Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Westminster sexual abuse scandals

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.
 
...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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
More revelations.

23167853_10154843933380824_7333184367789671780_n.jpg
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. :confused:
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

He said when he tried to report the assault a couple of months later, he was told by the MP's party that he couldn't make a complaint anonymously so did not proceed.

The party concerned said it took "any allegation of this nature extremely seriously".
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom