MP Arrested this Evening on Rape Allegation

[HarryVegas]

One of the disturbing factors in this story is that Rees-Mogg knew of these allegations a month ago and has apparently done nothing.

 

[DCI_Gene_Hunt]

Its very easy to find out who it is. Took me 2 minutes via google.

Obviously I'm not naming on here.

 

[festa5]

What about your average joe public convicted rapist? As they are certainly of lower standing and morals would expect to see a biggest percentage of them to conservative voters?

The odds suggest it would be a Tory MP simply by he fact there is more than any other party.

Take Eric Joyce convicted drink driver, common assault and child sex offender. The latter obviously after he ceased being an MP but the charge related to video made between 2013-2018 so could have been when acting as an MP. Is it more likely if an MP is charged with one of the above it’s most likely to be a labour one as one had a proven track record?

Not really interested in getting into a debate sorry. I've explained my comment and hopefully clarified that I dont think the conservative party is the "home of rapists" or whatever it was you said.

You have a different view on the Tories quite clearly which is of course totally fine. It's only my opinion on how I see it. Maybe it's an unfair one and I'm sure plenty will disagree with me. I can live with that.

 

[r00fie1]

Interesting that the BBC were at the door of Cliff richard when the cops arrived to charge him with a sexual offence and argued it was in "the public interest".

Yet the BBC are not so keen to expose a public servant - an MP - surely this is more in "the public interest" ?!

 

[Cooper671]

Fes

Not really interested in getting into a debate sorry. I've explained my comment and hopefully clarified that I dont think the conservative party is the "home of rapists" or whatever it was you said.

You have a different view on the Tories quite clearly which is of course totally fine. It's only my opinion on how I see it. Maybe it's an unfair one and I'm sure plenty will disagree with me. I can live with that.

Yeah that’s fair enough. My dinner is ready anyway and then I’m off out!

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I’ve seen people try and defend the Chief Whip Mark Spencer for not removing the whip of the MP to ‘protect the identity of the alleged victim’.

This would seem to suggest that is horse****. In fact it would seem to suggest she has been treated extremely poorly by The Conservative Party in general -


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ges-tory-chief-whip-name-conservative-former/

 

[NYboro]

I’ve seen people try and defend the Chief Whip Mark Spencer for not removing the whip of the MP to ‘protect the identity of the alleged victim’.

This would seem to suggest that is horse****. In fact it would seem to suggest she has been treated extremely poorly by The Conservative Party in general -


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ges-tory-chief-whip-name-conservative-former/

Saw him try to explain it away on last night's news - smug barsteward.

 

[Lefty]

Interesting that the BBC were at the door of Cliff richard when the cops arrived to charge him with a sexual offence and argued it was in "the public interest".

Yet the BBC are not so keen to expose a public servant - an MP - surely this is more in "the public interest" ?!

Well, the BBC that badly wrong, so makes sense they are careful not to get their fingers burned again.

 

[Billy Horner]

Well, the BBC that badly wrong, so makes sense they are careful not to get their fingers burned again.

Not just them worried about getting their fingers burnt. The following extract from the subsequent court case tells you exactly why no broadcaster will now dare to name any individual (especially high profile ones) before they are charged:

"I therefore find that the BBC is liable for infringing Sir Cliff’s privacy rights when it disclosed, by broadcasting, the fact that Sir Cliff was the subject of an investigation for historic sexual abuse and that his property was being searched in connection with that investigation. That means that I now have to go on and consider the question of damages."

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

You may recall, that the BBC ended up having to pay £2m in damages and costs.

 

[r00fie1]

Not just them worried about getting their fingers burnt. The following extract from the subsequent court case tells you exactly why no broadcaster will now dare to name any individual (especially high profile ones) before they are charged:

"I therefore find that the BBC is liable for infringing Sir Cliff’s privacy rights when it disclosed, by broadcasting, the fact that Sir Cliff was the subject of an investigation for historic sexual abuse and that his property was being searched in connection with that investigation. That means that I now have to go on and consider the question of damages."

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/cliff-richard-v-bbc-judgment.pdf

You may recall, that the BBC ended up having to pay £2m in damages and costs.

Who in the Police "leaked" the details of their operation - down to the exact time ,date and place?
Someone had access direct to the "big" office.
It wasnt written on the back of a fag packet.
Interesting.