I'm pretty sure you're right. But, for a political party which just loves to wave the law'n'order stick around...
The Assange/Andrew paradox.That's never held any water though. The law has always been for the peons, not for them.
obvs political offences worse for him than criminal onesDisgraced Prime Minister Johnson removed the whip from 21 rebel MP's to punish them for voting to block a no-deal Brexit,
He has not suspended the Tory MP accused of rape.
I'm pretty sure it's not a criminal offence not to report a crime to the police.
Unless it's by Russian friends, then it's all tickety boo.Not quite true. It's a criminal offence not to report suspicion of money laundering, for example. But that's a rare exception as it is, of course, so much more serious than any other crime.
err yea, ffs, careful people - you may also land U75 in the legal shitWe should be careful here. It's possible that naming the arrested MP will reveal the victim's identity.
With this disgraced government?Not quite true. It's a criminal offence not to report suspicion of money laundering, for example. But that's a rare exception as it is, of course, so much more serious than any other crime.
Though apparently only 4 are regarded as 'senior' not difficult to guess which ones.And everyone of them qualifies as being a dodgy cunt.
The alleged victim of a senior Conservative MP arrested on suspicion of raping a former parliamentary aide has said that she was “devastated” that he was not suspended from the party.
Mark Spencer, the chief whip, is understood to have decided not to take immediate action against the MP until the police investigation was concluded.
Last night the alleged victim criticised the party’s failure to take action despite being aware of the allegations. “It’s insulting and shows they never cared,” she told The Times.
The former researcher, who cannot be identified, says that she was assaulted four times between July 2019 and January this year, including claims of a rape necessitating hospital treatment.
Labour said that it sent a “terrible message” that senior figures were able to secure “protection” through their Westminster status.
The former minister was interviewed under caution at a police station in east London on Saturday after his accuser was interviewed by Scotland Yard officers at a separate location on Friday.
He was accused of coercing the woman into having sex with him while they were in a relationship.
Last week The Times revealed that the woman had raised her allegations with Mr Spencer in April. However, the chief whip did not take any action against the MP and did not encourage the alleged victim to contact the police.
She accused him of evading questions about when he would suspend the whip from the MP. She added: “I felt like he did not take me seriously or recognise the severity of what had happened.”
It is understood that Mr Spencer does not believe that a sexual assault was reported to him in his conversation with the complainant but he acknowledges that she reported abusive behaviour and threats.
The decision not to suspend the whip was taken for fear that the MP could then be identified before the allegations had been assessed by the police.
Jess Phillips, the shadow safeguarding minister, criticised the Conservatives for failing to suspend the whip from the ex-minister. She told Times Radio: “Any organisation — especially one like members of parliament who every day work with vulnerable people, young activists, members of staff — in any other organisation, were this police investigation to be going on, somebody would be suspended while the investigation was taking place.”
Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, said he did not know the name of the MP involved but he was “confident” the party was taking the matter seriously.
Behind the story
Appeal judges clamped down on the naming of arrested suspects recently in a ruling that has triggered concern among media lawyers (Jonathan Ames writes).
In June, three judges ruled against Bloomberg, the US news company, after it named an American businessman under investigation by a UK financial authority.
The Court of Appeal said that there was an expectation of privacy in criminal investigations until a suspect is charged.
Media lawyers fear that the ruling could restrict the reporting of crime and it remains technically legal to name arrested suspects.
After the ruling, Pia Sarma, the Times editorial legal director, wrote in this newspaper of “the need to preserve the scrutiny of police wielding the enormous power of arrest, which can be so devastating for people who are wrongly accused”.
There are also reports that the Conservative Party's chief whip, Mark Spencer, had been aware of allegations - and previously spoke with the alleged victim.
According to sources, Mr Spencer had not known the "magnitude" of the allegations.
A spokesman for the chief whip said that he took all allegations of harassment and abuse extremely seriously and had strongly encouraged anybody who has approached him to contact the appropriate authorities.
It is also understood the Leader of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, was told by an MP in recent weeks about the claims - with sources saying he had said the woman should contact the police.
In the latest case, a fellow Conservative MP first raised the woman’s allegation with Mark Spencer, the chief whip, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, after speaking to the alleged victim a month ago.
Questions will also be raised about the conduct of Spencer, who spoke to the woman directly but took no action, according to the Sunday Times.
It is understood Spencer does not believe a sexual assault was reported to him in his conversation with the complainant, but acknowledges that she reported “abusive behaviour and threats”. He also advised her to go to the independent complaints and grievance scheme (ICGS).
Rees-Mogg did not speak to the alleged victim, but encouraged the fellow MP to advise the alleged victim to go to the police, sources said.
There might be a bit of assisting an offender in the mix though, not that it would ever be pursued.I'm pretty sure it's not a criminal offence not to report a crime to the police.
there really isn't.There might be a bit of assisting an offender in the mix though.
Greg Clark, Liam Fox, Damian Hinds, David Mundell. There's more than 3 people that fit the description. That's at least seven (thereby making speculation on which one even more pointless). Twitter's full of shit.
This won't help the vermin convince otherwise:there really isn't.
Spokesperson:
In a recess I don't see why the party could not have suspended the whip without naming (if that is appropriate?) and announcing to the world that they'd done the decent thing.Whereas I agree the whip should be withdrawn, this would immediately identify the complainant. That said, if he is charged then the person will be identified. Awkward one this.
Sure, but it's silly to have half the thread wondering whether the party has a legal case to answer to over not reporting it, when they don't. They have a moral case to answer if - as it looks like - they just sat on it and did fuck all. But that's a different thing.This won't help the vermin convince otherwise:
Cabinet minister 'lobbied Boris Johnson to help Charlie Elphicke'
Exclusive: PM ‘initially sympathetic’ but was warned against helping MP who was last week convicted of sexual assaultwww.theguardian.com
Yep, all fair.Sure, but it's silly to have half the thread wondering whether the party has a legal case to answer to over not reporting it, when they don't. They have a moral case to answer if - as it looks like - they just sat on it and did fuck all. But that's a different thing.
I'm pretty sure it's not a criminal offence not to report a crime to the police.
Rather than attempting to draw some parallel between rape and speeding offences, it might be more useful to consider why an organisation presuming to be a national political party appears to have no established protocols regarding a duty of care/advice about disclosure to anyone making such a serious allegation against one of their members.Indeed. Drive twenty miles, then spend a week reporting everyone who was over the speed limit, including yourself.
Rather than attempting to draw some parallel between rape and speeding offences, it might be more useful to consider why an organisation presuming to be a national political party appears to have no established protocols regarding a duty of care/advice about disclosure to anyone making such a serious allegation against one of their members.
Nah. The worst it will ever be is a bit of iffy PR, and that's the long and short of it.There might be a bit of assisting an offender in the mix though, not that it would ever be pursued.
Maybe he's a closet heterosexual. You never know with Tories cause they lie about everything.I think that you can remove Mundell from the list.
Unless it's by Russian friends, then it's all tickety boo.