Tory MP charged with rape

[angrysoba]

Why so coy? It's not like he's a member here.

Unless?

I think a lot of the 50-year old rapist members here might start to worry that someone suspects them of being a Tory MP. Can you imagine the shame?

 

[Vixen]

Why did you post this in reply to my post?

You seem to be making a special plea that this MP should be excepted from normal protocol.

I was just reminding you that the ERG and the current government could not give a stuff about protocol so your lecturing us to be careful is misconceived.


Imagine if it was your daughter, sister, mother, or even male relative or friend who is claiming rape and threatening behaviour that put him or her in hospital. They complained to the workplace authorities but yet are now expected to bump into this person every time they turn up for work. However, this is not any old workplace, MP's have a duty and code of conduct to be of good character, more so than the man in the street. You can't stand for election if you have certain blots on your character. IN an ordinary workplace the person being accused - of rape, violence, fraud, embezzlement, whatever - is normally put on garden leave whilst HR investigates their conduct. Nobody thinks anything of it, it is neither good nor bad as this person can turn up with a lawyer to the disciplinary hearing. The outcome might be a slap on the wrist or the sack, or being completely cleared. It really does not cast an aspersion on the person if they are suspended as a result of a serious complaint. So what is so special about this particular MP that you are instructing us to be careful not to name him when this poor young researcher has to go to Westminster and have the distress and trauma of the possibility of bumping into her assailant. If she has made it all up then why would he have anything to fear?

No more lectures racing to this MP's defence, please.

 

[Vixen]

Well firstly, the last line of that Mirror quote, while not actually incorrect, is somewhat misleading:

"Police decide whether or not to name an arrested person based on a balance of the suspect's right to privacy and the public's right to know"

And it's misleading because in the overwhelming majority of cases, that balance is firmly weighted towards the suspect's right to privacy. In fact, it's far more than the suspect's right to privacy: it's the suspect's right to be spared public opprobrium and finger pointing before (s)he has actually ever been charged with any offence.

In the specific case under discussion here, I can't think of any reason (based on the apparent basic elements of the case) why the balance would not likewise be firmly tilted in favour of preserving this man's anonymity at this stage. The police have identified an alleged victim, and the alleged perpetrator appears to be cooperating with their investigation. Even if police are concerned as to whether there may be further potential victims of this man, the correct time to appeal to them would be after any charges are brought in respect of this current case (but before that case goes to trial, so that any potential further crimes could be tried concurrently).


Concerning the main topic of that Mirror article, I think it's important to remember the principle of proportionality. If, say, an office worker was arrested on suspicion of a serious crime, then that person's company would be entitled to know this, and they'd be entitled to suspend the employee pending either a) the employee being cleared without charge, b) the employee being charged but then acquitted in court, or c) the employee being charged and convicted.

But what the person's company would NOT be entitled to do at the point of that person's arrest would be to (e.g.) post notices on every floor of the company's offices informing everyone that (e.g.) John Smith had been arrested on suspicion of assault, and to post the same information on the company's website.

The right to privacy is fundamental, especially in disciplinary cases. However this right to privacy is not impinged here as the Houses of Parliament are on a long summer recess and I expect the police will have finished investigating by then. For now this chap remains on bail until either he appears at a magistrates to plead or he is let off with a caution, or whatever, or just let off - which seems unlikely as it seems doubtful the alleged rape victim has made up the account of various injuries, attacks and threats, although it could be possible ti was some kind of 'lover's tiff' that became physical and with acrimony clouding their judgement - then nobody will be any the wiser that he has had the whip withdrawn as nobody will be doing any voting for quite a few weeks.

Red herring.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why so coy? It's not like he's a member here.

Unless?

Well, it's not the forum rules which make me coy. I'm not a lawyer and have zero grasp of the potential consequences of naming someone in this case.

But on the other hand perhaps there's no harm in mentioning a name which coincidentally happened to get posted elsewhere giving no indication that it was anything whatsoever to do with these matters and any such inference was purely in the imagination of the reader. That entirely unrelated individual was Tim Loughton, a person about whom I know nothing and have no reason to think any ill.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You seem to be making a special plea that this MP should be excepted from normal protocol.

No, I'm saying that in assessing whether or not someone is guilty of something we should at least be cognisant of the facts, rather than basing our opinion on falsehoods and faulty reasoning. This is, after all, a sceptic's board, is it not?

Postulating that his deletion of his twitter account implies that he is guilty is bad reasoning on at least 2 counts: 1) many people in the public eye have deleted their twitter accounts after being subject to abuse on the platform, and many - even most - of those had done nothing worthy of the abuse they were on the receiving end of. 2) he has never had a twitter account, and therefore cannot have deleted the one he did not own.

It's really sloppy thinking and doesn't achieve anything postive.. Anybody posting on this board should know better. It's honestly really, really basic stuff.

So what is so special about this particular MP that you are instructing us to be careful not to name him when this poor young researcher has to go to Westminster and have the distress and trauma of the possibility of bumping into her assailant.

The two best reasons not to name him are: 1) naming him could negatively affect an investigation or potential future court case against him - one example being that it could make relevant witnesses less likely to come forward or answer questions; and 2) due to the knowledge of the nature of their working relationship, naming the suspect could inadvertently also make public the identity of the victim.

So the question is which is better to prioritise - joining in with the gleeful crowing about how we always knew he was a wrong 'un, or ensuring the best chance of him being successfully prosecuted and punished for his crime (if, indeed, he is guilty), and protecting the woman who was brave enough to come forwards?

No more lectures racing to this MP's defence, please.

I was not posting in anybody's defence. I'm arguing for critical thinking, for giving the police the best chance to do their job, and for being compassionate towards the alleged victim.

 

[LondonJohn]

The right to privacy is fundamental, especially in disciplinary cases. However this right to privacy is not impinged here as the Houses of Parliament are on a long summer recess and I expect the police will have finished investigating by then. For now this chap remains on bail until either he appears at a magistrates to plead or he is let off with a caution, or whatever, or just let off - which seems unlikely as it seems doubtful the alleged rape victim has made up the account of various injuries, attacks and threats, although it could be possible ti was some kind of 'lover's tiff' that became physical and with acrimony clouding their judgement - then nobody will be any the wiser that he has had the whip withdrawn as nobody will be doing any voting for quite a few weeks.

Red herring.

LOL

Firstly, withdrawing the party whip (and/or being suspended from the party or kicked out) is about far more than just voting in the Commons.

Secondly, are you at all aware that the allegation here is of rape? And whether you do or not, are you aware that rape (or even a lesser offence like sexual assault) is an indictable offence of great seriousness, which is always tried in a Crown Court (i.e. not in a Magistrates' Court*)? And are you aware that it's impossible to accept a caution for a serious offence such as rape?

Thirdy, whether or not this case results in the man being charged is entirely (and properly) based on a decision made by the Crown Prosecution Service, once the CPS has been shown the police evidence. In order to recommend prosecution, the CPS has to be satisfied that, on the evidence presented to it, there is a significant probability of conviction, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. A case like this will almost automatically pass the second of those tests. So it will all rest on whether the evidence gathered by the police is - in the view of the CPS - sufficient to make the prospect of conviction significantly high**.


* To clarify, when someone is charged with a serious crime, their first stop in the courts system is almost always a Magistrates' Court - firstly for an arraignment hearing and then for a plea and case management hearing. But it's axiomatic that the Magistrates' Court will then transfer an indictable offence such as this to the Crown Court for trial (or for sentencing if the accused pleaded guilty in that early pre-trial Magistrates' Court hearing). But I don't believe that's what you were referring to when you mentioned "magistrates (sic)" - especially when you went on to refer to accepting a caution immediately afterwards.

** There's been talk within the criminal law community that the CPS is now taking a much more cautious approach to charging decisions, owing to a combination of a (slightly) rising court-acquittal percentage and the huge cost (and time) of trials. But it's very unlikely that this will affect their approach to charging decisions on crimes such as rape or sexual assault - as much for optics as for any other reason....

 

[LondonJohn]

The two best reasons not to name him are: 1) naming him could negatively affect an investigation or potential future court case against him - one example being that it could make relevant witnesses less likely to come forward or answer questions; and 2) due to the knowledge of the nature of their working relationship, naming the suspect could inadvertently also make public the identity of the victim.

Both of these are totally valid reasons as to why this man should not be named at this stage. But there's a third - and more fundamental - reason why anyone should not be named at this stage (i.e. during the investigation stage, before any charges are brought, or are not brought). And it's all to do with the last two of the bracketed words in my previous sentence: if the police investigate a person, and they (or the CPS) decide that there are no grounds to charge him/her with any crime, then it will have been extremely detrimental to that person if his/her name had been linked with the crime under investigation.

And this is precisely why (save for a few specific exceptions which are very rarely necessary) the names of people under investigation are not - or should not be - made public. If a person ends up, following investigation, being charged with one or more criminal offences, it is at this point that their name is made public alongside the charge(s).

 

[Vixen]

LOL

Firstly, withdrawing the party whip (and/or being suspended from the party or kicked out) is about far more than just voting in the Commons.

Secondly, are you at all aware that the allegation here is of rape? And whether you do or not, are you aware that rape (or even a lesser offence like sexual assault) is an indictable offence of great seriousness, which is always tried in a Crown Court (i.e. not in a Magistrates' Court*)? And are you aware that it's impossible to accept a caution for a serious offence such as rape?

Thirdy, whether or not this case results in the man being charged is entirely (and properly) based on a decision made by the Crown Prosecution Service, once the CPS has been shown the police evidence. In order to recommend prosecution, the CPS has to be satisfied that, on the evidence presented to it, there is a significant probability of conviction, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. A case like this will almost automatically pass the second of those tests. So it will all rest on whether the evidence gathered by the police is - in the view of the CPS - sufficient to make the prospect of conviction significantly high**.


* To clarify, when someone is charged with a serious crime, their first stop in the courts system is almost always a Magistrates' Court - firstly for an arraignment hearing and then for a plea and case management hearing. But it's axiomatic that the Magistrates' Court will then transfer an indictable offence such as this to the Crown Court for trial (or for sentencing if the accused pleaded guilty in that early pre-trial Magistrates' Court hearing). But I don't believe that's what you were referring to when you mentioned "magistrates (sic)" - especially when you went on to refer to accepting a caution immediately afterwards.

** There's been talk within the criminal law community that the CPS is now taking a much more cautious approach to charging decisions, owing to a combination of a (slightly) rising court-acquittal percentage and the huge cost (and time) of trials. But it's very unlikely that this will affect their approach to charging decisions on crimes such as rape or sexual assault - as much for optics as for any other reason....

No, sorry that is bunkum. There is no law that says a person charged with a crime cannot be named. The claim 'it might identify the victim' only applies to cases where it involves children or other protected family members. Rape victims are always anonymous and the newspapers and media uphold that anonymity unless the rape victim herself waives this. The alleged victim in this case is a researcher in her 20's, of which there are literally hundreds, who do work for the various MP's. It is a traditional job for students and graduates studying PPE and associated areas. So not readily identifiable to the public. He's been cheating on his wife, why should that be our problem?


Even when a defendant is charged with rape, the chances of being convicted are tiny. About 2% I believe.

The MP doesn't have to be named but he should be suspended whilst the enquiries are onging.

If it was you accused of a serious crime by a work colleague, you would expect to be suspended pending investigation so what is all this soft-heartedness towards this particular individual whom I guarantee couldn't care a darn about you.

 

[Vixen]

No, I'm saying that in assessing whether or not someone is guilty of something we should at least be cognisant of the facts, rather than basing our opinion on falsehoods and faulty reasoning. This is, after all, a sceptic's board, is it not?

Postulating that his deletion of his twitter account implies that he is guilty is bad reasoning on at least 2 counts: 1) many people in the public eye have deleted their twitter accounts after being subject to abuse on the platform, and many - even most - of those had done nothing worthy of the abuse they were on the receiving end of. 2) he has never had a twitter account, and therefore cannot have deleted the one he did not own.

It's really sloppy thinking and doesn't achieve anything postive.. Anybody posting on this board should know better. It's honestly really, really basic stuff.



The two best reasons not to name him are: 1) naming him could negatively affect an investigation or potential future court case against him - one example being that it could make relevant witnesses less likely to come forward or answer questions; and 2) due to the knowledge of the nature of their working relationship, naming the suspect could inadvertently also make public the identity of the victim.

So the question is which is better to prioritise - joining in with the gleeful crowing about how we always knew he was a wrong 'un, or ensuring the best chance of him being successfully prosecuted and punished for his crime (if, indeed, he is guilty), and protecting the woman who was brave enough to come forwards?



I was not posting in anybody's defence. I'm arguing for critical thinking, for giving the police the best chance to do their job, and for being compassionate towards the alleged victim.

You are obviously not referring to me here as I haven't mentioned his Twitter account and he HAS taken down a FaceBook page.

Nobody is saying he should be named. However, he should have the Whip withdrawn as a matter of proper due process. If the public get to work out who it is - and how can they when the MPs are all on a long summer recess, so have no means of noting who's had the Whip withdrawn, so what? MP's are expected to be paragons of public virtue (think of police and judges) then it has to be transparent if they are accused of ill conduct. This doesn't mean they have to be publicly named - British media are good at protecting anonymity - I am baffled as to why you believe this individual should be protected from being suspended from high office until the nvestigation is complete. As a chartered accountant, were I accused of a similar crime, my professional bodies would not hesitate to instigate an investigation and disciplinary process and nor would my employers.

Tell me, what is so special about this individual that you race to his defence but not the alleged victim who is expected to bump into him when she goes to Westminister to work. Please don't tell me you are concerned that she might be identified.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, sorry that is bunkum. There is no law that says a person charged with a crime cannot be named. The claim 'it might identify the victim' only applies to cases where it involves children or other protected family members. Rape victims are always anonymous and the newspapers and media uphold that anonymity unless the rape victim herself waives this. The alleged victim in this case is a researcher in her 20's, of which there are literally hundreds, who do work for the various MP's. It is a traditional job for students and graduates studying PPE and associated areas. So not readily identifiable to the public. He's been cheating on his wife, why should that be our problem?


Even when a defendant is charged with rape, the chances of being convicted are tiny. About 2% I believe.

The MP doesn't have to be named but he should be suspended whilst the enquiries are onging.

If it was you accused of a serious crime by a work colleague, you would expect to be suspended pending investigation so what is all this soft-heartedness towards this particular individual whom I guarantee couldn't care a darn about you.

More comprehension issues I see.

We are not talking here about someone who's been charged with a criminal offence. You do know that, right?

If and when this man is charged, then a) he will, without a shadow of a doubt, be named; and b) he will, without a shadow of a doubt, have the party whip removed and be suspended from the party.

As things stand right now though, this man is nothing more than the subject of police investigations, following an allegation of rape. Is this really so hard to understand?

And (as I've said before and as the media are now picking up on) if this man were to be suspended from the party, then that would have to be known publicly - and since it's such a rare occurrence (and since, if the reasons for the suspension are political, they are also known), it would be incredibly easy for the media (and any member of the public, in fact) to correctly join the dots and link the suspension to the investigation.

Oh and your "statistic" on the percentage of convictions in rape trials appears to have been entirely made up. Perhaps you were instead thinking of the percentage of all reported rapes which end up with a conviction?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Both of these are totally valid reasons as to why this man should not be named at this stage. But there's a third - and more fundamental - reason why anyone should not be named at this stage (i.e. during the investigation stage, before any charges are brought, or are not brought). And it's all to do with the last two of the bracketed words in my previous sentence: if the police investigate a person, and they (or the CPS) decide that there are no grounds to charge him/her with any crime, then it will have been extremely detrimental to that person if his/her name had been linked with the crime under investigation.

I do agree with that, but I was tailoring my reply to a poster who seemingly has their knickers in a twist about the idea that this person could be innocent, or that the impact on him would matter if he were.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You are obviously not referring to me here as I haven't mentioned his Twitter account and he HAS taken down a FaceBook page.

Read back over the thread. You replied to my post wherein I talked about his social media accounts (in reply to a post by a different poster) with your long, unrelated rant and when I asked you the relevance you posted the post that was accusing me of defending him.

And, yes, he's taken down one of his two Facebook accounts. You can refer back to my previous posts for why this doesn't necessarily imply he is guilty of rape.

Nobody is saying he should be named.

You literally named him upthread.

However, he should have the Whip withdrawn as a matter of proper due process.

Which would identify him.

If the public get to work out who it is - and how can they when the MPs are all on a long summer recess, so have no means of noting who's had the Whip withdrawn, so what?

So it could harm an investigation, a future trial, and the victim. You're literally replying to the post in which I explain exactly that.

You seem more interested in ranting than thinking and discussing. And since this entire post of yours strongly indicates that you're not even reading what I'm writing, I'm not going to bother engaging any more with you.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are obviously not referring to me here as I haven't mentioned his Twitter account and he HAS taken down a FaceBook page.

Nobody is saying he should be named. However, he should have the Whip withdrawn as a matter of proper due process. If the public get to work out who it is - and how can they when the MPs are all on a long summer recess, so have no means of noting who's had the Whip withdrawn, so what? MP's are expected to be paragons of public virtue (think of police and judges) then it has to be transparent if they are accused of ill conduct. This doesn't mean they have to be publicly named - British media are good at protecting anonymity - I am baffled as to why you believe this individual should be protected from being suspended from high office until the nvestigation is complete. As a chartered accountant, were I accused of a similar crime, my professional bodies would not hesitate to instigate an investigation and disciplinary process and nor would my employers.

Tell me, what is so special about this individual that you race to his defence but not the alleged victim who is expected to bump into him when she goes to Westminister to work. Please don't tell me you are concerned that she might be identified.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this man will inevitably end up being charged with the crime of rape (in fact, you appear perhaps to have convicted him of the crime already....).

It's the job of the police to investigate the allegations made against this man - this is the process which is currently taking place. The police will then present the findings of their investigations to the CPS, which will decide whether or not to authorise charges.

Now, Vixen: what if there's no real evidence to support the allegations against this man? After all, as things stand right now, we (the public and the media) have no idea about the credibility and reliability of the allegations. They may be very credible and reliable, as indicated by the strength of the evidence. But they also may not. We will only really know the answer to that question when the decision is taken to charge this man or not to charge him.

And if there is insufficient evidence to warrant any criminal charges, then do you think it would have been right and proper to have allowed the man's name to become public in relation to the allegations? "So what?" was your apparent answer to this question.......

In addition, I can guarantee you that if a chartered accountant

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed material which may lead to jigsaw identification of an ISF member and thereby be breach of rule 8

were to be in a similar position (i.e. the subject of a police investigation following allegations, but prior to any charges being brought), he or she would not be having their chartered status revoked or having their name being made public. If he or she ended up being charged, then it would be a different matter. But that's not where things stand right now.

 

[Tolls]

As things stand right now though, this man is nothing more than the subject of police investigations, following an allegation of rape. Is this really so hard to understand?

This bit, here.
We are currently at the "a man is helping the police with their enquiries" stage, as mentioned earlier in the thread (IIRC).

 

[Vixen]

More comprehension issues I see.

We are not talking here about someone who's been charged with a criminal offence. You do know that, right?

If and when this man is charged, then a) he will, without a shadow of a doubt, be named; and b) he will, without a shadow of a doubt, have the party whip removed and be suspended from the party.

As things stand right now though, this man is nothing more than the subject of police investigations, following an allegation of rape. Is this really so hard to understand?

And (as I've said before and as the media are now picking up on) if this man were to be suspended from the party, then that would have to be known publicly - and since it's such a rare occurrence (and since, if the reasons for the suspension are political, they are also known), it would be incredibly easy for the media (and any member of the public, in fact) to correctly join the dots and link the suspension to the investigation.

Oh and your "statistic" on the percentage of convictions in rape trials appears to have been entirely made up. Perhaps you were instead thinking of the percentage of all reported rapes which end up with a conviction?

The papers are reporting that this individual MP is on bail.

Bail. You can be released on bail at the police station after you've been charged. This means you will be able to go home until your court hearing. If you are given bail, you might have to agree to conditions like: living at a particular address.

UK gov.

This suggests he has been charged. Yet the government keeps saying that it is 'up to the police to investigate'. IMV they are quite wrong in believing it has nothing to do with them. The Murdoch MSM won't publish the news as it doesn't suit its agenda.

 

[Vixen]

Read back over the thread. You replied to my post wherein I talked about his social media accounts (in reply to a post by a different poster) with your long, unrelated rant and when I asked you the relevance you posted the post that was accusing me of defending him.

And, yes, he's taken down one of his two Facebook accounts. You can refer back to my previous posts for why this doesn't necessarily imply he is guilty of rape.



You literally named him upthread.



Which would identify him.



So it could harm an investigation, a future trial, and the victim. You're literally replying to the post in which I explain exactly that.

You seem more interested in ranting than thinking and discussing. And since this entire post of yours strongly indicates that you're not even reading what I'm writing, I'm not going to bother engaging any more with you.

Absolute nonsense. Alex Salmond was named. What is special about this guy? Being named is not essential it is the fact that Rees-Mogg and Spencer have tried to cover it up instead of dealing with it properly. Sitting on the matter for one to four months is deplorable and despicable conduct by people who are supposed to be upright citizens being an example to all of us.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do agree with that, but I was tailoring my reply to a poster who seemingly has their knickers in a twist about the idea that this person could be innocent, or that the impact on him would matter if he were.

Yes, agreed. And it's a good job that nobody espousing this "no smoke without fire" approach is allowed anywhere near the real machinery of criminal justice. It appears that concepts such as due process and habeas corpus are foreign to such people....

 

[Vixen]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this man will inevitably end up being charged with the crime of rape (in fact, you appear perhaps to have convicted him of the crime already....).

It's the job of the police to investigate the allegations made against this man - this is the process which is currently taking place. The police will then present the findings of their investigations to the CPS, which will decide whether or not to authorise charges.

Now, Vixen: what if there's no real evidence to support the allegations against this man? After all, as things stand right now, we (the public and the media) have no idea about the credibility and reliability of the allegations. They may be very credible and reliable, as indicated by the strength of the evidence. But they also may not. We will only really know the answer to that question when the decision is taken to charge this man or not to charge him.

And if there is insufficient evidence to warrant any criminal charges, then do you think it would have been right and proper to have allowed the man's name to become public in relation to the allegations? "So what?" was your apparent answer to this question.......

In addition, I can guarantee you that if a chartered accountant

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with earlier mod action

were to be in a similar position (i.e. the subject of a police investigation following allegations, but prior to any charges being brought), he or she would not be having their chartered status revoked or having their name being made public. If he or she ended up being charged, then it would be a different matter. But that's not where things stand right now.

He's on bail. All professional bodies (law, medicine accountancy) make public their disciplinary findings.

 

[LondonJohn]

Absolute nonsense. Alex Salmond was named. What is special about this guy? Being named is not essential it is the fact that Rees-Mogg and Spencer have tried to cover it up instead of dealing with it properly. Sitting on the matter for one to four months is deplorable and despicable conduct by people who are supposed to be upright citizens being an example to all of us.

Seriously? Do you still not understand the difference between being investigated and being charged? Do you not know that Salmond was actually charged with those criminal offences?

Sheesh.

 

[LondonJohn]

He's on bail. All professional bodies (law, medicine accountancy) make public their disciplinary findings.

What does the fact that he's on bail have to do with anything? Do you actually believe that the notion of being bailed somehow implies culpability? Do you know that a person can be bailed post-arrest but pre-charging (as is the case with this man), or a person can be bailed post-charging (as is not currently the case with this man)? And do you know that the former of those two scenarios does not carry with it any linkage to culpability?

As for your bit about disciplinary findings by professional bodies, it's entirely irrelevant. Once again: if a person is merely being investigated but has not been charged, then there's no cause for disciplinary proceedings. However, if a person IS charged, then of course disciplinary proceedings come into play. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Again: sheesh.........