilly said:


> But Labour didn't even try follow this process. He was sacked from his cabinet post and had his party membership suspended.


You're still confusing two separate, although admittedly linked, things. There is no due process* to follow with the "sacking", cabinet positions are entirely the prerogative of the PM/FM. Jones may have acted like a shit but he didn't act against due process or natural justice.

Regarding the suspension, first a suspension from a political party is rather different than being suspended from your job (and so there's no reason to think that processes that should apply in one case should apply in that exact form in the other). Second, I've seen no evidence that the LP acted against it's processes. In fact Dawn Butler confirmed that it had acted in accordance with due process, after initial querying that it might not have.

*I guess an exception was, or might be, the Labour Shadow Cabinet positions under the old system where people were voted on rather than appointed.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 9, 2017)

Humberto said:


> False accusation is inevitable.



I would say it's inevitable in an era when every news media can run outrageously fake news headlines about rape threats to a sitting member of parliament despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and no one dare as much as point it out for fear of been branded all sorts of childish but deeply powerful silencing ad hominems, even by people who really should know better.

And before anyone has another go (because I will ignore you) I'm not suggesting that the complaints against Sargeant are false (because I certainly do not know that) but does anyone seriously think that a single victim of sexual harassment has been helped by the way Labour has handled his case? Think of the stress his alleged victims must be under for a start.

Women are as brilliant and complex and fascinating and fragile and imperfect and as diverse in thought and deed as men and feminism is as complex, nuanced and imperfect and as broad a church as any other political ideology and anyone who doesn't agree should maybe spend some time reflecting on the flowers in their own backyard before making sweeping unsubstantiated judgements about what's blooming in anyone elses.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2017)

this from last night had a fair amount of discussion 
what I now think is that Carwyn maybe shouldn't have gone into so much detail on the Monday night in interviews with media
however, and still to work it out, I think Carl Sargeant himself tweeted about it a few days before
BBC Wales Live - 08/11/2017
bit in the intro then main discussion from 6mins29s


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2017)

this is the tweet (his last) from Carl Sargeant from Friday Nov 3, so it looks like he was the first to 'go public' about the allegations, not that this excuses Carwyn giving interviews on the Monday

note the ghouls piling in after his death


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, neither you nor I know whether Jones acted proportionately or was panicked by the whole escalating crisis around abusive politicians. As such - and the last thing I'd normally want to do is defend a politician - that's just wrong or, at the very least, a judgement before you know the facts.  And before you come back and say _Jones_ acted before knowing the facts, again, you don't know that.



Neither you or I know that whether Carl Sargeant did or didn't do what it is alleged. But Jones acted as if he did. First he sacked him. Then in going on television to confirm details of the case he compounded the issue. So it's rather odd to be pleading for Jones to be given the benefit of the doubt, when that is what by his actions he denied to his "friend" Sargeant.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2017)

ddraig said:


> note the ghouls piling in after his death


Yep, every sign this is going to get messy:
Carl Sargeant lauded as Welsh first minister prepares statement
Goes without saying that Sargeant's family are in the worst place over this. But another dimension is that the women who made the complaints now risk having their issues with Sargeant unresolved or even getting dragged into the public realm. Nothing worse than an internal party battle.   I'm revealing my ignorance of Welsh Labour politics asking this, but is there a political/factional dimension in play here as well?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2017)

yes for sure
tory and ukip members demanded resignation quite early on and although cautious so far, others in labour seem to have the knives out

I think it has been and is a massive shock to the assembly and will have quite big repercussions, he was well regarded


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Neither you or I know that whether Carl Sargeant did or didn't do what it is alleged. But Jones acted as if he did. First he sacked him. Then in going on television to confirm details of the case he compounded the issue. So it's rather odd to be pleading for Jones to be given the benefit of the doubt, when that is what by his actions he denied to his "friend" Sargeant.


I'm not pleading for Jones, the 'going on telly' bit looks very bad for him. I'm just saying we don't know the allegations against him and we still don't really know the steps taken by Labour, despite the detail given in the guardian link I just posted. I think the question is as I posed it - did Jones act _proportionately_ or did he act _politically_, wanting to appear ahead of the curve and 'doing something'. We really don't know the answer to that.  Behind everything lurks two obvious issues. Firstly and most obviously, whether Sargeant did what he is accused of which, now that he is dead, reduces itself down to the plausibility of the accusations. And secondly the backdrop, politicians as powerful 'non-employees', the lack of normal reporting and personnel processes, gender - all of that. Needless to say, we don't know how much of point two applies in this case - that in turn goes back to whether he did it or not.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2017)

ddraig said:


> yes for sure
> tory and ukip members demanded resignation quite early on and although cautious so far, others in labour seem to have the knives out
> 
> I think it has been and is a massive shock to the assembly and will have quite big repercussions, he was well regarded


Sorry, poorly phrased, I meant is there an internal _Labour_ dimension to the whole thing?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Neither you or I know that whether Carl Sargeant did or didn't do what it is alleged. But Jones acted as if he did. First he sacked him. Then in going on television to confirm details of the case he compounded the issue. So it's rather odd to be pleading for Jones to be given the benefit of the doubt, when that is what by his actions he denied to his "friend" Sargeant.


 But that's the point: if someone is accused of sexual harassment and/or assault, you don't give them the 'benefit of the doubt', FFS! You instigate a proper process.  What that process was and whether it was followed is still unclear.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Sorry, poorly phrased, I meant is there an internal _Labour_ dimension to the whole thing?


yes for sure


----------



## Wilf (Nov 9, 2017)

There's a bit more about how far the investigations had got to in here, along with the family solicitor's arguments on non-disclosure:
Carl Sargeant accused of 'unwanted attention', correspondence shows

Just a small point, but in terms of the 3 incidents as they are being described, he presumably _did_ know the nature of one of these. It was the same complaint previously made to the Welsh government.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Yep, every sign this is going to get messy:
> Carl Sargeant lauded as Welsh first minister prepares statement
> Goes without saying that Sargeant's family are in the worst place over this. But another dimension is that the women who made the complaints now risk having their issues with Sargeant unresolved or even getting dragged into the public realm. Nothing worse than an internal party battle.   I'm revealing my ignorance of Welsh Labour politics asking this, but is there a political/factional dimension in play here as well?


I've heard rumours that the reshuffle was partly political. But nothing concrete.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 9, 2017)

Wilf said:


> my ignorance of Welsh Labour politics asking this, but is there a political/factional dimension in play here as well?


Those rumours


> The former Welsh minister, Leighton Andrews, claimed on Thursday there had been “deliberate personal undermining of Sargeant from within the Welsh Labour government over several years”.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 9, 2017)

Carwyn's statement 
about 8 mins in of this stupid video
https://www.facebook.com/WalesOnlin...lgheXuIj5lddNodjOq-brc3Trlo0nZjF-omOw&fref=nf


----------



## Humberto (Nov 9, 2017)

If people don't mind I'll speculate. Leighton Andrews says Carl Sargeant, was bullied and undermined. Why would he say that? Is it the case that people are looking the other way. Not their jurisdiction?

If people are going to go all limp and just give up in the face of authority then we have a problem. There is a battle whether we like it or not. I'm not attempting to condescend to anyone here but I don't believe this man should have died in these circumstances.

You can't be deferential and submissive nowadays. Not in the face of the political and social class stucture that dominates, and treats others like muck.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 9, 2017)

Some other aspects to consider. 

One, the allegations were apparently handled by Jones's office rather than anything like HR.

Two, according to the family this meant that a wide number of people were involved in the questioning of the complainants.

Three, (which has a bearing on the previous point) the women were likely to be known to each other, either because they were Labour party members or associates, or because of the loose and shoddy way the investigation was conducted.

Four, the allegations were not considered criminal and thus not worthy of police attention (even though the alleged 'groping' is sexual assault by any definition). 
Of course by the time everyone involved has assessed the likely impact on themselves and their careers the temptation will be there to amend allegations so that they meet the necessary criminal criteria.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 9, 2017)

Relevant piece from Ella Whelan considering the metropolitan elite's recent pearl clutching priorities when it comes to allegations about sexual abuse. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/pestminster-feminisms-double-standards/20511#.WgTYo4YaSHM


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 9, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Some other aspects to consider.



Also it's been alleged that one of the allegations was already investigated 18 months ago and deemed not to be credible. 
The questions Carwyn Jones must answer after Carl Sargeant's death


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

Fair point from the Allsopp.


----------



## Plumdaff (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Sorry, poorly phrased, I meant is there an internal _Labour_ dimension to the whole thing?



Welsh Labour pushed through a decision about how leadership decisions are made, effectively giving the AMs the same vote share as the whole membership which is hugely unpopular at CLP level. People are furious and rightly gunning for Jones over it. Whether they are right to be gunning for him over this I think is very much unproven,but its likely affecting the response to this.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Welsh Labour pushed through a decision about how leadership decisions are made, effectively giving the AMs the same vote share as the whole membership which is hugely unpopular at CLP level. People are furious and rightly gunning for Jones over it. Whether they are right to be gunning for him over this I think is very much unproven,but its likely affecting the response to this.


Ta.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Relevant piece from Ella Whelan considering the metropolitan elite's recent pearl clutching priorities when it comes to allegations about sexual abuse. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/pestminster-feminisms-double-standards/20511#.WgTYo4YaSHM




You quote _Spiked_ as if it's in any way a reputable source for anything?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Welsh Labour pushed through a decision about how leadership decisions are made, effectively giving the AMs the same vote share as the whole membership which is hugely unpopular at CLP level. People are furious and rightly gunning for Jones over it. Whether they are right to be gunning for him over this I think is very much unproven,but its likely affecting the response to this.


Thanks, I'd missed that.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> Welsh Labour pushed through a decision about how leadership decisions are made, effectively giving the AMs the same vote share as the whole membership which is hugely unpopular at CLP level. People are furious and rightly gunning for Jones over it. Whether they are right to be gunning for him over this I think is very much unproven,but its likely affecting the response to this.



The length of time it took Welsh Labour to make a formal statement is definitely affecting the response. Remarkably they have yet to acknowledge the tragedy on their website but were very quick to erase him from their assembly member's profile page.
All news | Newyddion
People | Pobl
http://www.welshlabour.wales/people_pobl


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> You quote _Spiked_ as if it's in any way a reputable source for anything?


It's a reputable source for nonsense


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2017)

Humberto said:


> If people don't mind I'll speculate. Leighton Andrews says Carl Sargeant, was bullied and undermined. Why would he say that? Is it the case that people are looking the other way. Not their jurisdiction?
> 
> If people are going to go all limp and just give up in the face of authority then we have a problem. There is a battle whether we like it or not. I'm not attempting to condescend to anyone here but I don't believe this man should have died in these circumstances.
> 
> You can't be deferential and submissive nowadays. Not in the face of the political and social class stucture that dominates, and treats others like muck.


People would be offended if you didn't indulge in speculation


----------



## ddraig (Nov 10, 2017)

Humberto said:


> If people don't mind I'll speculate. Leighton Andrews says Carl Sargeant, was bullied and undermined. Why would he say that? Is it the case that people are looking the other way. Not their jurisdiction?
> 
> If people are going to go all limp and just give up in the face of authority then we have a problem. There is a battle whether we like it or not. I'm not attempting to condescend to anyone here but I don't believe this man should have died in these circumstances.
> 
> You can't be deferential and submissive nowadays. Not in the face of the political and social class stucture that dominates, and treats others like muck.


Leighton Andrews may have an axe to grind as he was caught out and had to resign a while ago


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

Elphicke now also complaining about process. 


> “It is also a denial of justice when people who have had allegations made against them, lose their job or their party whip without knowing what those allegations are. I believe this is fundamentally wrong. Wrong because it’s an injustice to those who stand accused, but also wrong because it undermines our values as a country.”


Though I think it's worth noting his denial of the accusations has a rather specific wording 


> He added: “Finally let me say that whatever it turns out I stand accused of, I deny any criminal wrongdoing.”


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 10, 2017)

Weren't there some women involved in this in some capacity, way back when?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> But that's the point: if someone is accused of sexual harassment and/or assault, you don't give them the 'benefit of the doubt', FFS! You instigate a proper process.



Yes, you do give them 'the benefit of the doubt', in so far as the accused are from the outset told of the alleged crimes and given a chance to defend themselves. This applies in any court of law. And should have equal application in less formal internal inquiries. Its a simple standard and there should be no deviation from it.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 10, 2017)

A revolutionary communist in our midst


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, you do give them 'the benefit of the doubt', in so far as the accused are from the outset told of the alleged crimes and given a chance to defend themselves. This applies in any court of law. And should have equal application in less formal internal inquiries. Its a simple standard and there should be no deviation from it.


The phrase 'giving people the benefit of the doubt' has very little to do with the processes you mention, it sounded like an attitude towards the person accused of sexual assault etc.  But on the process, we still don't have any evidence that the details were going to be denied to him. From what I read he'd only just been given 'a case number' or similar, to signify the start of the process. He killed himself before it began.  Whatever mistakes Carwyn Jones might have made by going on telly, there's no evidence at all that he would have been denied details of the accusations in due course.

As I mentioned in another post, he certainly knew the details of one case because it was the same case taken to the Welsh government in the past.  Yes, of course - again as I've said in another post - the various 'processes' and keeping details from the accused till perhaps the second meeting are often used by management.  We know that as union members/reps. But there's no evidence that anything more than that was happening.

Oh, and back on your benefit of the doubt thing: most tribunals and similar use a civil standard of proof. I haven't looked at the labour party's processes, but I imagine they would have been operating a 'balance of probabilities' test if the case had proceeded.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Neither you or I know that whether Carl Sargeant did or didn't do what it is alleged. But Jones acted as if he did. First he sacked him. Then in going on television to confirm details of the case he compounded the issue. So it's rather odd to be pleading for Jones to be given the benefit of the doubt, when that is what by his actions he denied to his "friend" Sargeant.



It's pretty standard to sack a cabinet minister over an allegation, lets be real it happens all the time - it's not like being sacked from work, Sargeant would have retained his AM's salary.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's pretty standard to sack a cabinet minister over an allegation, lets be real it happens all the time.


I'm not sure if it is or it does tbh. Usually they _step down to clear their name_.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure if it is or it does tbh. Usually they _step down to clear their name_.



oh aye, but if they're not willing then they're sacked - _to avoid bringing the government into disrepute.

_
Jones might have been in a much better position here if he'd just asked him to resign to be fair though. If Sargeant had resigned voluntarily then there wouldn't be this backlash against him now.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf. Tribunals "should" use a slightly higher burden of proof, than on the preponderance of evidence (balance of probabilities), when dealing with either quasi criminal or criminal allegations, especially where the consequences for the defendant would be severe/significant.The more serious the allegations, the less likely it was to happen caveat is also applied.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jones might have been in a much better position here if he'd just asked him to resign to be fair though. If Sargeant had resigned voluntarily then there wouldn't be this backlash against him now.



I suppose it all depends on whether Carwyn Jones tried that first; if he didn't and he just suspended Sergeant without telling him why then he (Jones) really should have the book thrown at him.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's pretty standard to sack a cabinet minister over an allegation, lets be real it happens all the time - it's not like being sacked from work, Sargeant would have retained his AM's salary.


Yes, pretty standard after being confronted and securing something approaching a tacit admission of guilt on one count or other. This is the vital bit of the 'process' that was skipped in this case. This meant the internal 'inquiry' was penciled in to take place approximately three months after the individual who set up the inquiry had decided Sergeant's probable guilt on the matter.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, pretty standard after being confronted and securing something approaching a tacit admission of guilt on one count or other. This is the vital bit of the 'process' that was skipped in this case. This meant the internal 'inquiry' was penciled in to take place approximately three months after the individual who set up the inquiry had decided Sergeant's probable guilt on the matter.



How do you know that? That doesn't seem to be clearly the case from what I've seen.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> I suppose it all depends on whether Carwyn Jones tried that first; if he didn't and he just suspended Sergeant without telling him why then he (Jones) really should have the book thrown at him.



Clearly though he was told of what the allegations broadly consisted of - he wasn't told who had made the allegations but he would have been in time for the investigation and for the purposes of constructing a defence. There is really nothing that brutal about telling someone that an allegation has been made, they can't be a government minister while the investigation takes place and they should be suspended from the party for that period as well.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Clearly though he was told of what the allegations broadly consisted of - he wasn't told who had made the allegations but he would have been in time for the investigation and for the purposes of constructing a defence. There is really nothing that brutal about telling someone that an allegation has been made, they can't be a government minister while the investigation takes place and they should be suspended from the party for that period as well.



I disagree - if he wasn't told what the allegations consisted of (and no evidence has been produced to say that he was given sufficient information, at least) then he could easily have been left with the impression that an allegation had been made that was so bad that it required his immediate removal from office and suspension from the party without knowing what on earth it was.  

To have that playing on ones mind, especially with the other consequences that might result, and be left to stew over it all weekend would be very stressful even to someone who had done nothing and who was not suffering from any kind of depression or other mental health issue.  Not knowing is much worse than knowing in almost every case.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> How do you know that? That doesn't seem to be clearly the case from what I've seen.



Know what?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

In some ways, I think our ambiguity about this - various stripes of left wing politics mainly defending an institutional disciplinary process (inc. me) - is obviously a bit messy and contradictory. In a way it's the flipping of the normal power dynamics. The whole story - regardless of the truth or otherwise of the Sargeant allegations - is about the abuse of power by politicians. We still don't know whether there was a properly applied routine response here, but the outcome was Sargeant becoming subject to the normal pressures of a workplace disciplinary, working as he does in an area that is defined by the _lack of such workplace norms_ (for the politicians themselves). There was  a piece in the grauniad, which I can't find now, describing Westminster as a series of 650 small businesses, all resistant to things like making their staff into civil servants.

Suppose the key thing, that transcends all that is whether Sargeant did what he was accused of (obviously). Another dimension is whether his suicide has an impact on the wider issue and slows down the whole process of reporting abusers.  There was another piece in the grauniad which I can't even be arsed looking for, making the point that victims still need to come forward.  But I do wonder though whether Charlie Elphicke thought this might be the right moment to go onto the counter attack:
Suspended Tory MP hits out at party's handling of harassment claims

Edit: this is the piece on the Commons:
How to help tackle sexual harassment in the House of Commons | André Spicer


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> I disagree - if he wasn't told what the allegations consisted of (and no evidence has been produced to say that he was given sufficient information, at least) then he could easily have been left with the impression that an allegation had been made that was so bad that it required his immediate removal from office and suspension from the party without knowing what on earth it was.
> 
> To have that playing on ones mind, especially with the other consequences that might result, and be left to stew over it all weekend would be very stressful even to someone who had done nothing and who was not suffering from any kind of depression or other mental health issue.  Not knowing is much worse than knowing in almost every case.


On the first point, unless I've missed something, the initial meeting was with Carwyn Jones, telling him he was sacked as a minister. He hadn't though _started_ the formal process. 
On the second para, yeah emphatically, it would be crushing to be accused of something like that, publicly and in the middle of a wider crisis about political rape and sexual assault.  But whether he was hard done to depends entirely on whether he did it or not. Something which now will never be officially resolved.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, you do give them 'the benefit of the doubt', in so far as the accused are from the outset told of the alleged crimes and given a chance to defend themselves. This applies in any court of law. And should have equal application in less formal internal inquiries. Its a simple standard and there should be no deviation from it.


I don't think you're entirely comparing like with like here.

If you are accused of a crime, the police don't routinely lay out their case before you - they put enough of a case together to arrest and question you, and then they go away and do more inquiries. Eventually, the case will come to court, where it may still be quite a few hearings before your (and/or your defence) get to learn the precise allegations against you, and you have an opportunity to deny them.

I suppose a broad parallel between being suspended from your job and accused of a crime is where the offence is considered sufficiently serious, and you a sufficient risk, that you're remanded in custody. So, if someone is accused of a sexual offence (not necessarily criminal) at work, suspending them seems entirely appropriate while the inquiry stage proceeds. Sure, it's not nice, but that's what "due process" means - a process whereby the claims are investigated and tested for veracity before a final decision as to whether to proceed is made.

Unless I've completely misunderstood the Carl Sargeant situation, that's what was happening - allegations were made, and he was suspended from his post pending further investigations. It would be wholly inappropriate for the detail of the allegations to have been given to him at that point, as it could well have identified those making them, who could well have been seen as vulnerable. At some stage in the proceedings, that would have changed, and he would have been presented with the allegations and given an opportunity to put his side. In general terms, I can't see what's so terribly wrong with that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> On the first point, unless I've missed something, the initial meeting was with Carwyn Jones, telling him he was sacked as a minister. He hadn't though _started_ the formal process.


And as I've pointed out (twice now), and you mentioned in your previous post, there is no due process about being "sacked" from a cabinet position (in fact I'd argue that it doesn't even make sense to talk about being sacked from a cabinet position, you're removed from office). It's something completely outside any normal employment.



existentialist said:


> Unless I've completely misunderstood the Carl Sargeant situation, that's what was happening - allegations were made, and he was suspended from his post pending further investigations.


He was removed from his cabinet position and suspended from the Labour Party, he remained an AM.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> In some ways, I think our ambiguity about this - various stripes of left wing politics mainly defending an institutional disciplinary process (inc. me) - is obviously a bit messy and contradictory. In a way it's the flipping of the normal power dynamics. The whole story - regardless of the truth or otherwise of the Sargeant allegations - is about the abuse of power by politicians. We still don't know whether there was a properly applied routine response here, but the outcome was Sargeant becoming subject to the normal pressures of a workplace disciplinary, working as he does in an area that is defined by the _lack of such workplace norms_ (for the politicians themselves). There was  a piece in the grauniad, which I can't find now, describing Westminster as a series of 650 small businesses, all resistant to things like making their staff into civil servants.
> 
> Suppose the key thing, that transcends all that is whether Sargeant did what he was accused of (obviously). Another dimension is whether his suicide has an impact on the wider issue and slows down the whole process of reporting abusers.  There was another piece in the grauniad which I can't even be arsed looking for, making the point that victims still need to come forward.  But I do wonder though whether Charlie Elphicke thought this might be the right moment to go onto the counter attack:
> Suspended Tory MP hits out at party's handling of harassment claims



You begin your post with a confession of looking at the entire affair through the eyes of the prosecution only as many have done on here. But by the end, (in cynically assuming guilt in another case) you have reverted back again.


----------



## existentialist (Nov 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> But as I've pointed out (twice now), and you mentioned in your previous post, there is no due process about being "sacked" from a cabinet position (in fact I'd argue that it doesn't even make sense to talk about being sacked from a cabinet position, you're removed from office). It's something completely outside any normal employment.
> 
> 
> He was removed from his cabinet position and suspended from the Labour Party, he remained an AM.


Thanks for the correction. It is sad that even that led him to take such a drastic step, but it doesn't seem at all an unreasonable course of action, or even an unusual one.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> You begin your post with a confession of looking at the entire affair through the eyes of the prosecution only as many have done on here. But by the end, (in cynically assuming guilt in another case) you have reverted back again.


Whereas you don't seem to accept that there is a broad category of victims, victimised in terms of power imbalances and, for many, by gender. You seem to want to present the whole affair as a series of discrete cases, all arising out of specific circumstances, where each party is equally likely to be lying.  I don't know whether Sargeant did what he is accused of, but his case is part of a wider phenomena.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

On the "sacking" this was the statement Sargeant released at first 


> In a statement released on Friday, Sargeant said: “I met with the first minister today and he informed me allegations had been made about my personal conduct, which was shocking and distressing to me. The details of the allegations have yet to be disclosed to me.
> 
> “I have written to the general secretary of Welsh Labour requesting an urgent independent investigation into these allegations in order to allow me to clear my name.”
> 
> “Given the nature of the allegations, *I agreed with the first minister that it was right that I stand aside from cabinet today.* I look forward to returning to government once my name has been cleared. I won’t be commenting further at this stage.”


(my emphasis) Which could very well be a the result of a 'if you don't jump, I'll push you" of course.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

existentialist said:


> I suppose a broad parallel between being suspended from your job and accused of a crime is where the offence is considered sufficiently serious, and you a sufficient risk, that you're remanded in custody. So, if someone is accused of a sexual offence (not necessarily criminal) at work, suspending them seems entirely appropriate while the inquiry stage proceeds. Sure, it's not nice, but that's what "due process" means - a process whereby the claims are investigated and tested for veracity before a final decision as to whether to proceed is made.
> 
> Unless I've completely misunderstood the Carl Sargeant situation, that's what was happening - allegations were made, and he was suspended from his post pending further investigations. It would be wholly inappropriate for the detail of the allegations to have been given to him at that point, as it could well have identified those making them, who could well have been seen as vulnerable. At some stage in the proceedings, that would have changed, and he would have been presented with the allegations and given an opportunity to put his side. In general terms, I can't see what's so terribly wrong with that.



Perhaps, but the issues with it is that the person taking the disciplinary action is themselves under pressure - firstly for overseeing a system that, if the allegations were correct, allowed it to go on (lets not forget he has been Labour leader for nearly ten years now) and secondly because they have a selfish political motive to protect themselves by being seen to take action when allegations are made.  To put that person in charge of the process creates huge problems, even without the person making the process by which an investigation would be carried out up on the hoof.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> Know what?



You seem to be suggesting that Sargeant was not confronted with the allegation by Jones and that there was no "something approaching a tacit admission of guilt on one count or other" which doesn't seem at all clear to me. In any case, what are you suggesting - that if Sargeant denied it he shouldn't have been sacked/suspended? It's hardly as if he could have got on with the job while this was public - Sargeant agreed in his statement he could not continue in the role while the investigation was happening. 

I don't get this either - 


Joe Reilly said:


> the internal 'inquiry' was penciled in to take place approximately three months after the individual who set up the inquiry had decided Sergeant's probable guilt on the matter.



How does it follow that because an inquiry was set up that guilt had already been predetermined?


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, but the issues with it is that the person taking the disciplinary action is themselves under pressure -
> <snip>
> To put that person in charge of the process creates huge problems, even without the person making the process by which an investigation would be carried out up on the hoof.


Hang on what disciplinary action are you taking about here? And who is the person taking the disciplinary action and "in charge of the process".

AFAICT Jones is not in _charge_ of the process, nor would he have been the one taking any disciplinary action against Sargeant. That would be some internal (Welsh) Labour Party bodies, ultimately probably the NEC.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> I disagree - if he wasn't told what the allegations consisted of (and no evidence has been produced to say that he was given sufficient information, at least) then he could easily have been left with the impression that an allegation had been made that was so bad that it required his immediate removal from office and suspension from the party without knowing what on earth it was.
> 
> To have that playing on ones mind, especially with the other consequences that might result, and be left to stew over it all weekend would be very stressful even to someone who had done nothing and who was not suffering from any kind of depression or other mental health issue.  Not knowing is much worse than knowing in almost every case.



This is some serious conjecture on your part now - from what has been reported he was told what the allegations were, and that he denied them: "The family of the former Welsh assembly member Carl Sargeant have released correspondence indicating that he was facing allegations of “unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping”, which he denied" from Carl Sargeant accused of 'unwanted attention', correspondence shows

Yes the identity of complainaints was not revealed but that isn't a bad thing, and clearly it would have been in the subsequent investigation. I'm also not aware of any suggestion Sargeant suffered from mental health problems or was considered vulnerable in any way. 

It seems a lot like you're suggesting that our sympathies should reside with someone who has been accused (by the look of things) of multiple incidents of sexual harassment and not at all with the complainants.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on what disciplinary action are you taking about here? And who is the person taking the disciplinary action and "in charge of the process".
> 
> AFAIA Jones is not in _charge_ of the process, nor would he have been the one taking any disciplinary action against Sargeant. That would be some internal (Welsh) Labour Party  bodies, ultimately the NEC.



Suspension and removal from office is a disciplinary measure, and if Jones is the one who requires it (which Sergeant's statement on Friday clearly implies) and is the head of Welsh Labour then its hard to see how he isn't in charge of it (especially as he was in charge of Sergeant before this all started).  One also wonders what process was established to deal with the allegations, who set it up and when (one would imagine this is something else that could be laid at Jones' door).


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 10, 2017)

existentialist said:


> Wilf said:
> 
> 
> > Whereas you don't seem to accept that there is a broad category of victims, victimised in terms of power imbalances and, for many, by gender. You seem to want to present the whole affair as a series of discrete cases, all arising out of specific circumstances, where each party is equally likely to be lying.  I don't know whether Sargeant did what he is accused of, but his case is part of a wider phenomena.
> ...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> Suspension and removal from office is a disciplinary measure, and if Jones is the one who requires it (which Sergeant's statement on Friday clearly implies)



Does it? How? He just said he was informed of allegations and that he agreed he would need to step aside from govt while the investigation went on.




agricola said:


> the head of Welsh Labour then its hard to see how he isn't in charge of it (especially as he was in charge of Sergeant before this all started).



No, he isn't - that would be the GS of Welsh Labour. In addition I'm not sure you can say Jones was "in charge" of Sargeant (weird phrasing) - they were part of the Welsh government together and Jones was First Minister.




agricola said:


> One also wonders what process was established to deal with the allegations, who set it up and when (one would imagine this is something else that could be laid at Jones' door).



I'm sure we're all wondering that but you seem to have already decided it was very badly handled and that Jones was at fault.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> Suspension and removal from office is a disciplinary measure,


I agree suspension from the party is, I don't accept removal from office is. If Jones had wanted he could have removed Sargeant from his office because it was a Friday and he felt like it. Cabinet positions are not jobs in any real sense, they are positions at the disposal of the PM/FM.



agricola said:


> and if Jones is the one who requires it (which Sergeant's statement on Friday clearly implies) and is the head of Welsh Labour then its hard to see how he isn't in charge of it (especially as he was in charge of Sergeant before this all started).


Removal of the whip (which is what suspension is) might be down to Jones but he's not in charge either of the investigation into the accusations or, ultimately, the final disciplinary decision(s), if any, that the party would make.



SpackleFrog said:


> I'm sure we're all wondering that but you seem to have already decided it was very badly handled and that Jones was at fault.


I do think it was stupid (at best) of Jones to give the press conference that he did. He should have just issued a simple statement giving the facts and saying he couldn't give any more details as it was under investigation.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is some serious conjecture on your part now - from what has been reported he was told what the allegations were, and that he denied them: "The family of the former Welsh assembly member Carl Sargeant have released correspondence indicating that he was facing allegations of “unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping”, which he denied" from Carl Sargeant accused of 'unwanted attention', correspondence shows
> 
> Yes the identity of complainaints was not revealed but that isn't a bad thing, and clearly it would have been in the subsequent investigation. I'm also not aware of any suggestion Sargeant suffered from mental health problems or was considered vulnerable in any way.
> 
> It seems a lot like you're suggesting that our sympathies should reside with someone who has been accused (by the look of things) of multiple incidents of sexual harassment and not at all with the complainants.



_"Unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping"_ is a considerably broad thing to accuse someone of, though - as has been pointed out already, groping is a potentially serious criminal offence and should (must, really - at least when the alternative is that a political party investigates it) be investigated by the Police, as should misconduct in a public office.  Also please note that nowhere did I say the identity of complainants should have been revealed to him, nor did I suggest that Sergeant should get more sympathy than the victims.  

My point is that the way this was handled could never be said to be fair, to any party to it - nor would it have been likely to lead to an outcome that would be seen to be fair.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> _"Unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping"_ is a considerably broad thing to accuse someone of, though - as has been pointed out already, groping is a potentially serious criminal offence and should (must, really - at least when the alternative is that a political party investigates it) be investigated by the Police, as should misconduct in a public office.  Also please note that nowhere did I say the identity of complainants should have been revealed to him, nor did I suggest that Sergeant should get more sympathy than the victims.



Now you're contradicting yourself. If the victims identities were protected at this stage, then it would have been impossible to give specific details of any incidents as this would identify them. 



agricola said:


> My point is that the way this was handled could never be said to be fair, to any party to it - nor would it have been likely to lead to an outcome that would be seen to be fair.



How should it have been handled then? What else could have been done? Sargeant was removed from post and suspended from the party ahead of an investigation. What exactly is it that you think Jones did wrong? If how it has been handled is so clearly unfair, what would you have like to see happen?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> _"Unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping"_ is a considerably broad thing to accuse someone of, though - as has been pointed out already, groping is a potentially serious criminal offence and should (must, really - at least when the alternative is that a political party investigates it) be investigated by the Police, as should misconduct in a public office.  Also please note that nowhere did I say the identity of complainants should have been revealed to him, nor did I suggest that Sergeant should get more sympathy than the victims.
> 
> My point is that the way this was handled could never be said to be fair, to any party to it - nor would it have been likely to lead to an outcome that would be seen to be fair.



I'd add by the way that groping could and should only be reported to the police if that was what the complainaint wanted to happen.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

> Joe Reilly said: Judging it as part of a 'wider phenomena' where normal rules of evidence can be dispensed is part of the problem. That is precisely why law is always preferable to the rule of mob. And not to look at things on a case by case is of course what led to Salem (we've already seen symptoms of 'look there's another one!' on this very thread).Where you are right is that central to the case is the 'abuse of power by politicians'. Jones for reasons of a personal vendetta or political opportunism abused his power. And it is Sargeant more than anyone else so far who has ended up the victim of it.


'Salem' - fucking hell, you really think that MPs are in that situation? FWIW, I emphatically think that there *should be process* - and I've said several times, the general independent nature of politicians means that we don't have that.  But equally, it hasn't been demonstrated that Sargeant was _denied_ a process - at the moment it just looks like it hadn't _begun_.

This is broadly like rape and sexual assault in society generally: the need for full process and investigation, along with an understanding that that sexual violence is under-reported, the power imbalances it comes out of and the need to take victims seriously.  They are all individual cases, to be assessed on their merits, but with an understanding of the wider society. And if you don't think that and believe that everything just resolves down to nothing more than the evidence of the discrete cases, then you wipe out the advances made in terms of the way the criminal justice system deals with victims. Deal with the evidence, but set up a system that encourages victims to come forward and assures them they will get a hearing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

In case this is neccessary can I just point out that nobody is accusing politicians of witchcraft or burning them at the stake.

Unfortunately.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Now you're contradicting yourself. If the victims identities were protected at this stage, then it would have been impossible to give specific details of any incidents as this would identify them



That is just an assumption based on a belief that Jones would have told him chapter and verse about the allegations being made.  He could easily just have told him that allegations of a certain type had been made (ie: not broad statements like "_unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping" _which covers a whole range of activities and potential outcomes).  



SpackleFrog said:


> How should it have been handled then? What else could have been done? Sargeant was removed from post and suspended from the party ahead of an investigation. What exactly is it that you think Jones did wrong? If how it has been handled is so clearly unfair, what would you have like to see happen?



Before suspending him Jones should have told him what was going to happen next, who was going to run it and what support was open to him.  The fact that the statement from Sergeant says "_I have written to the general secretary of Welsh Labour requesting an urgent independent investigation into these allegations in order to allow me to clear my name._" strongly suggests to me that he was not told anything beyond that he was suspended.



SpackleFrog said:


> I'd add by the way that groping could and should only be reported to the police if that was what the complainaint wanted to happen.



I couldn't disagree more.  Political parties (and businesses fwiw) are not appropriate arbiters to determine what should and should not be reported when we are talking about criminal offences, certainly criminal offences of that kind.  I am not saying that offences should be prosecuted without the victim's consent, but to not report behaviour like that when it may indicate serious wrongdoing is very dangerous indeed, especially as the organization / person in the organization to whom the behaviour has been reported has a whole load of reasons why they might not want it reporting as well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> That is just an assumption based on a belief that Jones would have told him chapter and verse about the allegations being made.  He could easily just have told him that allegations of a certain type had been made (ie: not broad statements like "_unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping" _which covers a whole range of activities and potential outcomes).



I'm not assuming anything, you are. Clearly he was told what the allegations consisted of. If he was told where or when alleged incidents were reported as happenign that would immediately make it obvious who made the complaint.



agricola said:


> Before suspending him Jones should have told him what was going to happen next, who was going to run it and what support was open to him.  The fact that the statement from Sergeant says "_I have written to the general secretary of Welsh Labour requesting an urgent independent investigation into these allegations in order to allow me to clear my name._" strongly suggests to me that he was not told anything beyond that he was suspended.



Why is that all Jones' responsibility? Jones didn't have the power to suspend Sargeant from LP membership and wasn't in charge of the investigation. As for support, how do you know whether he offered any support or not and he certainly wasn't obliged to. Jones' involvement goes as far as removing him from the Ministerial post and no further. As for you saying that his statement "strongly suggests" to you that he was told nothing else except that he was suspended, i don't see any reason to conclude that, it's purely your speculation.



agricola said:


> I couldn't disagree more.  Political parties (and businesses fwiw) are not appropriate arbiters to determine what should and should not be reported when we are talking about criminal offences, certainly criminal offences of that kind.  I am not saying that offences should be prosecuted without the victim's consent, but to not report behaviour like that when it may indicate serious wrongdoing is very dangerous indeed, especially as the organization / person in the organization to whom the behaviour has been reported has a whole load of reasons why they might not want it reporting as well.



This is contradictory to my mind too - you seem to be putting all responisibility on Carwyn Jones, which is clearly unfair with regard to suspension and the subsequent inquiry, and yet you say he shouldn't have been involved at all.

Nobody at any point has said that we are definitely talking about criminal offences or that the complainants wanted them to be treated as criminal offences. The police *might* not be involved at all. In that scenario what are you saying? That if no criminal charges are brought that Welsh Labour should simply shrug and say that it isn't their place to take action?

Normally enjoy your posts but you seem to be straying on to dodgy ground now - do you have a connection to Welsh Labour or something? What's with your conviction that Sargeant has been badly treated? You're saying that but you're not explaining why. I'm not saying I'm convinced he wasn't treated badly but I'm also not jumping to conclusions.


----------



## elbows (Nov 10, 2017)

I'm not surprised that the decision to have an independent inquiry has been made: 


> An independent inquiry will be held into the first minister's handling of Carl Sargeant's sacking, days before he was found dead.
> 
> First Minister Carwyn Jones ordered the inquiry shortly after representatives of Mr Sargeant's family said a probe should start 'immediately'.



First minister orders Sargeant inquiry


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2017)

More Kelvin Hopkins tonight.

Labour MP accuses Kelvin Hopkins of inappropriate behaviour


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not assuming anything, you are. Clearly he was told what the allegations consisted of. If he was told where or when alleged incidents were reported as happenign that would immediately make it obvious who made the complaint.



He was told, at least according to the family, that the complaints fell into a particular category that took in offences that can be investigated criminally.  His statement, which you provided, clearly states he was not told the details of the allegations beyond that.  As for "_that would immediately make it obvious who made the complaint_" - that is a bit of an assumption itself; if he had done it and unless Sergeant was complete filth then he would presumably remember who he approached, touched inappropriately or groped (especially if as reported earlier these were allegations that had already been made). 



SpackleFrog said:


> Why is that all Jones' responsibility? Jones didn't have the power to suspend Sargeant from LP membership and wasn't in charge of the investigation. As for support, how do you know whether he offered any support or not and he certainly wasn't obliged to. Jones' involvement goes as far as removing him from the Ministerial post and no further. As for you saying that his statement "strongly suggests" to you that he was told nothing else except that he was suspended, i don't see any reason to conclude that, it's purely your speculation.



Jones was his direct superior and the one to (at least as its implied in the statement) demand he step down and be suspended, and at least some of the reports state that the allegations were reported to his office.  As for the investigation, we don't know yet who would have been in charge of it (and indeed Sergeant's statement can be read to suggest it had not even started) but its inconceivable that Jones would not at least be the person that the investigation reported to. 



SpackleFrog said:


> This is contradictory to my mind too - you seem to be putting all responisibility on Carwyn Jones, which is clearly unfair with regard to suspension and the subsequent inquiry, and yet you say he shouldn't have been involved at all.
> 
> Nobody at any point has said that we are definitely talking about criminal offences or that the complainants wanted them to be treated as criminal offences. The police *might* not be involved at all. In that scenario what are you saying? That if no criminal charges are brought that Welsh Labour should simply shrug and say that it isn't their place to take action?
> 
> Normally enjoy your posts but you seem to be straying on to dodgy ground now - do you have a connection to Welsh Labour or something? What's with your conviction that Sargeant has been badly treated? You're saying that but you're not explaining why. I'm not saying I'm convinced he wasn't treated badly but I'm also not jumping to conclusions.



I am putting responsibility on Carwyn Jones because that is where it appears to belong.  If you as a manager suspend someone and call that they step aside because of allegations that you have been made aware of, then it is both your responsibility and your duty to see that those investigations are carried out thoroughly, quickly and impartially and also to provide necessary support the member of staff against whom they have been made.  I really do not see any evidence that Jones did any of that, at least based on what has come out so far.   I don't have any connection with Welsh Labour or Sergeant (though I originally come from near where he was the AM for), I just can't see how Jones does not have serious questions to answer about how he handled this.

As for criminal offences, again we don't have the full facts but if they are talking about Sergeant groping someone then it really should have been reported - it is a clear criminal offence in and of itself, and depending on the circumstances it may also be misconduct in a public office.  They are serious matters and should be treated seriously, not left up to an organization that doesn't have the capability to investigate criminal offences, which could always be said to have an interest in things not coming out (or at least ensuring that certain people within it are protected) and which has been complicit in a culture where such things have been happening at such a scale that we are now becoming aware of.   Again, I am not saying that the wishes of the victims should not be paramount in whether or not these should be prosecuted (or even investigated criminally), but I do not see any justification in not even reporting them to an independent body that is much better at investigating things than the party is.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

Does anyone know why the allegations against Carl Sargeant weren't going to be investigated by the Assembly?

The Welsh Assembly has a code of conduct for MA's which has a complaints procedure, surely this is the 'book' that things should have been done by.

Seems that would have been in everyone's interest more so than an internal investigation led by Labour HQ which would more likely to be swayed by party interests and whatever way the political winds happened to be blowing?

Damian Green is being investigated by a civil servant and because he hasn't been found guilty he's still in his job.

It'll be important to establish what 'book' was used to investigate the earlier allegations as well, especially given the allegations about a bullying culture.

Also the term _unwanted attention_, inappropriate _touching_ or _groping_ sounds like a phrase plucked out of someone's harassment policy and it appears to have been confirmed that the allegations where 'not in a severe category of transgression'. 

So a quick initial inquiry by a SPAD followed by the sack from Government and suspension from party with no further detail of when, where, who and why you've been publicly branded as a sex pest and no right of appeal till January...


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> As for "_that would immediately make it obvious who made the complaint_" - that is a bit of an assumption itself; if he had done it and unless Sergeant was complete filth then he would presumably remember who he approached, touched inappropriately or groped (especially if as reported earlier these were allegations that had already been made).


Aww.  You're quite sweet in your naivety!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Aww.  You're quite sweet in your naivety!


i suppose the horrific thing here is that the kind of man who does this sort of thing might not remember doing it at all as, to them, it was nothing, and the person they did it to was too insignificant to remember


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2017)

'Unwanted Attention' is a really broad and vague term isn't it.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2017)

killer b said:


> More Kelvin Hopkins tonight.
> 
> Labour MP accuses Kelvin Hopkins of inappropriate behaviour



Was wondering if the allegations that were coming out had come out by now or whether the weekend would bring more news of it. I'm sure we aren't seeing even the tip of the iceburg, but will we end up seeing any more of it?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 10, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i suppose the horrific thing here is that the kind of man who does this sort of thing might not remember doing it at all as, to them, it was nothing, and the person they did it to was too insignificant to remember


People who are inappropriate at work, who abuse the desire most of us have to keep our working relationships viable, do it habitually.   They get reputations as "handsy" or "not safe in taxis".  "Don't get left alone with Bill", they tell the new girl. Because Bill doesn't do anything he'd be arrested for, so if you report him to HR and nothing comes of it, or even if Bill gets a warning, you'll probably want to find somewhere else to work.  

Meantime, Bill carries on treating some of his co-workers like they're there to decorate and titilate his working life.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

agricola said:


> As for criminal offences, again we don't have the full facts but if they are talking about Sergeant groping someone then it really should have been reported



It would have been a breach of WA code of conduct not to contact the police if criminality was suspected and if everything really was done by the 'book' that suggests we're in not a severe category of transgression territory.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

J Ed said:


> Was wondering if the allegations that were coming out had come out by now or whether the weekend would bring more news of it. I'm sure we aren't seeing even the tip of the iceburg, but will we end up seeing any more of it?



Maybe someone will have got round to investigating all those brocialists threatening to rape Labour MPs by then.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 10, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Maybe someone will have got round to investigating all those brocialists threatening to rape Labour MPs by then.



great post


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

J Ed said:


> great post



Thanks. Don't see why everyone else is giving them such a wide berth tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2017)

All the fault of female journalists and 'wilting flowers', apparently, according to Roger Gale:
Tory MP blames female journalists for Westminster sex scandal and describes harassment victims as 'wilting flowers'
Includes the line:
“Nobody makes a journalist go and have lunch with a Member of Parliament and drink".

Translation: it's your fault if you have drinks with an MP, surely you know that going for a drink is an _unwritten contract_?  

Fucking hell, it's not even a case of the 70s wanting their attitudes back - it was never okay then.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> All the fault of female journalists and 'wilting flowers', apparently, according to Roger Gale:



Well that's bollix obviously and technically sexist. 

A lot of people have responsibility and a lot of double standards and self interests are apparent - as per usual.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Well that's bollix obviously and technically sexist.
> 
> A lot of people have responsibility and a lot of double standards and self interests are apparent - as per usual.



And just to be clear pervy men doing pervy things are at the very top of that list.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 10, 2017)

Wilf said:


> All the fault of female journalists and 'wilting flowers', apparently, according to Roger Gale:
> Tory MP blames female journalists for Westminster sex scandal and describes harassment victims as 'wilting flowers'
> Includes the line:
> “Nobody makes a journalist go and have lunch with a Member of Parliament and drink".
> ...



Correct.

Begs the question why a bunch of trade unionist's have placed so much emphasis on the knee touching of adult women mind you?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 10, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> Correct.
> 
> Why is it that trade unionist's appear to be more concerned about knee touching and minor transgressions against middle class ladies than gang rape and gang rape threats against their own do you think?


.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 11, 2017)

agricola said:


> He was told, at least according to the family, that the complaints fell into a particular category that took in offences that can be investigated criminally.  His statement, which you provided, clearly states he was not told the details of the allegations beyond that.  As for "_that would immediately make it obvious who made the complaint_" - that is a bit of an assumption itself; if he had done it and unless Sergeant was complete filth then he would presumably remember who he approached, touched inappropriately or groped (especially if as reported earlier these were allegations that had already been made).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm totally perplexed by your idea of how parties and govt should work to be honest. What kind of independent body should such things be reported to? While keeping the wishes of the victims paramount of course.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 11, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm totally perplexed by your idea of how parties and govt should work to be honest. What kind of independent body should such things be reported to? While keeping the wishes of the victims paramount of course.



I think he means it should be reported to the police. 

Groping = sexual assault. That is a matter for the OB.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 11, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think he means it should be reported to the police.
> 
> Groping = sexual assault. That is a matter for the OB.



I thought that too but seemingly it's only automatically reported if there are serious concerns about the claimants safety. Otherwise they will be advised to contact police only.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 11, 2017)

So I found 'the book' that Jones claimed to have followed. 

He clearly didn't so he has to resign.

https://labour.org.uk/about/sexual-harassment-policy/


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 11, 2017)

First, we will seek written statements from you the complainant and the respondent. At this point the respondent will be informed of the details of the complaint made against them. As part of this process each party will be encouraged to provide any relevant evidence and names of witnesses that support their statement. This process will form the preliminary investigation to establish the matters of fact from both sides.

								  Didn't happen.


The statements from the complainant, respondent and any witnesses will then be provided to the sexual harassment panel of the National Executive Committee (NEC). This panel will be made up of 3 members of the NEC Disputes Panel.

								  Didn't happen.


All statements will be anonymised before being put in front of the panel, so they will not know the names of the individuals involved in the case.

								  Didn't happen.


If the party deems it necessary, at the point the complaint is referred to the panel of the NEC, an administrative suspension may be imposed on the respondent until the investigation is complete

										  Did happen.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 12, 2017)

There really should be two distinct policies/procedures, for "sexual harrasment" and "sexual assault".


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2017)




----------



## Pac man (Nov 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. angry. but you're spitting blood, like this was a personal affront.
> 
> is it?


Youve been told by the Editor, not to responf to ANY of my posts for what are obvious reasons. Please repsect what was an obvious warning to protect any further harm happening.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2017)

Pac man said:


> Youve been told by the Editor, not to responf to ANY of my posts for what are obvious reasons. Please repsect what was an obvious warning to protect any further harm happening.


Yeh. I forgot. You seem to have forgotten too, chuck, that you were warned that any response from you to me would land you with a warning. Indeed editor advised you to put me on ignore.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 12, 2017)

Posts reported.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 12, 2017)

Bad Pickman's.


----------



## newbie (Nov 12, 2017)

well it was a particularly ridiculous post he rolled his eyes at


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2017)

Pac man said:


> There really should be two distinct policies/procedures, for "sexual harrasment" and "sexual assault".


aren't they the same thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> aren't they the same thing?


No. Obviously not. Sexual harassment could be eg unwelcome advances while sexual assault requires actual physical contact.


----------



## 03gills (Nov 12, 2017)

This thread is getting out of hand. I understand that people have strong emotions/opinions on this issue (on both sides) but this is getting too much.

I'm out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2017)

03gills said:


> This thread is getting out of hand. I understand that people have strong emotions/opinions on this issue (on both sides) but this is getting too much.
> 
> I'm out.


A classy opening and departing post


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No. Obviously not. *Sexual harassment could be eg unwelcome advances while sexual assault requires actual physical contact*.



I'm not in any way going to defend Kelvin Hopkin's latest utter sleaziness and out of orderness (his cringeworthy letters to Kerry McCarthy I mean), but I have to say I think this distinction is real, and at least a little bit relevant to his idiocy. 

Not defending him at all. And I appreciate in the earlier revelations there *were* suggestions of sexual contact 

But.


----------



## Pac man (Nov 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I forgot. You seem to have forgotten too, chuck, that you were warned that any response from you to me would land you with a warning. Indeed editor advised you to put me on ignore.


Fair enough, but it wasnt the Editor that advised i put you on ignore it was another member that said "put her on ignore like everybody else" i dont want to put anyone on ignore, lets try to be civil.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2017)

An account of the working environment around Carwyn Jones, by a former spad:
Former insider says Welsh government was 'toxic environment'
Doesn't actually say that Jones manipulated the accusations against Sergeant, but points to a recent hostility between them - and that manipulation was in the air.

I've been arguing that the various commentators suggesting Sergeant was denied due process were jumping the gun - and still do.  But if it turns out that the accusations from the 3 women were in any way used for factional reasons it will be despicable.  As with much of this though, it's about the former _lack of process and reporting systems_ - along with, obviously, power relations - that have lead to this situation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> An account of the working environment around Carwyn Jones, by a former spad:
> Former insider says Welsh government was 'toxic environment'
> Doesn't actually say that Jones manipulated the accusations against Sergeant, but points to a recent hostility between them - and that manipulation was in the air.
> 
> I've been arguing that the various commentators suggesting Sergeant was denied due process were jumping the gun - and still do.  But if it turns out that the accusations from the 3 women were in any way used for factional reasons it will be despicable.  As with much of this though, it's about the former _lack of process and reporting systems_ - along with, obviously, power relations - that have lead to this situation.


they're all a bunch of cunts


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I've been arguing that the various commentators suggesting Sergeant was denied due process were jumping the gun - and still do.  But if it turns out that the accusations from the 3 women were in any way used for factional reasons it will be despicable.  As with much of this though, it's about the former _lack of process and reporting systems_ - along with, obviously, power relations - that have lead to this situation.



How can you say he wasn't denied due process when he is already _dead_? Especially when the absence of the application of due process was the cause of it.

You also state that if the accusations are used for 'factional reasons only then will it be despicable'? Yes, despite this possibility (or others such as a personal vendettas) you were still full square behind the leadership in seeing him sacked, suspended and publicly humiliated in the meantime, with the rule-book tossed to the side.

But what if he was sacked not for personal or factional but for simply organisational reasons: 'to protect the _party _from embarrassment' then that again is OK presumably?

Protecting the party or institution (not the accused) was the motive behind all the historic cover-ups.  And the recent series of 'rush to judgement' calls, with individuals simply thrown from the battlements at the faintest whiff of scandal is simply the flip side of it. Here we have the real 'power relations' you are so keen to bang on about actually in play, and along with hand-wringing fraternity you are lined up on the wrong side of it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 13, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> How can you say he wasn't denied due process when he is already _dead_? Especially when the absence of the application of due process was the cause of it.



Mate. He wasn't executed. A process was taking place. His suicide is not evidence of wrong doing and I'm gonna bet that none of us can say what led him to take his own life. You're being hysterical.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 13, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> How can you say he wasn't denied due process when he is already _dead_? Especially when the absence of the application of due process was the cause of it.


Because the fact that he committed suicide in no way shows that he was denied due process, that simply doesn't make sense. And neither Wilf, nor IIRC anybody else, has argued that due process _*was*_ followed but rather that suspension without giving him details of the accusations at this stage was not_* necessarily*_ a denial of due process.



Joe Reilly said:


> You also state that if the accusations are used for 'factional reasons only then will it be despicable'? Yes, despite this possibility (or others such as a personal vendettas) you were still full square behind the leadership in seeing him sacked, suspended and publicly humiliated in the meantime, with the rule-book tossed to the side.
> 
> But what if he was sacked not for personal or factional but for simply organisational reasons: 'to protect the _party _from embarrassment' then that again is OK presumably?
> 
> Protecting the party or institution (not the accused) was the motive behind all the historic cover-ups.  And the recent series of 'rush to judgement' calls, with individuals simply thrown from the battlements at the faintest whiff of scandal is simply the flip side of it. Here we have the real 'power relations' you are so keen to bang on about actually in play, and along with hand-wringing fraternity you are lined up on the wrong side of it..


That's a total mis-characterisation of what Wilf has argued and pretty unfair. Come on.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 13, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> First, we will seek written statements from you the complainant and the respondent. At this point the respondent will be informed of the details of the complaint made against them. As part of this process each party will be encouraged to provide any relevant evidence and names of witnesses that support their statement. This process will form the preliminary investigation to establish the matters of fact from both sides.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> How can you say he wasn't denied due process when he is already _dead_? Especially when the absence of the application of due process was the cause of it.
> 
> You also state that if the accusations are used for 'factional reasons only then will it be despicable'? Yes, despite this possibility (or others such as a personal vendettas) you were still full square behind the leadership in seeing him sacked, suspended and publicly humiliated in the meantime, with the rule-book tossed to the side.
> 
> ...


Real life is getting in the way at the moment, but I may return to this.


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 13, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Real life is getting in the way



A senior Labour source has confirmed that the policy has been in place for some time.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Nov 13, 2017)

SpackleFrog said:


> Mate. He wasn't executed. A process was taking place.



That the process is only _now_ taking place is seemingly not a problem for some people as long as the process takes place...some time. Even _post mortem_.

Of course he wasn't executed. But then there's lots of ways to kill someone. Self-evidently, the way this was handled is now one of them.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 13, 2017)

Joe Reilly said:


> That the process is only _now_ taking place is seemingly not a problem for some people as long as the process takes place...some time. Even _post mortem_.
> 
> Of course he wasn't executed. But then there's lots of ways to kill someone. Self-evidently, the way this was handled is now one of them.


ffs "self-evidently" bollocks, you DON'T KNOW that and your posts are not helpful
can you appreciate the possibility that he may have been guilty of harassment and or assault and couldn't face the inquiry (and press) and or put his family through it??


----------



## EYEisBloke (Nov 13, 2017)

I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions. 

I'm out.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 13, 2017)

good riddance


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.
> 
> I'm out.


Ta-ra chuck


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 13, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.



I count maybe three IIRC. Just saying. Three is not many.
Also - represent unions? Or represent workers within unions? Completely different thing.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.
> 
> I'm out.


I can't get my head round the fact that you've got 22 likes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 13, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.
> 
> I'm out.


You still haven't said why.... If you cared you'd at least say why.  You actually don't care do you?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 14, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.
> 
> I'm out.



The last two words of your post are most welcome. Bye then.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 14, 2017)

EYEisBloke said:


> I still can't get my head round the fact that many of you unashamedly claim to represent trade unions.
> 
> I'm out.


Until you come back with another user name


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2017)

The mail (sorry) are claiming 'extreme porn' was on Damian Green's computer - 'sources close to the inquiry' type thing - but that the relevant legislation under which he could have been prosecuted wasn't yet in force:
Edit: non-mail version of the story: Porn on 'Damian Green's computer' was so extreme it would now be illegal | Metro News


----------



## newbie (Nov 18, 2017)

_*Metro*_ is a free newspaper published in tabloid format in the United Kingdom by DMG Media (part of Daily Mail and General Trust).

there is no escape bwahaha


----------



## bogbrush (Nov 19, 2017)

Gerry Adams announced he is 'standing down' at the next election.   Inappropriate behaviour in his past, I wonder? Putting his hands on somebody's kneecap?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2017)

bogbrush said:


> Gerry Adams announced he is 'standing down' at the next election.   Inappropriate behaviour in his past, I wonder? Putting his hands on somebody's kneecap?



In two cases of sexual abuse we know that Gerry Adams' behaviour was simply wrong - Independent.ie


----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2017)

Wilf said:


> The mail (sorry) are claiming 'extreme porn' was on Damian Green's computer - 'sources close to the inquiry' type thing - but that the relevant legislation under which he could have been prosecuted wasn't yet in force:
> Edit: non-mail version of the story: Porn on 'Damian Green's computer' was so extreme it would now be illegal | Metro News


The new legislation makes loads of s and m stuff ‘extreme’ & illegal. It was probably some dominatrix shiny boots thing he was into.


----------



## planetgeli (Nov 19, 2017)

He’s probably in to nailing his cock to his desk. And if that’s what he wants, I’d gladly do it for him. With rusty nails naturally.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> The new legislation makes loads of s and m stuff ‘extreme’ & illegal. It was probably some dominatrix shiny boots thing he was into.



"Under the Crime and Immigration Act, it was made illegal to possess images showing acts that threaten life, depict sex with animals or a corpse."


Read more: Porn on 'Damian Green's computer' was so extreme it would now be illegal | Metro News


----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2017)

No, I know, but the new legislation includes consensual s&m stuff, and people acting, pretending to be in pain etc.
Here's the relevant bit of the legislation mentioned in the article, that the article doesn't mention: "Sections 63 to 67 of the Act make it an offence to possess pornographic images that depict acts which threaten a person's life; acts which result in or are likely to result in serious injury.."
 But you never know maybe he really was into animals or corpses.
Still I find it hard to care about what porn he was watching when we know that women on both sides of the house were told repeatedly not to talk about being raped / assaulted by their colleagues.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> No, I know, but the new legislation includes consensual s&m stuff, and people acting, pretending to be in pain etc.
> Here's the relevant bit of the legislation mentioned in the article, that the article doesn't mention: "Sections 63 to 67 of the Act make it an offence to possess pornographic images that depict acts which threaten a person's life; acts which result in or are likely to result in serious injury.."
> But you never know maybe he really was into animals or corpses.
> Still I find it hard to care about what porn he was watching when we know that women on both sides of the house were told repeatedly not to talk about being raped / assaulted by their colleagues.


In the ongoing battle between the plod who carried out the raid and green, it's hard to work out whether it was 'genuinely extreme' or 'simulated extreme'. However, there's this bit from the story:


> Some of the images were apparently so disturbing the CPS was called in to decide if the Prime Minister’s deputy should be prosecuted.


If that's accurate - that the CPS was called in - it suggests the material was something other than consensual s&m. Hard to tell, plod have pulled stunts before around s&m material, but pushing it up to the cps suggests they were confident about the case they were obviously exploring in what would have been a very high profile case (had it gone to court).


----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2017)

Fair enough. If it was indeed film of someone actually being seriously harmed / against their will then it does become relevant I suppose, even if chances of finding out who made the film are tiny.

I'm finding it really odd and a bit disturbing how what I feel are the real stories of sexual abuse at Westminster (the women who came forward to say that they had been assaulted and told to shut up about it) seem to have dropped out of the news.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2017)

bimble said:


> I'm finding it really odd and a bit disturbing how what I feel are the real stories of sexual abuse at Westminster (the women who came forward to say that they had been assaulted and told to shut up about it) seem to have dropped out of the news.


 Yep, Carl Sargeant's suicide seems to have had an impact on the whole story.


----------



## killer b (Nov 23, 2017)

Ivan Lewis has been suspended.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 23, 2017)

Got previous form. Bye bye you shit.


----------



## agricola (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ivan Lewis has been suspended.



TBH its a bit mad how long his name was kept out of it.


----------



## elbows (Nov 23, 2017)

Tories put their foot in it even when its not one of their MPs 

Government minister says Ivan Lewis was suspended by Labour because he's a 'Jewish Blairite'



> In his tweet, Mr Hands said: "Tough action from Labour leadership against Jewish Blairite Ivan Lewis - but just "a chat" for hate-filled 'Ghetto Boy' rhetoric of Kensington Corbynista Emma Dent Coad."
> 
> Mr Hands' intervention was surprising because it is highly unusual for an MP, let alone a minister, to comment on disciplinary matters in another party.
> 
> He subsequently tweeted an apology for his "carelessly worded" remark.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2017)

Mr Hands!
To me, Mr Hands will always be associated with this:
Enumclaw horse sex case - Wikipedia


----------



## mauvais (Nov 23, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ivan Lewis has been suspended.


He's our MP. Known locally as the Invisible Man. Hopefully justice is served.


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2017)

agricola said:


> TBH its a bit mad how long his name was kept out of it.


 His name has been openly mentioned in the various stories about this since the very first one dropped. I guess the complaint mustn't have been made formally to the LP until this week though, hence the delay in suspending him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2017)

killer b said:


> Ivan Lewis has been suspended.



However, not by his neck.


----------



## Poi E (Nov 24, 2017)

Made of brass.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Thousands of pornographic images on Damian Green’s computer, says detective
Not 'extreme' (no abuse no children or animals) just thousands of images. Not that this makes it totally fine but i still wonder where the real story has gone, when 'mp watches porn' makes the top of the front page of the guardian.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2017)

bimble said:


> Thousands of pornographic images on Damian Green’s computer, says detective
> Not 'extreme' (no abuse no children or animals) just thousands of images. Not that this makes it totally fine but i still wonder where the real story has gone, when 'mp watches porn' makes the top of the front page of the guardian.


I think the Carl Sargeant suicide has slowed down the whole story on abuse by MPs, but yes, this is the wrong bit of the story - the important thing with Green should be the alleged sexual harassment. Same time, Jess Phillips gets to the heart of it (  ):


> “If what is being said, which I hope is being submitted to the proper investigation, is believed to be true on the balance of probabilities, then yes it does change things and Damian Green cannot stay in his position,” she said.
> “The pressure is mounting on him. There is no illegality but would you be fired if you looked at pornography on your work computer? The problem for me in all of this is how people use their power to not live by the same rules that everybody else has to.”


And to take it to the next level, it's the fact that he'll no doubt keep his job, at least in the short term, using the 'no, I didn't do it' defence. If anybody in a normal workplace tried that, _after having porn found on their personal PC, that they were actually logged onto, with (presumably) their own password_, it would be P45 time.

The other bit of the story for me is the mix of stupidity and entitlement. I'm not exactly wise to the ways of servers and other IT stuff, but presumably the House of Commons tech systems are set up to detect unusual activity - hacking in particular.  Whilst this isn't that, there is presumably a good chance that his browsing activity was logged somewhere. MPs no doubt have high privacy settings, but he should have at least known his wank sites were being stored in some form.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Just another routine 'politicians don't live in the same world as everyone else'  scandal then, like the expenses one. I don't know, thought there was something more here, that tied in with the me too moment and might actually bring about some change.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Dec 1, 2017)

so 2 outcomes

a) he is lying - Defenestration
b) he has allowed someone else to use his computers/ passwords and given them free access to confidential information - Defenestration

oh and another

c) Defenestration just for the hell of it as he is a twat


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Dec 1, 2017)

It strikes me that sitting at his desk (assuming in a private office) rubbing one out is perhaps the least destructive thing a tory cabinet minister could do whilst at work...


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> b) he has allowed someone else to use his computers/ passwords and given them free access to confidential information - Defenestration


And that's the logic of this: if that's his defence the Cabinet Office should be reminding him of the importance of locking his door, not giving his password to other people etc. Given that everyone involved knows he's lying, I don't exactly see them going down that route. Fucking hell, it's almost a locked room murder mystery.

'Milord, my client, wishes to state that this was a _shared_ w***ing facility'.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 1, 2017)

Nine Bob Note said:


> It strikes me that sitting at his desk (assuming in a private office) rubbing one out is perhaps the least destructive thing a tory cabinet minister could do whilst at work...



Yes, the least disgusting thing he'll do all day.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 1, 2017)

Wilf said:


> I think the Carl Sargeant suicide has slowed down the whole story on abuse by MPs, but yes, this is the wrong bit of the story - the important thing with Green should be the alleged sexual harassment. Same time, Jess Phillips gets to the heart of it (  ):
> 
> And to take it to the next level, it's the fact that he'll no doubt keep his job, at least in the short term, using the 'no, I didn't do it' defence. If anybody in a normal workplace tried that, _after having porn found on their personal PC, that they were actually logged onto, with (presumably) their own password_, it would be P45 time.



I've always wondered why? If it's legal and they're not distributing it, making co-workers watch it, sending inappropriate emails or other creepy shit how is it different to watching a film at lunchtime or listening to music?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I've always wondered why? If it's legal and they're not distributing it, making co-workers watch it, sending inappropriate emails or other creepy shit how is it different to watching a film at lunchtime or listening to music?


Well presumably his browsing wasn’t just restricted to lunchtime but yes, this is a witch hunt. The ex copper who leaked this is a scumbag.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yes, the least disgusting thing he'll do all day.


it's the least disgusting thing he's ever done.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

I wish people would stop saying witch hunt. Witches weren’t a real thing so not really a good analogy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2017)

its not a witchunt. He did, in fact, have a shit load of grot on his work computer. So fuck him. Wank in your own house, not the workplace


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> its not a witchunt. He did, in fact, have a shit load of grot on his work computer. So fuck him. Wank in your own house, not the workplace


Easy to say because it’s a Tory but folk here would be way less vehement about it if it was another party’s minister and next time it will be. And how bad is this? Porn pages can easily contain 30 or more images each so “thousands of images” could represent just a couple of hours clicking through quickwank.com


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Easy to say because it’s a Tory but folk here would be way less vehement about it if it was another party’s minister and next time it will be. And how bad is this? Porn pages can easily contain 30 or more images each so “thousands of images” could represent just a couple of hours clicking through quickwank.com


nope, I remain resolutely non partisan in my judgement of these dirty bastards. You know for a fact C-byns browser history is clean anyway. 
different order of misconduct but you didn't see me reserving judgement when simon danczuk was found out sexting a 17 year old


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Easy to say because it’s a Tory but folk here would be way less vehement about it if it was another party’s minister and next time it will be. And how bad is this? Porn pages can easily contain 30 or more images each so “thousands of images” could represent just a couple of hours clicking through quickwank.com


I had presumed the images had been downloaded, rather than pages visited?


----------



## Idaho (Dec 1, 2017)

All things you view on the Internet are by definition downloaded.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I had presumed the images had been downloaded, rather than pages visited?


Viewed. So look at one page with photo links and you could be viewing 50 images. You could do a thousand in a few clicks.


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. Viewed. So look at one page with photo links and you could be viewing 50 images. You could do a thousand in a few clicks.


They kept using the word thumbnails on BBC.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> They kept using the word thumbnails on BBC.


Well there you go. It could have been 20 minutes of pissed-up browsing. Not saying that’s the case but it’s perfectly feasible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2017)

so you speculate that he's pissed up at work too? I can believe it. Thier bar is subsidised


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2017)

Bet he never cleaned his keyboard, either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well there you go. It could have been 20 minutes of pissed-up browsing. Not saying that’s the case but it’s perfectly feasible.


it appears to have been far more than that, pa. from what was said on the radio this morning he was looking at it if not 24/7 then 20/7


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it appears to have been far more than that, pa. from what was said on the radio this morning he was looking at it if not 24/7 then 20/7


Quite possibly, but this information at the moment is coming from the copper who leaked it. The fact that he’s done so suggests a) he has an axe to grind, and b) he’s a snidey cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Quite possibly, but this information at the moment is coming from the copper who leaked it. The fact that he’s done so suggests a) he has an axe to grind, and b) he’s a snidey cunt.


he's a cop, pa, so b) is definite.


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2017)

Do we have to choose a side?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

Copper or Tory?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Copper or Tory?


not keen on either. but if the tory gets a kicking it'll have more effect than if the copper does.


----------



## elbows (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> not keen on either. but if the tory gets a kicking it'll have more effect than if the copper does.



One is a former cop with multiple sclerosis. The other a (soon to be former?) Tory minister with multiple wankosis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 1, 2017)

I'm on team common decency here and Green's the largest affront to that


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

elbows said:


> One is a former cop with multiple sclerosis. The other a (soon to be former?) Tory minister with multiple wankosis.


listening to him, the copper came across as more honest than the tory


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm on team common decency here and Green's the largest affront to that


He probably is, but for the Maltby thing, not necessarily the porn. That's the other thing; his behaviour towards her is taking a back seat in the news to this stuff.


----------



## binka (Dec 1, 2017)

I think it's funny that someone in the police is trying to fuck over Damian Green, same as it was hilarious when they did it to Andrew Mitchell. In both cases the possibility of it being unfair and/or untrue just makes it better.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Porn pages can easily contain 30 or more images each so “thousands of images” could represent just a couple of hours clicking through quickwank.com


Still something that many people would be sacked for.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2017)

No filters so infosec was shitty, too.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Still something that many people would be sacked for.


He probably will get sacked if there’s any proof but this was nearly 10 years ago so unless he’s been doing it recently it’s likely to be his word against the copper, who is himself now under police investigation for leaking the information.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He probably will get sacked if there’s any proof but this was nearly 10 years ago so unless he’s been doing it recently it’s likely to be his word against the copper, who is himself now under police investigation for leaking the information.


He might not survive the next cabinet reshuffle but that's not quite the same as having to bring his union rep into a disciplinary and worrying about having food on the table at Christmas.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 1, 2017)

Davis threatening to resign if Green goes. I’m seeing some murky hi level plan to derail brexit here.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well there you go. It could have been 20 minutes of pissed-up browsing. Not saying that’s the case but it’s perfectly feasible.


Apparently not:


> The forensic examination found that the material had been viewed over a period of months, the source said, with Green’s email account also being used on the same computer and in close temporal proximity to the sexual material being viewed.


David Davis threatens to quit if Damian Green is sacked unfairly


----------



## Wilf (Dec 1, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Davis threatening to resign if Green goes. I’m seeing some murky hi level plan to derail brexit here.


Wanker unity. This all reinforces May's Cabinet weakness. She's got the Chuckle Brothers sending her memos on how to do brexit and now Davis threatening to martyr himself on the altar of the workplace tommy tank. Good.


----------



## Sue (Dec 1, 2017)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Davis threatening to resign if Green goes. I’m seeing some murky hi level plan to derail brexit here.


Or Davis trying to escape Brexit clusterfuck while looking vaguely principled .


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> Or Davis trying to escape Brexit clusterfuck while looking vaguely principled .


yeh a rat leaving a sinking ship


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2017)

As long as that ship founders in the south Atlantic


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Poi E said:


> As long as that ship founders in the south Atlantic


better not, i'm relying on davis to act as intermediary between the camp administration and the prisoners pioneers in the building of huts on south georgia. and he's not known for his swimming ability.


----------



## Sue (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> better not, i'm relying on davis to act as intermediary between the camp administration and the prisoners pioneers in the building of huts on south georgia. and he's not known for his swimming ability.


Your concern is touching. (I hope you're not going soft on us .)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> Your concern is touching. (I hope you're not going soft on us .)








i hope this picture of the thatcher peninsula, the site of initial canal works, will set your mind at rest on that score.

the first load of tory navvies will be expected to build their accommodation out of locally available wood.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2017)

Sue said:


> Your concern is touching. (I hope you're not going soft on us .)



Pickman's test for swimming ability


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

highlighted area now known as thatcher peninsula
large map of south georgia can be found at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/txu-pclmaps-oclc-10286155-south_georgia-1958.jpg


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

Poi E said:


> Pickman's test for swimming ability







and you're not coming out until you reach the falklands


----------



## agricola (Dec 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Quite possibly, but this information at the moment is coming from the copper who leaked it. The fact that he’s done so suggests a) he has an axe to grind, and b) he’s a snidey cunt.



Just FWIW this latest info isn't from the officer who initially leaked it (that was Bob Quick who Green attacked in his first statement on this allegation), its from a similarly-retired former officer who says he was part of the enquiry.  Obviously they might be in cahoots, though then again there was a bit of gap between Quick making his allegations and this apparent confirmation of them.


----------



## The Fornicator (Dec 1, 2017)

Why should I care about people looking at porn on a work computer?


----------



## hash tag (Dec 1, 2017)

Seriously?


----------



## steveo87 (Dec 1, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Why should I care about people looking at porn on a work computer?


Cos he's a Tory and it's hilarious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Seriously?


He's not called the Fornicator for nothing, you know


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2017)

The thread is a decent guide to the relative... _productivity_ levels of various male urbs, if nothing else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 1, 2017)

killer b said:


> The thread is a decent guide to the relative... _productivity_ levels of various male urbs, if nothing else.


Yeh. I fulfilled my norm today, chuck

How did you do?


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 1, 2017)

I just hope Damian Green didn’t inhale. And doesn’t, ever again.


----------



## binka (Dec 1, 2017)

agricola said:


> Obviously they might be in cahoots, though then again there was a bit of gap between Quick making his allegations and this apparent confirmation of them.


Two police conspiring to stitch someone up? Sounds a bit far-fetched


----------



## Sue (Dec 1, 2017)

Did like Andrew Mitchell defending his pal on Today this morning. You know, *that* Andrew Mitchell.

Andrew Mitchell loses Plebgate libel trial


----------



## killer b (Dec 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I fulfilled my norm today, chuck
> 
> How did you do?


Just two cake sitting vids on my lunch. It was busy today tho.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2017)

Load of old bollocks this, which would be amusing if it wasn't belittling and replacing the real issue, the fact that women working in westmister on both sides of the house have been told to shut up after trying to report sexual abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Load of old bollocks this, which would be amusing if it wasn't belittling and replacing the real issue, the fact that women working in westmister on both sides of the house have been told to shut up after trying to report sexual abuse.


Only if you're being very partial. Do you think only women are subject to or report sexual abuse? The main issue is that abuse is so prevalent at westminster that people are abiding by this injunction.


----------



## hipipol (Dec 2, 2017)

I was stunned by the revelation that it was "legal" pornography - the beeb radio news on at the mo has repeated the "legal" tag three times in one report. Is that because being an MP, it is assumed by the media that we the public would assume it must be truly perverted/insert deviance here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

hipipol said:


> I was stunned by the revelation that it was "legal" pornography - the beeb radio news on at the mo has repeated the "legal" tag three times in one report. Is that because being an MP, it is assumed by the media that we the public would assume it must be truly perverted/insert deviance here?


He should seek the Chiltern hundreds if he won't watch the same sort of porn his cabinet colleagues swear by


----------



## hash tag (Dec 2, 2017)

The beeb were desperately trying not to show bias


----------



## BigTom (Dec 2, 2017)

hipipol said:


> I was stunned by the revelation that it was "legal" pornography - the beeb radio news on at the mo has repeated the "legal" tag three times in one report. Is that because being an MP, it is assumed by the media that we the public would assume it must be truly perverted/insert deviance here?



There was a lot of stories talking about how the porn he had would have been be illegal under the new rules so they were probably emphasising that it wasn't that kind of stuff (includes bestiality but also a lot of consensual bdsm stuff, i don't know the details)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The beeb were desperately trying not to show bias


Not surprised. No one who has seen BIAS porn wants to see it again


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Only if you're being very partial. Do you think only women are subject to or report sexual abuse? The main issue is that abuse is so prevalent at westminster that people are abiding by this injunction.


aye, i should've said 'people' instead of women. I meant this porn 'scandal' thing is a joke, imo, and not very funny given the context.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> aye, i should've said 'people' instead of women. I meant this porn 'scandal' thing is a joke, imo, and not very funny given the context.


Right. So the porn unimportant despite it being a factor in making it such a toxic workplace, in showing that things most people would get disciplined for are condoned, quite possibly being something people have complained of (eg MPs watching porn while their staff in the office). But to you it's an unfunny joke. Not sure you're giving this the consideration it merits.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Yes, i don't care at all if an mp watches porn on their work computer, long as its done in a private office and he wipes his own keyboard. I think the fuss is a ridiculous distraction.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 2, 2017)

You don't give a toss that people are exploited or abused in making porn, that people can be easily offended by it, that an MP that you pay, is doing this instead of trying to run the country which is what he is paid to do. Fine. NEXT.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes, i don't care at all if an mp watches porn on their work computer, long as its done in a private office and he wipes his own keyboard. I think the fuss is a ridiculous distraction.


Yeh. This is the sort of stepping stone behaviour which some people, like you, excuse or condone, but which is a marker of progression on the spectrum of abusive behaviour. If nothing else it also shows very poor security awareness (see eg 5 Ways Visiting Adult Websites Is Bad for Your Security & Privacy). So you've got someone who for more than a decade has been watching porn at work: grounds for concern around boundaries, around professionalism, around security awareness... But to you it doesn't matter a jot.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes, i don't care at all if an mp watches porn on their work computer, long as its done in a private office and he wipes his own keyboard. I think the fuss is a ridiculous distraction.


This view applies only to MPs or anybody? Teachers, doctors, lecturers, civil servants? 

What about the right of other workers not to have to be exposed to this crap?


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

I stand here on a Saturday evening defending the rights of some arsehole tory mp to wank at work . Be outraged , knock yourselves out, I just can't summon the energy to care and think its a silly distraction from the serious stuff, ie sexual abuse in westminster, and elsewhere. It reminds me of that spreadsheet that started this whole thing off, the mixing of the real issue with prurient personal 'oo er i disapprove' stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> This view applies only to MPs or anybody? Teachers, doctors, lecturers, civil servants?
> 
> What about the right of other workers not to have to be exposed to this crap?


Yeh, I'd be sacked if I watched porn at work


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, I'd be sacked if I watched porn at work


Likewise.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh, I'd be sacked if I watched porn at work


Yes, just another routine scandal the same old revelation that they're not treated the same as everyone else. shocking.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

You don't see any connection between a culture that thinks it's acceptable to watch porn in the workplace and the type of sexist crap women have reported?

Two years ago you were calling people apologists for sexual assault, now your defending the right of people to watch porn at work.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> I stand here on a Saturday evening defending the rights of some arsehole tory mp to wank at work . Be outraged , knock yourselves out, I just can't summon the energy to care and think its a silly distraction from the serious stuff, ie sexual abuse in westminster, and elsewhere. It reminds me of that spreadsheet that started this whole thing off, the mixing of real issue with prurient personal 'oo er i disapprove' stuff.



I think it's linked and very much part of the problem. It begs the the question, when someone's been watching porn like 1 minute ago at work, how are they now looking at their colleagues, clients etc. Is their gaze professional, or .. something else? How will they be talking to / acting around people?

It's actually pretty vile, when you think about it.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

It's obviously not seen as acceptable because look, its headline news. A great big scandal.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 2, 2017)

It's not that it's not seen as acceptable. It is not acceptable.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I think it's linked and very much part of the problem. It begs the the question, when someone's been watching porn like 1 minute ago at work, how are they now looking at their colleagues, clients etc. Is their gaze professional, or .. something else? How will they be talking to / acting around people?
> 
> It's actually pretty vile, when you think about it.


And it'd not be a problem if they just watched it at home, for hours every evening, or on their commute, that'd be fine? I don't like porn, don't use it and think it has huge social consequences but what do you think should happen, all MPs and public servants swear not to watch porn ever ? Or is just the work computer thing that's the big issue. Or the fact that its an MP is that the thing?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

Because the work place is a public space. Someone's home isn't. 

I don't believe you're this obtuse.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Because the work place is a public space. Someone's home isn't.
> 
> I don't believe you're this obtuse.



You think he was watching it in an open plan office whilst other people were looking and walking about ?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> You think he was watching it in an open plan office whilst other people were looking and walking about ?


No but that doesn't mean that the workplace is not a public space. There are other workers there. That's why there are all sorts of legislation and rules that apply to workplaces.

I can't smoke at work, I can't use certain language, safety regulations have to be obeyed.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Yes. So its back to the shocking revelation that if he was a call center worker he'd probably have got fired already.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

No it's about defending the rights of workers not to have to work in climate where they are forced to put up with stuff that makes them uncomfortable.

But you know this. Fake crap.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

I'm sorry for not being outraged. Please carry on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2017)

I'm with bimble on this. I also don't like the kind of porn he was using, don't use it, and think it has huge social consequences, but loads of people do use it. If someone in my workplace were secretly staying late at work and knocking one out over porn on their computer, I really wouldn't care. It's funny that a tory minister is in trouble, but I struggle to actually care about MPs watching porn at work if they are doing it when there's nobody else around.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Fake crap.


Whereas your shock about this is genuine. ok.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 2, 2017)

The reason he's not been sacked as far as I can tell is because of the controversy around how the info has come to light. I think if he'd been caught 'red handed' as it were, he'd be absolutely sacked, and rightly so.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Whereas your shock about this is genuine. ok.


Nobodies talked about being shocked apart from you.

I just think that there is such a thing as society, that workers have the right not to be exposed to porn or other crap that might make them uncomfortable. And that by defending this shit you are creating a culture where is becomes acceptable to make your assistant buy you sex toys, tell sexist "jokes", make sexual remarks etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Nobodies talked about being shocked apart from you.
> 
> I just think that there is such a thing as society, that workers have the right not to be exposed to porn or other crap that might make them uncomfortable.


Has anyone been exposed to porn other than Green?


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Has anyone been exposed to porn other than Green?


such a thing as society. And the workers. He must have been doing it in front of them, as you would, not in private.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 2, 2017)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Has anyone been exposed to porn other than Green?


So it's ok so long as he doesn't get caught redhanded? There's still clearly the potential for people to be exposed to it isn't there.

But it's not just the direct exposure is it? Why should people in his office have to put up with him disappearing into his office for ten minutes while he's "engaged" while they try to work?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 2, 2017)

Surely the issue here is not that he might have looked at porn but that he is denying it? Ie he might be a liar. So he might be lying about brexit related stuff? Which might be serious. In the interview on R4 morning news the cop stated that the browsing pattern throughout the day suggested he was working all day at his computer & viewing porn in between work related stuff & sending emails. Otherwise somebody else would have had to have jumped onto his computer & watched porn every time Green popped out of the office which seems a bit far fetched.

Green denied this & denied viewing porn. His mate another tory MP said on R4 lunchtime news said that MPs don’t sit all day in parliament office working on their computers so it must have been somebody else.

I think Green will get away with this & stay in post. Imo the public are long past being outraged by this sort of thing. Most people believe that both police & politicians are lying cunts so the media will fail to raise much steam on this & come the next outrage in a few days it will be largely forgotten. 

I would think most people think the whole front bench is now so toxic that it wouldn’t matter if they were all exposed as liars because everybody knows we are being lied to on a daily basis anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes, just another routine scandal the same old revelation that they're not treated the same as everyone else. shocking.


You're all "nothing to see here" above  all of a part with your oops I don't know what I mean elsewhere.


----------



## The Fornicator (Dec 2, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> You don't see any connection between a culture that thinks it's acceptable to watch porn in the workplace and the type of sexist crap women have reported?


No more than browsing for shopping bargains provokes me into running amok in Oxford Street with a credit card. Are you completely stupid?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> No more than browsing for shopping bargains provokes me into running amok in Oxford Street with a credit card. Are you completely stupid?


do you find shopping or contemplating shopping sexually arousing then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> do you find shopping or contemplating shopping sexually arousing then?


They don't call him the Fornicator for nothing


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're all "nothing to see here" above  all of a part with your oops I don't know what I mean elsewhere.


Please try harder, I'm quite ready to have a fight (and have nothing better to do this saturday evening) but just can't bring myself to get excited about the moral turpitude of some mp looking at pictures of naked ladies on their work computer. This conversation was about whether or not you can rouse any outrage about him looking at porn, in context with the silence about the actually properly disturbing revelations that came out a couple of weeks ago before that bloke hung himself, about people being silenced after trying to report abuse.
You care about the porn watching, I don't. And please don't berate me for not 'knowing what i mean' on that other subject, in which I'm being as brave as i know how, seeing as you'd never get called a terf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Please try harder, I'm quite ready to have a fight (and have nothing better to do this saturday evening) but i just can't bring myself to get excited about the moral turpitude of some mp looking at pictures of naked ladies on their work computer. This conversation was about whether or not you can rouse any outrage about him looking at porn, in context with the silence about the actually properly disturbing revelations that came out a couple of weeks ago before that bloke hung himself, about people being silenced after trying to report abuse.
> You care about the porn watching, I don't. And please don't berate me for not 'knowing what i mean' on that other subject, in which I'm being as brave as i know how, seeing as you'd never get called a terf.


Yeh. It's nothing to do with being brave, when you've been asked to identify what the wider issue consists of you went oh noes I can't. And I'm not looking for outrage here, haven't asked for it. I'm looking for recognition that watching porn at work is wrong. Unless that's your job of course. It creates an environment conducive to harassment. It's nothing to do with the quality of the porn or your view of porn.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. It's nothing to do with being brave, when you've been asked to identify what the wider issue consists of you went oh noes I can't. And I'm not looking for outrage here, haven't asked for it. I'm looking for recognition that watching porn at work is wrong. Unless that's your job of course. It creates an environment conducive to harassment. It's nothing to do with the quality of the porn or your view of porn.


I did not say 'oh noes i can't', I said I couldn't answer in a sentence what the wider issue is with regard to how trans rights and feminism might collide but explained that my concern lies with the whole idea of 'gender identity'  as an innate ineffable personal thing.
If you think that internet porn is, on balance, a bad thing for society then I'm in full agreement, but I don't think this twit watching porn is in any way different from 99% of most porn-watching twits, so don't think this is any sort of worthy cause for alarm or news. Are you free to fight and denigrate eachother all night?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 2, 2017)

How can he properly represent his female constituents when he views them as objects?


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

weepiper said:


> How can he properly represent his female constituents when he views them as objects?


No man who watches porn should be allowed to be an mp?
The 'talent' pool is pathetic enough as it is.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 2, 2017)

Also, surely him feeling comfortable enough to watch loads of grot in his office during work hours is inextricably linked with the general atmosphere of sexual harrrassment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> I did not say 'oh noes i can't', I said I couldn't answer in a sentence what the wider issue is with regard to how trans rights and feminism might collide but explained that my concern lies with the whole idea of 'gender identity'  as an innate ineffable personal thing.
> If you think that internet porn is, on balance, a bad thing for society then I'm in full agreement, but I don't think this twit watching porn is in any way different from 99% of most porn-watching twits, so don't think this is any sort of worthy cause for alarm or news. Are you free to fight and denigrate eachother all night?


The wider issue isn't to do with gender, it's to do with negotiating and discussing intractable problems to reach a solution in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

And I'm free to do what I want.


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Also, surely him feeling comfortable enough to watch loads of grot in his office during work hours is inextricably linked with the general atmosphere of sexual harrrassment.


Yes. so lets ban all porn.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> Yes. so lets ban all porn.


I'm fine with that tbh.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 2, 2017)

Damian Green's Constituency Council sacks 2 employees for viewing porn at work | Evolve Politics


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I'm fine with that tbh.


I wouldn't miss it either and do think that 'free' internet porn is a fucking disaster in loads of ways, which we don't even have a clue what the effects of are yet socially but still. This is not a real scandal its a weird thing between some ex-police man and an mp.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2017)

bimble said:


> This is not a real scandal its a weird thing between some ex-police man and an mp.


Is it not an issue between an MP and his staff, who have to work in the same office(s)?


----------



## The Fornicator (Dec 2, 2017)

You think he's watching porn and banging one out while a secretary is updating the constituency database and his researcher is on the phone?

I'm not sure you're grasping the basics of office porn watching.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> You think he's watching porn and banging one out while a secretary is updating the constituency database and his researcher is on the phone?
> 
> I'm not sure you're grasping the basics of office porn watching.


And I'm not sure you've grasped the basics of doors with handles on either side. And regardless of any of the issues about power, would you really want to work in an office where someone has just been wanking?


----------



## keybored (Dec 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> would you really want to work in an office where someone has just been wanking?



I can't see a problem here.


----------



## tim (Dec 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> And I'm not sure you've grasped the basics of doors with handles on either side. And regardless of any of the issues about power, would you really want to work in an office where someone has just been wanking?



The idea of sitting next to a bin filled with screwed up kleenex dribbling drops of Damian Greene's semen is fairly repulsive, but no more so than the prospect of actually working for Damian Greene


----------



## Badgers (Dec 3, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2017)

Badgers said:


>



Where was Damien green in February?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 3, 2017)

And wtf happened in September???


----------



## Badgers (Dec 3, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> And wtf happened in September???


The fappening?


----------



## sealion (Dec 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Where was Damien green in February?



Convelescence from a minor wrist injury.


----------



## planetgeli (Dec 3, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> And wtf happened in September???



MPs return after summer recess. Habits obviously hard to break.


----------



## gosub (Dec 3, 2017)

Badgers said:


>



Wankers.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 3, 2017)

More than 1000 porns per day. I wonder how many constituency files were accessed during that time, by comparison.


----------



## tim (Dec 3, 2017)

Badgers said:


>



Boys will be boys!


----------



## Wilf (Dec 3, 2017)

Badgers said:


>



Now that they can't spend their day googling moat cleaners and duck houses, the devil makes work for sweaty palms.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2017)

Wilf said:


> Now that they can't spend their day googling moat cleaners and duck houses, the devil makes work for sweaty palms.


Wouldn't be surprised if the combination of moat cleaners and duck houses was some posh slang for a most abhorrent perversity


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 4, 2017)

The only issue left to establish is: From which storey of Portcullis House should he be defenestrated?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> The only issue left to establish is: From which storey of Portcullis House should he be defenestrated?


not too high up, don't want instant death


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 4, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> And wtf happened in September???



what happened in February ?

ETA - sorry missed the previous post


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 4, 2017)

Those figures above show the monthly number not far off treble from July to August, then double again from August to September. 

Weird pattern, particularly when for much of that time Parliament is in recess ....


----------



## Poi E (Dec 4, 2017)

VPN access during recess. Job is never done.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 4, 2017)

Ah so it's ok to contemplate prosecution of retired officers when it's a government minister who is in the frame but not in the many other instances where there have been miscarriages of justice due to police corruption and officers have escaped prosecution due to being retired. Thanks for clearing that up.

Former police officers who leaked Damian Green pornography allegations could face prosecution, says Cressida Dick


----------



## ruffneck23 (Dec 4, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Ah so it's ok to contemplate prosecution of retired officers when it's a government minister who is in the frame but not in the many other instances where there have been miscarriages of justice due to police corruption and officers have escaped prosecution due to being retired. Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Former police officers who leaked Damian Green pornography allegations could face prosecution, says Cressida Dick


Indeed it's fucking rotten , heard dick on the radio this morning , felt sick


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 4, 2017)

Poi E said:


> *VPN access* during recess. Job is never done.



Help me out with what that means please, I did a quick Google but didn't understand the result


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 4, 2017)

William of Walworth  - Virtual Private Network


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 4, 2017)

Cheers for that -- it's still  a bit too technical for me, but a tad easier to understand than the links I found in my over-crude Google search


----------



## BigTom (Dec 5, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Cheers for that -- it's still  a bit too technical for me, but a tad easier to understand than the links I found in my over-crude Google search



In this context it's a way to connect into your work computer and network from any internet connected computer.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 5, 2017)

University of Urban strikes again.


----------



## Louie Gabia (Dec 5, 2017)

Wilf said:


> would you really want to work in an office where someone has just been wanking?


I used to clean civil service offices as a nipper.
All offices have been wanked in, in my experience.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 6, 2017)

Dangers of watching porn on your laptop:

Sorry, moved to page 3588 of "im on ur boardz..."

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/im-on-ur-boardz-wasting-ur-bandwidthz-pt-5.261392/page-3588


----------



## teqniq (Dec 13, 2017)

teqniq said:


> Ah so it's ok to contemplate prosecution of retired officers when it's a government minister who is in the frame but not in the many other instances where there have been miscarriages of justice due to police corruption and officers have escaped prosecution due to being retired. Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Former police officers who leaked Damian Green pornography allegations could face prosecution, says Cressida Dick



Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 17, 2017)

Tory activist in Damian Green case had 'violent threats' after Mail article

Green accused of being behind a hatchet job on one of his accusers. Whilst its tempting to  snigger over the grot on his PC - this is what this is really about; cunts using their power to abuse others and then try and fuck them over if they cry foul.


----------



## tim (Dec 17, 2017)

Jess Philips on how nothing has changed at Westminster as with narrow gaps between parties by-elections are not desired by those in leadership positions.

At Westminster, those accused of abuse still walk among us | Jess Phillips


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2017)

Think that link doesn't work tim (though you can work out how to fix it)


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 17, 2017)

Link worked for me though


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2017)

Tim's editted it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 17, 2017)

Louie Gabia said:


> I used to clean civil service offices as a nipper.
> All offices have been wanked in, in my experience.


One of the best ninth-ever posts I've seen here, TBF


----------



## tim (Dec 17, 2017)

redsquirrel said:


> Tim's editted it.



On sly: a la Damian, as they've started saying on the streets or at least in the Strangers' Bar and the Tea Room.


----------



## 19force8 (Dec 18, 2017)

https://nypost.com/2017/01/13/masturbating-at-work-is-a-doctor-approved-stress-reliever/

Wish I'd thought of that.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 18, 2017)

tim said:


> Jess Philips on how nothing has changed at Westminster as with narrow gaps between parties by-elections are not desired by those in leadership positions.
> 
> At Westminster, those accused of abuse still walk among us | Jess Phillips


'twas ever thus. This is what happens when people start to feel like they're beyond accountability. At best, they'll make a big show of disapproval, find a few token "bad apples" to chuck out, but never, ever address the systemic deficiencies that make this stuff happen in the first place, and stop it being reported/dealt with promptly when it does happen.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 20, 2017)

Green resigns
Damian Green resigns from cabinet
*Damian Green, one of Theresa May's closest allies, has resigned from the cabinet after an investigation found he had breached the ministerial code.*

He quit after he was found to have made "inaccurate and misleading" statements about what he knew about claims pornography had been found on a computer in his Commons office in 2008.

In his resignation letter, Mr Green apologised for his actions.

BBC's Laura Kuennsberg said the PM "had little choice but to ask him to go".

In her written response, Mrs May expressed "deep regret" at his departure.

Mr Green, who as first secretary of state was the PM's deputy, had been under investigation regarding allegations of inappropriate conduct.

He denied suggestions that he made unwanted advances to a female journalist, Kate Maltby, in 2015 and viewed pornography on a computer in his Commons office in 2008.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 20, 2017)

changed to sacked now!
*Damian Green sacked from cabinet*


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 20, 2017)

Sacked, for sure.

I guess that leaves him free to spend a lot more time in his House of Commons office again, with little to do to wile the time away...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 20, 2017)

.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2017)

"For a time Green effectively ran the country" single handedly, as it were.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2018)

looks like kleenex damien isn't the only onanist in parliament
Parliament reports 24,000 attempts to access pornographic websites since election


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

[Forget it -- next time, I need to read a bit more closely]


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> "For a time Green effectively ran the country" single handedly, as it were.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2018)

kabbes said:


> Some heroic maths from the Guardian.
> 
> They took the average number of attempts between June and October, which was 160 per day. Then they seem to have multiplied this by 150ish days (presumably) to get to 24,000 (because multiplying 160 by 365 gets you to well over 50,000).
> 
> ...


*The metrics of mandarin masturbation*


----------



## kabbes (Jan 8, 2018)

Wilf said:


> *The metrics of mandarin masturbation*


Actually, it was a bit of premature calculation on my part.


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

I am rather guilty of not keeping up with the inquiry but I did just notice this:

Child sex abuse inquiry to query whether Gove asked about investigation



> The child sex abuse inquiry is to write to Michael Gove to ask whether he attempted to find out about the release of an investigation into a priest suspected of abuse at a prominent Catholic boarding school.
> 
> The alleged interest of the former secretary of state for education in a police and local authority inquiry into the priest surfaced during evidence given to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) last month.
> 
> Gove, now the environment secretary, denies making any phone calls to the local authority in relation to the investigation. A search of education department telephone records, his office has said, can find no trace of any such contacts.





> The priest, only identified by the reference number F65, is alleged to have had “connections to some quite senior figures”. In evidence given to the inquiry on 13 December, F65 was said to have been the subject of an allegation of oral sex with a 16-year-old boy.





> Towards the end of her evidence, counsel to the inquiry, Riel Karmy-Jones QC, indicated that Winter wanted to raise a further issue. The lawyer said: “There was significant interest from the office of the secretary of state in relation to one individual, F65, a priest who had previously resided at Downside Abbey. How did that come about?”
> 
> Winter then recounted the alleged sequence of events. “I only mentioned it because it was so unusual,” she explained. “I have never experienced it before or since. This was a priest who there were concerns about and it was agreed that the abbot would suspend him from ministry while investigations continued.
> 
> ...


----------



## existentialist (Jan 21, 2018)

elbows said:


> I am rather guilty of not keeping up with the inquiry but I did just notice this:
> 
> Child sex abuse inquiry to query whether Gove asked about investigation




I know it's easy to be knee-jerk suspicious, but given the record of governments in spiking the guns of so many investigations into child sexual abuse, I can't help but wonder what's going on here. I don't think an allegation like this arises with nothing to prompt it, and the idea of a minister of education being quite so insistent about knowing about a child protection enquiry doesn't seem that far-fetched.

We'll never know, of course, but I hope that if this intervention happened, it didn't result in an otherwise valid investigation being derailed. But we know he's quite a noisy Christian, and not above using his faith in his office as Education Secretary (signed Bibles, anyone?), and he's resorted to the Christian-as-victim line before, eg in his Spectator interview (In defence of Christianity | The Spectator), so there's a distinct smell of rat about the whole thing.

Here's a little quote:


> And that’s just for starters. If we’re Roman Catholic we’re accessories to child abuse


Nothing you could hang him with, but something to make you go


----------



## elbows (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm keeping a fairly open mind on that. Though when it comes to Gove and this subject, I tend to have trouble forgetting his interview with Rhodes Boyson many years ago. Theres is some rather awkward innuendo in there at times, although my impression was no doubt affected by the fact Rhodes Boysons name was in some stories of abuse in the press some years back.

Have to fast-forward to about the 1 hour 39 mins mark to get to the Boyson stuff. So many other familiar political faces earlier in the video but who could endure the horror for long enough to sit through that much young Gove? Oh god Max Clifford is on there too, run away.



Pretty sure I posted this much earlier in the thread too, back when it was busy and people were ready to examine every aside and historical cultural artefact. But the years have flown by so I will repeat it.  Its not supposed to be evidence of anything, I considered it a curiosity of the 'sign of those times' variety and some very limited insight into some of the people then and now.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2018)

I see John Woodcock has been suspended from the Labour party, accused of sexually harassing a member of his staff.


----------



## killer b (Apr 30, 2018)

Have to say though: fuck John Woodcock, but if the details in this story are true there's some cold ruthless shit going down right now. 

Labour MP John Woodcock Suspended From Party Pending Sex Harassment Investigation


----------



## agricola (Apr 30, 2018)

killer b said:


> I see John Woodcock has been suspended from the Labour party, accused of sexually harassing a member of his staff.



The Guardian report on this:



> Labour MP John Woodcock has been suspended from the party ahead of an investigation into claims he sent inappropriate text messages to a female former aide.
> 
> The backbencher, a fierce critic of Jeremy Corbyn, had been ordered to appear before party disciplinary chiefs over the alleged harassment, which he has denied in an open letter to constituents.
> 
> ...



Whatever the merits of the case, it would be interesting to see whether this "fuller investigation" has taken place - the suggestion from all involved (including Woodcock in his statement) would suggest that between none and very little of it has up to this point.  At this early stage that sounds very familiar with the investigation into Kelvin Hopkins (literally no action after his behaviour was first reported in 2015, and then very little visible action since he was suspended in November 2017 after the behaviour was reported again), to say nothing of the ones into O'Mara and Ivan Lewis.


----------



## teqniq (Jul 21, 2019)

*bump*

Carwyn Jones not exactly covering himself in glory here.

How the Carl Sargeant inquest put the spotlight on the murky world of politics



> Last week I acted for Bernie, Jack and Lucy Sargeant, the family of former Welsh Government cabinet minister Carl Sargeant at the inquest into his death.
> 
> Carl committed suicide in November 2017 after he was sacked from his cabinet post as Secretary for Communities and Children. Allegations had been made against him, but he was never told what they were. The fact of his impending removal from government was leaked to the media before he knew.
> 
> The inquest concluded on Thursday 11 July, some seven and a half months after it started, having been listed for five days....


----------



## 1927 (Jul 21, 2019)

teqniq said:


> *bump*
> 
> Carwyn Jones not exactly covering himself in glory here.
> 
> How the Carl Sargeant inquest put the spotlight on the murky world of politics


The man is a disgrace of a human being. He has blood on his hands.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

Elphicke is being charged! Dover byelection??


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

Looks do-able to me


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Elphicke is being charged! Dover byelection??



Excellent news.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Looks do-able to me
> 
> View attachment 178235


Brexit will be tempted to put up a big name there (Dover) that could decimate the tory vote.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Usual warning from the CPS:


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2019)

Decision to give him back whip so he could lend May his vote of confidence looking smart there


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Decision to give him back whip so he could lend May his vote of confidence looking smart there


Barwell & co's desperation trumped any notion of decency or integrity.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Barwell & co's desperation trumped any notion of decency or integrity.


Presumably now he's been charged they will have to re-remove whip which should put them giving it back in first place back in spotlight...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Presumably now he's been charged they will have to re-remove whip which should put them giving it back in first place back in spotlight...


Yeah, I'd assume that they'll have to drop him again now. It'll get lost in all the Johnson stuff presumably.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Revealing statement from Elphicke's lawyers describing his alleged offences as "low level sexual assaults"; have to say I wasn't aware that any such classification existed in law. And his local association are banking on the CPS having fucked up.

Classy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Elphicke is being charged! Dover byelection??



yeh by-election if he's convicted. and we won't know that for some months yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Usual warning from the CPS:
> 
> View attachment 178239


where's tommy robinson when you need him?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 22, 2019)

Low level, ugh


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh by-election if he's convicted. and we won't know that for some months yet.


Could well be the other side of a general election by then - what would he do then? The idea of running for MP while awaiting trial for sexual assault is a pretty novel one...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Could well be the other side of a general election by then - what would he do then? The idea of running for MP while awaiting trial for sexual assault is a pretty novel one...


especially when the cps will be positive it's him, they won't want to hoick him into court just on the off-chance of a conviction. be interesting to see who stands by this particular man.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2019)

By the by, Dover was 62% leave.  That, along with a sitting MP charged with sexual offences would likely give the seat to Brexit, at least if there was a by-election pre October (and after that date if we haven't left by then). In a general election, who knows.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

Wilf said:


> By the by, Dover was 62% leave. That, along with a sitting MP charged with sexual offences would likely give the seat to Brexit, at least if there was a by-election pre October (and after that date if we haven't left by then). In a general election, who knows.


Why would it do that? If brexit, tories and Labour were all in contention it could easily give it to Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2019)

Tories are going to need to stand  a proper raving nutter if they want to even think about stopping Farage putting someone up there and potentially opening the gate to labour.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Why would it do that? If brexit, tories and Labour were all in contention it could easily give it to Labour.


Given Labour's equivocation so far, there's scope for Labour to lose its remain voters to the Libs. For the tories, having a by election on the back of an MP charged with sexual offences is a perfect scenario for losing votes to Brexit. Beyond that, what would clinch it would be whether Johnson delivers or looks like delivering on brexit. If he doesn't deliver and the process stalls again, Brexit win is very likely IMO. In a general election, may well revert to lab v tory battle.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

If only there had been a recent by-election in a marginal constituency with an MP charged with criminal offences which could give us a bit of a steer on how this was likely to play out.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> If only there had been a recent by-election in a marginal constituency with an MP charged with criminal offences which could give us a bit of a steer on how this was likely to play out.


The one where Brexit came within 600 votes of winning, without having any campaign on the ground, reportedly?


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2019)

That's the one, the one where there was a close result.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Mirror now reporting tories saying the whip has been re-removed.

May's (formal) 'majority' falling to her very end.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Mirror now reporting tories saying the whip has been re-removed.
> 
> May's (formal) 'majority' falling to her very end.


it's a welcome gift for de pfeffel johnson


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2019)

killer b said:


> Looks do-able to me
> 
> View attachment 178235



Dover has a very active local Conservative Association, and the backing of the local media, though. It's doable, but (according to younger brother, who lives in the constituency and is a Labour Party member) will require a massive effort by the CLP.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dover has a very active local Conservative Association, and the backing of the local media, though. It's doable, but (according to younger brother, who lives in the constituency and is a Labour Party member) will require a massive effort by the CLP.


They might be pleasantly surprised just how much help they'd get with a by-election that might well be the first of the Johnson premiership?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> They might be pleasantly surprised just how much help they'd get with a by-election that might well be the last of the Johnson premiership?


c4u


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> c4u


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Jul 23, 2019)

k...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2019)

Beech got 18 years. That's for the perverting course of justice charges and one count of fraud (criminal compensation payout for Saville allegation) not the child porn. A chunky old sentence.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Beech got 18 years. That's for the perverting course of justice charges and one count of fraud (criminal compensation payout for Saville allegation) not the child porn. A chunky old sentence.


Ah wait there, the mirror reported sentence only for PCoJ and fraud, BBC say includes various child sexual offences


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2019)

Ah fuck just realised I stuck this on to wrong thread


----------



## elbows (Jul 6, 2020)

> He then assaulted her on the sofa, reaching into her top to grope her breast and trying to kiss her, the jurors were told.
> 
> The prosecutor said: "She immediately shouted: 'No!'
> 
> ...











						Ex-MP Charlie Elphicke 'groped woman and sang about it'
					

Charlie Elphicke is on trial accused of sexually assaulting two women between 2007 and 2016.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## dessiato (Jul 6, 2020)

How on earth do these people think they can behave like this? How on earth do they think it is in any way acceptable?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 6, 2020)

dessiato said:


> How on earth do these people think they can behave like this?


Experience?


----------



## dessiato (Jul 6, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Experience?


Sadly, I think that has to be it.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 6, 2020)

Power.


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2020)

Pleased for his victims...


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2020)

Giving some perspective on the Tories' desperate decision to reinstate the whip:


----------



## elbows (Jul 31, 2020)

I'm not sure Odey is the perfect fit for this thread but I will stick him in here anyway.









						Crispin Odey charged with an indecent assault in 1998
					

High-profile investor Crispin Odey said he denies the charge he assaulted a woman in 1998.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> Crispin Odey, one of Britain's highest-profile hedge fund managers and political donors, has been charged with indecent assault.
> 
> He is alleged to have assaulted a woman over the age of 16, at an address in Chelsea in July 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service said.
> 
> Mr Odey, a backer of Brexit and Boris Johnson, was charged on 14 May,


----------



## teqniq (Jul 31, 2020)

I note the BBC dub him a 'hedge fund star'. Fucking parasite more like.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2020)

brogdale said:


> Giving some perspective on the Tories' desperate decision to reinstate the whip:
> 
> View attachment 224298



Un-suspending Elphicke was another one of those inexcusable acts which would have sunk the tory party if we had any kind of functioning political system. May's no longer even at risk of a soon-forgotten PMQ's grilling over it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2020)

teqniq said:


> I note the BBC dub him a 'hedge fund star'. Fucking parasite more like.



Epstein was still 'Financier Jeffrey Epstein' even after his death IIRC.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2020)

Reading up on the verdict Elphicke has now got me feeling sorry for his wife, such a fucking horrendous thing for her to suffer. Yet she is a fucking Tory MP, how much lower can he sink, making me feel sorry for her? Cunt.


----------



## zahir (Aug 2, 2020)

Looks like another one.








						Tory MP arrested on suspicion of rape of parliamentary staffer
					

Allegation about incidents from July 2019 to January 2020 reportedly relate to ex-minister




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## two sheds (Aug 2, 2020)

zahir said:


> Looks like another one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not _another _naughty tory  

It was always said that labour mps succumbed to money scandals, tory mps succumbed to sex scandals.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 2, 2020)

Think I've worked out who it is. With a bit of educated guesswork involved.

Not going to say, but if I do it will be_ before noon_.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2020)

Two years for Chaz


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 15, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Reading up on the verdict Elphicke has now got me feeling sorry for his wife, such a fucking horrendous thing for her to suffer. Yet she is a fucking Tory MP, how much lower can he sink, making me feel sorry for her? Cunt.




she slotted into his vacant seat after he was arrested . how fucked up is that?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> she slotted into his vacant seat after he was arrested . how fucked up is that?



Happens a lot, my MP slotted in to his aunt’s seat and then went on to be health minister like the old evil tory bigot.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 15, 2020)

Two years then  Is that a fairly standard sentence for crimes of this nature? 









						Charlie Elphicke: Ex-MP jailed for sex assaults on women
					

Charlie Elphicke, the ex-Tory MP for Dover, was convicted of sexually assaulting two women.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				





Another predator given a pass by our disgraced government  


> He was suspended by the Conservatives when "serious allegations" were passed to police in November 2017, *but the whip was restored ahead of a confidence vote against then-Prime Minister Theresa May in 2018*.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 15, 2020)




----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 15, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Reading up on the verdict Elphicke has now got me feeling sorry for his wife, such a fucking horrendous thing for her to suffer. Yet she is a fucking Tory MP, how much lower can he sink, making me feel sorry for her? Cunt.


Don't feel sorry for Natalie Elphicke. She is supporting him, saying that his sentence was too harsh.


----------



## Badgers (Sep 15, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> feeling sorry for his wife


She married a Tory


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> Don't feel sorry for Natalie Elphicke. She is supporting him, saying that his sentence was too harsh.




Yeah saw that, also saying that she supports his appeal against the actual conviction, ffs.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 15, 2020)

one down, at least one more predator to go (and the whole world knows who you are)


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 15, 2020)

Badgers said:


> She married a Tory



He married a tory as well


----------



## teqniq (Jan 17, 2021)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2021)

teqniq said:


>




I'm sure the attacker is soldiering on.


----------

