NPR

words are hard apparently

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:03 am

eldanielfire wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:10 am

fishfoodie wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:56 pm

That's a little too convenient.

Did the tweeter say where; "Jess Phillips voted against naming & suspending MPs" ?

In 2016 Parliament voted against MPs being named publicly when arrested because it violated their secrecy.

So when Twitter Tory Boy says she "voted against naming and suspending MPs" he's not actually right is he. And now Jess Phillips is saying that MP should be suspended, because they're a potential danger to everyone else. She's not saying name him, she's saying suspend him: it's people on the other side saying "well, suspending him would out him, and therefore out his victim" that are talking about the MP's identity becoming known.

And the victim is apparently pretty upset he's not been suspended, as you'd imagine.

Here's the relevant legislation [which, for the record, I don't agree with]:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /64910.htm

14)Nothing in this protocol shall be taken to affect the operation of police notification schemes to mitigate public protection risks.

It is not inconsistent to have voted for that piece of legislation and to want the alleged rapist suspended. Especially not for a woman who's campaigned on issues like this for a long time.


Let's have less of the really dumb twitter stuff shall we

Wow. Almost none of that is about my point. I feel for the victim, but I was discussing Jess Phillips position. Right now suspending the MP will clearly be an action that names him here. Possibly identifies the victim. In this case her prior vote is contradictory to her position now and she must have know keeping MPs arrest secret could lead to a situation where the information isn't available to be acted upon or this situation.

Also don't act like Jess Phillips is ms consistent on what she campaigns, she's the MP who complains about violent language and after making a big public statement saying how she'll stab Corbyn. Or boasting to the media how she tells Diane Abbot to "fuck off and she fucked off" and then complaining about the treatment of female MPs but it gets revealed later on to be a lie by Diane Abbott. Or last year when she literally pleaded to stop infighting in the Labour party and then a day later tweets a Labour member is a knob.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:38 am

lilyw wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:26 am

So it's ok to be for something in principle, but against it when it is on a topic that you really care about!

Glad that you cleared that up

You could be for not naming MPs who've been arrested, especially in light of the right to privacy under ECHR, and you could be for the suspension of workers who've been arrested for rape pending an outcome to the investigation. How one deals with multiple reasonable but competing aims is the query

I think the case is someone can be arrested. Someone can be arrested and then released with no follow up. If they are charged should be a different matter. This is were it is most vital that people who have complaints about MPs conduct should have an independent body to go to who can recommend action for suspension.

The Carl Sargeant case is a good example of why Parties should take action cautiously on allegations alone and even have support in place for those suspended on the possibility of it all being false.

eldanielfire wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:11 am

JM2K6 wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:03 am

eldanielfire wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:10 am

In 2016 Parliament voted against MPs being named publicly when arrested because it violated their secrecy.

So when Twitter Tory Boy says she "voted against naming and suspending MPs" he's not actually right is he. And now Jess Phillips is saying that MP should be suspended, because they're a potential danger to everyone else. She's not saying name him, she's saying suspend him: it's people on the other side saying "well, suspending him would out him, and therefore out his victim" that are talking about the MP's identity becoming known.

And the victim is apparently pretty upset he's not been suspended, as you'd imagine.

Here's the relevant legislation [which, for the record, I don't agree with]:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /64910.htm

14)Nothing in this protocol shall be taken to affect the operation of police notification schemes to mitigate public protection risks.

It is not inconsistent to have voted for that piece of legislation and to want the alleged rapist suspended. Especially not for a woman who's campaigned on issues like this for a long time.


Let's have less of the really dumb twitter stuff shall we

Wow. Almost none of that is about my point. I feel for the victim, but I was discussing Jess Phillips position. Right now suspending the MP will clearly be an action that names him here. Possibly identifies the victim. In this case her prior vote is contradictory to her position now and she must have know keeping MPs arrest secret could lead to a situation where the information isn't available to be acted upon or this situation.

1) The victim has expressed dismay at the MP not being suspended. You don't speak for her.
2) You've entirely glossed over the fact that Tory Boy added in "suspended" when it wasn't part of the vote, and haven't acknowledged that you swallowed that
3) Jess Phillips' position is that the MP should be suspended for the safety of the people who work with him, and that isn't inconsistent with constituents not being informed when an MP is arrested. They are actually two different things. The legislation includes provision for public safety issues.

Also don't act like Jess Phillips is ms consistent on what she campaigns, she's the MP who complains about violent language and after making a big public statement saying how she'll stab Corbyn. Or boasting to the media how she tells Diane Abbot to "fuck off and she fucked off" and then complaining about the treatment of female MPs but it gets revealed later on to be a lie by Diane Abbott. Or last year when she literally pleaded to stop infighting in the Labour party and then a day later tweets a Labour member is a knob.

Jesus Christ. Saying she'd stab Corbyn in the front is saying she'd not stab him in the back, which is a metaphor that literally everyone understands as being about briefing against / betraying people, not the violent language that people have been complaining about.

The Dianne Abbott thing... you mean two women colleagues having an argument? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 05493.html - that's quite a long way from the disgusting abuse that women MPs face on a regular basis.

I'm not trying to make out she's perfect, just pointing out that there's usually far more to these dumb complaints - in this case, that Jess Phillips is a bolshy Labour MP who gets it in the neck from Twitter Tory Boys and Corbynites alike and it's usually disingenuous nonsense as you'd expect from those mirror images. Does she fuck up? Yeah, absolutely. She speaks before she thinks sometimes. She has been hypocritical in the past.

But she's a damn sight better than the critics she attracts would suggest, and the fact that they're incapable of providing ammunition against her without being deeply disingenuous (hi Skwawkbox and the asinine 'she laughed when the election results came in' nonsense) should be setting your alarms off rather than prompting an uncritical repeating of their lines.

eldanielfire wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:16 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:38 am

lilyw wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:26 am

So it's ok to be for something in principle, but against it when it is on a topic that you really care about!

Glad that you cleared that up

You could be for not naming MPs who've been arrested, especially in light of the right to privacy under ECHR, and you could be for the suspension of workers who've been arrested for rape pending an outcome to the investigation. How one deals with multiple reasonable but competing aims is the query

I think the case is someone can be arrested. Someone can be arrested and then released with no follow up. If they are charged should be a different matter. This is were it is most vital that people who have complaints about MPs conduct should have an independent body to go to who can recommend action for suspension.

The Carl Sargeant case is a good example of why Parties should take action cautiously on allegations alone and even have support in place for those suspended on the possibility of it all being false.

Well yes, charging is still a matter of public record, whereas people used to be named to Parliament merely upon arrest, that act of naming people was changed in the legislation now being cited to try and illustrate hypocrisy on the part of Jess Phillips.

I don't know the independent body gets us anywhere, if the MP were suspended by an independent body in this instance that still outs them, the query really comes down to which is the greater priority, the right to privacy or the protection of other workers and any ongoing work by the person being arrested being suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, you can't obviously have both. Changing who overseas a decision doesn't change the decision faced. Whether bigger picture there should be an independent body overseeing parliamentary procedures seems a separate thing

Don't suspend them, put them on gardening leave, a decent halfway house, Gardening leave does not need to be reported then but removes them off the front line.

ASMO wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:40 am Don't suspend them, put them on gardening leave, a decent halfway house, Gardening leave does not need to be reported then but removes them off the front line.

That doesn't too far removed from just changing the name of suspending someone. There might be more cover right now to allow someone to say they're at home shielding, but if it's the right course of action it shouldn't need a cover story

The victim, herself, is now urging the Chief Whip to name the MP.

fishfoodie wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:28 am The victim, herself, is now urging the Chief Whip to name the MP.

Prime minister should do that really. Whether he will.......
Source?

Just found the source in the Torygraph

I take it that the shambling, drooling, veiny-schlonged beast in question is still unnamed.

In a democracy their shouldn't be different laws between the rule makers and the gen pop. Either everyone is anonymous or no one is. The problems with the paedophile ring accuser etc was the police not doing their due diligence.

In a democracy, we vote, and if Politicians can get smeared and slandered and destroyed, in an instant, without ever being found guilty, destroyed by any one of their millions of haters, ,many of whom won't give a damn about the consequences for themselves personally, then the democracy won't be worth much.

Politics is a profession like no other.

It is instead of War.

fishfoodie wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:28 am The victim, herself, is now urging the Chief Whip to name the MP.

What has it got to do with her?

She has her anonymity protected. If he is found guilty he will be named, indeed he will be named if he goes to court. The British legal system is about justice, not vengeance.

The Tory party having already worked hard to legalise rape is going to take some shifting from their current position of baton down the hatches

BnM wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:30 am In a democracy their shouldn't be different laws between the rule makers and the gen pop. Either everyone is anonymous or no one is. The problems with the paedophile ring accuser etc was the police not doing their due diligence.

I agree with your general point but I’m not aware of any different laws for parliamentarians? As I understand it victims of rape or sexual assault have their anonymity protected by law in perpetuity. Those charged with rape or sexual assault receive no such protection. Clearly, having an allegation made against you, or even being arrested in the course of enquiries is not the same as being charged, much less been found guilty.

On the face of it this may have been mishandled, but that’s no reason to throw away people’s rights in law.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:22 pm The Tory party having already worked hard to legalise rape is going to take some shifting from their current position of baton down the hatches

Go on, I’ll ask. In what way have the tories tried to legalise rape?

Edit - Tories not Tortes

I'm just wondering if it's an explosive baton.

JM2K6 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:19 pm I'm just wondering if it's an explosive baton.

I have edited it

JM2K6 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:19 pm I'm just wondering if it's an explosive baton.

Probably one wielded by the dreaded Trianchulla

ASMO wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:41 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:19 pm I'm just wondering if it's an explosive baton.

Probably one wielded by the dreaded Trianchulla

They’ll find a convenient escape goat I am sure.

Un Pilier wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:02 pm

BnM wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:30 am In a democracy their shouldn't be different laws between the rule makers and the gen pop. Either everyone is anonymous or no one is. The problems with the paedophile ring accuser etc was the police not doing their due diligence.

I agree with your general point but I’m not aware of any different laws for parliamentarians? As I understand it victims of rape or sexual assault have their anonymity protected by law in perpetuity. Those charged with rape or sexual assault receive no such protection. Clearly, having an allegation made against you, or even being arrested in the course of enquiries is not the same as being charged, much less been found guilty.

On the face of it this may have been mishandled, but that’s no reason to throw away people’s rights in law.

Since news broke on Saturday night that a senior Tory MP had been arrested on suspicion of rape, many have questioned why the accused – a former minister, according to reports – has not been named by the press.

The Conservative Party and allies of the unnamed MP have argued that keeping him anonymous protects the victim, a justification that critics – including Labour’s Jess Phillips – have derided.

There is no law that states that the accused in sexual abuse cases has a right to anonymity. But, in 2016, parliament voted to keep MPs’ arrests secret from the public – in legislation pushed through by Chris Grayling, who was then a Tory minister.

The rule – which was debated for less than an hour – stripped the public of any right to know if their MP is arrested. Just one MP from any party voted against it.

Grayling, who was Leader of the House at the time, argued that naming MPs under arrest breached their “right to privacy” under the Human Rights Act – which Grayling had sought to scrap when he was Justice Secretary.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... 016/03/08/

BnM wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:38 pm

Un Pilier wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:02 pm

BnM wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:30 am In a democracy their shouldn't be different laws between the rule makers and the gen pop. Either everyone is anonymous or no one is. The problems with the paedophile ring accuser etc was the police not doing their due diligence.

I agree with your general point but I’m not aware of any different laws for parliamentarians? As I understand it victims of rape or sexual assault have their anonymity protected by law in perpetuity. Those charged with rape or sexual assault receive no such protection. Clearly, having an allegation made against you, or even being arrested in the course of enquiries is not the same as being charged, much less been found guilty.

On the face of it this may have been mishandled, but that’s no reason to throw away people’s rights in law.

Since news broke on Saturday night that a senior Tory MP had been arrested on suspicion of rape, many have questioned why the accused – a former minister, according to reports – has not been named by the press.

The Conservative Party and allies of the unnamed MP have argued that keeping him anonymous protects the victim, a justification that critics – including Labour’s Jess Phillips – have derided.

There is no law that states that the accused in sexual abuse cases has a right to anonymity. But, in 2016, parliament voted to keep MPs’ arrests secret from the public – in legislation pushed through by Chris Grayling, who was then a Tory minister.

The rule – which was debated for less than an hour – stripped the public of any right to know if their MP is arrested. Just one MP from any party voted against it.

Grayling, who was Leader of the House at the time, argued that naming MPs under arrest breached their “right to privacy” under the Human Rights Act – which Grayling had sought to scrap when he was Justice Secretary.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... 016/03/08/

How is that different from the general public?

Are you trolling me now?

There is no law that states that the accused in sexual abuse cases has a right to anonymity. But, in 2016, parliament voted to keep MPs’ arrests secret from the public – in legislation pushed through by Chris Grayling, who was then a Tory minister.

Un Pilier wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:03 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:22 pm The Tory party having already worked hard to legalise rape is going to take some shifting from their current position of baton down the hatches

Go on, I’ll ask. In what way have the tories tried to legalise rape?

Edit - Tories not Tortes

Made it really hard to be prosecuted for rape. If their intent isn't to protect rapists they might like to consider it's what they're doing. It might be fairer had I said decriminalise rather than legalise

BnM wrote: Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:45 pm Are you trolling me now?

There is no law that states that the accused in sexual abuse cases has a right to anonymity. But, in 2016, parliament voted to keep MPs’ arrests secret from the public – in legislation pushed through by Chris Grayling, who was then a Tory minister.

Of course I’m not trolling you. And there is no need to shout.

This is what it says on the CPS website.

“ The court also has relevant powers under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as amended by the YJCEA 1999, schedule 2. The victim in a case of rape or one of the sexual offences listed in the 1992 Act is entitled to 'anonymity' in the press. Once an allegation of one of the relevant offences has been made, nothing can be published which is likely to lead members of the public to identify the victim. The offences listed in the 1992 Act include most offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, part 1.”

So we are agreed about the victim and a right to anonymity. So any confusion arises merely from the rights of anyone about whom an allegation is made. I’ll read further.

Okay, done some more reading. So far I have failed to find details of the 2016 legislation referred to. I have references to various parliamentary codes but not laws. I’d appreciate a steer towards the legislation in question if anyone knows what it’s called.

In general I’m clear that there are no automatic legal rights to anonymity if accused of rape or various sexual offences. However, the courts can and do grant anonymity in some circumstances, mainly if the accused is considered vulnerable (which I assume doesn’t apply in this case) or in cases where there is a credible risk that the victim might become identifiable. I think it’s been suggested that might apply - I don’t know one way or the other.

There’s also the Human Rights argument but I don’t think that’s what we are discussing here.

Given the alleged identity of the suspect, it would be ironic if Human Rights legislation did afford them protection.

Typically most people have a right to privacy in the event they're arrested, thus the police will confirm things like a 28 year old man was arrested and that's about it. Whereas in parliament any arrest had to be announced to the house, and given how many people have access these days to parliamentary workings and how fast that information can be spread they updated their procedures to reflect the treatment afforded to the general public, and to take account of the right to privacy afforded by ECHR

I suspect that parliament used to demand being informed about an arrest of one of their own probably stemmed more from concerns members of parliament could be restricted from enacting their duties if they were detained by the crown, and that doesn't hold now. Whether that's right or not I don't object to what Parliament did a few years back, but it wouldn't be outrageous for a party not to want a person arrested for rape to turn up for work until further investigations result, the question is how that can be done whilst recognising a right to privacy, and there isn't an easy answer

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:15 pm Typically most people have a right to privacy in the event they're arrested, thus the police will confirm things like a 28 year old man was arrested and that's about it. Whereas in parliament any arrest had to be announced to the house, and given how many people have access these days to parliamentary workings and how fast that information can be spread they updated their procedures to reflect the treatment afforded to the general public, and to take account of the right to privacy afforded by ECHR

I suspect that parliament used to demand being informed about an arrest of one of their own probably stemmed more from concerns members of parliament could be restricted from enacting their duties if they were detained by the crown, and that doesn't hold now. Whether that's right or not I don't object to what Parliament did a few years back, but it wouldn't be outrageous for a party not to want a person arrested for rape to turn up for work until further investigations result, the question is how that can be done whilst recognising a right to privacy, and there isn't an easy answer

I think you are probably right on most of that. I suspect that some of us may be conflating the law with parliamentary convention or protocols. I fervently agree that the law should apply equally to all including, of course, MP’s. As far as I am aware it does apply equally. What can and probably should differ is the protocols that apply in different environments.

It’s been said iirc that Grayling rushed through legislation in about an hour in 2016. Really? No published Bill? Second reading? House of Lords scrutiny? I always thought him an incompetent pillock but if he achieved that I may have to re-assess. I have seen a couple of articles that claimed this (or the same article parroted). They may have been quoted on here, but they smacked of sloppy or sensationalist “journalism” to me. Nowhere have I seen the name of this “legislation” and I have searched the 2016 lists for it without success. I even searched Statutory Instruments in case it was one of those. Of course, I stand to be corrected.

What I have seen Is that in 2016 parliament voted to change their rules so that The Speaker would no longer have to announce to the House that an MP had been arrested. Only 1 MP voted against it iirc ; there was a petition against it that yielded 13 signatures in 6 months.

I wonder if the fact that Parliament is in recess has had any bearing on any risk assessments (formal or not). There’s no reason for MPs to be there much is there? I also wonder if the reported “fact” that the MP and complainant were in a relationship makes it more likely that naming the MP would inevitably reveal the identity of the complainant?

The bottom line for me is the justice system needs to do its work. If this MP is charged and found guilty then I hope he feels the full impact of the law. If, on the other hand he is found not guilty, or there is insufficient evidence to charge him, I hope he doesn’t suffer too badly from the “no smoke without fire” conspiracy mobs.

OK:

Those arrested, questioned, under investigation or just complained of have, in general, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of that information. This applies to all offences. The exceptions are usually when the crime is committed in public - like rioting - or when there’s an overriding reason like tracing a fugitive.

The reason there’s an expectation of privacy is that nothing may come of the arrest, investigation etc, and people shouldn’t be hung out to dry on accusations and suspicions alone.

The reasonable expectation of privacy in that information does not apply after charge. Charge is a matter of public record.

In sexual crime cases it can sometimes not be possible to name the accused, even at trial, because doing so will, or will tend to, identify the victim, or alleged victim, who has lifetime anonymity. Sex crimes within families is the most obvious scenario but it can apply in other circumstances.

This has nothing to do with MPs being special.

All these long, academic, legal posts are very boring. Can someone please just out the bastard already?!!

Careful now