• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tory MP charged with rape

Vixen said:
No, sorry that is bunkum. There is no law that says a person charged with a crime cannot be named.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. A judge is empowered to impose reporting restrictions.

BTW removal of 'the whip' does not mean an MP cannot enter the chamber, speak or vote.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.........
Click to expand...

I think the confusion may be between "police bail" and "court bail", the police can bail someone under arrest but not yet charged, whereas court bail is what happens once the charge is made and the person is arraigned to appear in court.
 
catsmate said:
Bollocks. A judge is empowered to impose reporting restrictions.

BTW removal of 'the whip' does not mean an MP cannot enter the chamber, speak or vote.
Click to expand...

Why do you think reporting restrictions should be imposed? Don't come out with the hoary chestnut that the victim needs to be protected as she has said she wants the case publicised.

As Spencer and Rees-Mogg are claimed to have 'sat on' her complaint for up to four months I can't see how she now has a strong case unless medical records back it up as she was in a relationship with him and this will make it harder for a jury to find a guilty plea, given the maximum sentence is life. So it is likely dead in the water anyway. However, that should not have stopped the Chief Whip from suspending him pending their won investigation of his conduct within Westminster Palace where an attack is supposed to have taken place.
 
Vixen said:
Even when a defendant is charged with rape, the chances of being convicted are tiny. About 2% I believe.
Click to expand...
That looks more like the percentage of convictions against reports rather than against charges. A low number of cases make it through to charging.
 
shuttlt said:
That looks more like the percentage of convictions against reports rather than against charges. A low number of cases make it through to charging.
Click to expand...

I think jurors tend to see rape as being strangers attacking random women. When it comes to a woman having been on a date, or between man and wife or within an affair, it becomes much more difficult to prove because of the private nature of such an event. It is hard for the victim to produce evidence under those circumstances without any witnesses or supporting evidence.
 
Vixen said:
I think jurors tend to see rape as being strangers attacking random women. When it comes to a woman having been on a date, or between man and wife or within an affair, it becomes much more difficult to prove because of the private nature of such an event. It is hard for the victim to produce evidence under those circumstances without any witnesses or supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
Certainly it's hard to prove either way and in the case of the majority of accusations there isn't enough evidence for us to know. Such is life.
 
Vixen said:
Don't come out with the hoary chestnut that the victim needs to be protected as she has said she wants the case publicised.
Click to expand...

If this reporting is accurate (and let's bear in mind it's from The Telegraph), then the biggest question I have is why hasn't she named him? There are any number of outlets by which she could do so.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If this reporting is accurate (and let's bear in mind it's from The Telegraph), then the biggest question I have is why hasn't she named him? There are any number of outlets by which she could do so.
Click to expand...



Because if she names him now, and then the CPS determine that there are no grounds to charge him, she's likely to face a defamation lawsuit. She will have been strongly advised by the police (and by her own lawyers, if she has them) not to name the man. If he ends up being charged, his name will be (properly and correctly) reported at that stage - not before.
 
Darat said:
I think the confusion may be between "police bail" and "court bail", the police can bail someone under arrest but not yet charged, whereas court bail is what happens once the charge is made and the person is arraigned to appear in court.
Click to expand...


Yes.

And a somewhat simple way to understand the current situation in this case is just to read any of the media reports (from trusted sources of course): they all refer solely to the ongoing police investigation, and they do not name the man. If this man had been charged, then a) the reports would explicitly refer to the man having been charged, and b) the man would be named in the reports.
 
By the way, mods: could the title of this thread possibly be changed to "Tory MP being investigated for rape"? After all, the current title is materially untrue as things stand at the moment.

Though obviously, if this man actually IS charged at some point in the future, the thread title could at that point be changed again (to include the offence(s) with which he's been charged).
 
LondonJohn said:
Because if she names him now, and then the CPS determine that there are no grounds to charge him, she's likely to face a defamation lawsuit. She will have been strongly advised by the police (and by her own lawyers, if she has them) not to name the man. If he ends up being charged, his name will be (properly and correctly) reported at that stage - not before.
Click to expand...

As, presumably, would the Chief Whip. Yet she is allegedly making statements that the Chief Whip should publicly identify him.

To be clear - I'm not arguing that anybody should identify him. I'm of the opinion that he shouldn't be identified until and unless he is charged with a crime and, for that reason, that he also should not have the whip removed at this time.

I'm responding to the idea that his name should be made public because she is allegedly saying that someone else should make it public. My opinion is that if she genuinely feels strongly that his name should be made public, and that doing so could and would not identify her, then she has the ability to do just that.
 
LondonJohn said:
Because if she names him now, and then the CPS determine that there are no grounds to charge him, she's likely to face a defamation lawsuit. She will have been strongly advised by the police (and by her own lawyers, if she has them) not to name the man. If he ends up being charged, his name will be (properly and correctly) reported at that stage - not before.
Click to expand...

There is a specific law protecting MPs from being named when they are arrested, it's been mentioned several times in this thread. Other people are named earlier in the process (although since Cliff Richards the media has been more careful).
 
P.J. Denyer said:
There is a specific law protecting MPs from being named when they are arrested, it's been mentioned several times in this thread. Other people are named earlier in the process (although since Cliff Richards the media has been more careful).
Click to expand...



1) It's not a law. It's a parliamentary procedure. And it's entirely proportionate and appropriate. Oh and I don't really care how many times it may have been previously mentioned in this thread.

2) Other people are NOT "named earlier in the process". In fact, the custom and practice in England & Wales is to refrain from identifying any person under investigation but prior to any charges being brought (or not brought...), except for in a very small number of circumstances. It's not enshrined in law though. But if you consume UK media then you'll know (but might have forgotten, I suppose) that, for example, if a person is arrested, the police will only supply the name and general age of the person (e.g. "a woman in her 40s was arrested and questioned..."). It's only if/when a person is actually charged with one or more crimes that the person's name and address is divulged.

The case of Cliff Richard (and that of another high-profile case regarding the arrest of Christopher Jefferies in the Joanna Yates murder inquiry) demonstrated the British media and police at their worst. And perhaps you also missed the fact that both Cliff Richard and Christopher Jefferies brought = and won - legal cases of defamation. And that's a perfect example of exactly why people should not be named at the investigation/arrest stage, before any charges are brought.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Why do you think reporting restrictions should be imposed? Don't come out with the hoary chestnut that the victim needs to be protected as she has said she wants the case publicised.
Click to expand...
In the interests of justice.

Vixen said:
As Spencer and Rees-Mogg are claimed to have 'sat on' her complaint for up to four months I can't see how she now has a strong case unless medical records back it up as she was in a relationship with him and this will make it harder for a jury to find a guilty plea, given the maximum sentence is life. So it is likely dead in the water anyway. However, that should not have stopped the Chief Whip from suspending him pending their won investigation of his conduct within Westminster Palace where an attack is supposed to have taken place.
Click to expand...
And this is relevant how?
 
catsmate said:
In the interests of justice.


And this is relevant how?
Click to expand...

It's relevant in that the CPS might decide not to charge the MP - usually on the grounds there is not a reasonable prospect of success [in securing a conviction] - however, that should not prevent the Chief Whip from suspending the MP concerned whilst instigating its own investigation. This is because the woman in question claims an attack or attacks/threats took place within the confines and vicinity of Westminster Palace. So, whilst it might not mount up to a clear criminal offence, it might still be considered a serious breach of a minister's code of conduct and breach of HR policy.

The government's attitude, let the police sort it out, nothing to do with us, is an abnegation of their responsibilities towards the young interns who work tirelessly for their ministers.
 
Vixen said:
It's relevant in that the CPS might decide not to charge the MP - usually on the grounds there is not a reasonable prospect of success [in securing a conviction] - however, that should not prevent the Chief Whip from suspending the MP concerned whilst instigating its own investigation. This is because the woman in question claims an attack or attacks/threats took place within the confines and vicinity of Westminster Palace. So, whilst it might not mount up to a clear criminal offence, it might still be considered a serious breach of a minister's code of conduct and breach of HR policy.

The government's attitude, let the police sort it out, nothing to do with us, is an abnegation of their responsibilities towards the young interns who work tirelessly for their ministers.
Click to expand...

Surely that's exactly why we have police, isn't it? To investigate crimes.
If this was an HR matter, then the alleged victim could have gone down that route herself. Whilst Westminster is still, unfortunately, something of a bastion of outmoded and unpleasant attitudes towards women, I would imagine that there were quite solid procedures set out to combat harassment, as there would be in any other place of work.
 
Vixen said:
It's relevant in that the CPS might decide not to charge the MP - usually on the grounds there is not a reasonable prospect of success [in securing a conviction] - however, that should not prevent the Chief Whip from suspending the MP concerned whilst instigating its own investigation.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. Suspending the alleged offender reveals his identity, and compromises that of the alleged victim.
Simples.
 
Vixen said:
Oh good grief. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Please expand upon you apparent incredulity.

Specifically, please explain how if a) the MP in question is suspended or has the whip removed, then b) that MP would NOT be able to be easily identified (given that it's a rarity for MPs to be suspended etc, and that when they are, it's almost always for political reasons which are widely known as well).

And then explain, in the light of the above paragraph, what would happen if the MP in question is suspended etc, but is then not charged with any criminal offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom