Paphos Life

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53630497

Seems that this MP is in his 50s

Should he be suspended on the basis of an as yet unproven allegation?

No, I wonder who it is though....

Uncle D wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:07 pm No, I wonder who it is though....

I’m very curious also, but we may never know, if he takes out a super injunction. The problem with allegations though is people have a tendency to assume guilt before the courts decide.

He can’t be named legally. Plus it could damage the case.

Am I wrong in thinking that when people have been accused of rape their name gets plastered all over the media? Why is this MP any different? Is it because he's regarded as a PIP?

Two points, one innocent until PROVEN guilty. Two, I believe that if the accused's name is plastered all over the media, then so should the accuser's name.

Labour find it shocking, well they would, wouldn't they

Firefly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:35 pm Labour find it shocking, well they would, wouldn't they

So you don't find rape shocking?
Only last Friday a former Tory MP was found guilty of the same offence.

R.W.

That was wrong and shouldn't have happened.

Uncle D

It wasn't the rape that they said was shocking. Of course rape is shocking, if it happened, which hasn't been proved.

What has the fact that a Tory MP was found guilty last Friday, got to do with this thread ?

Road Warrior wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:52 pm It didn't stop them naming Alex Salmond, did it ?

Scottish law is different from English law.

I see.

Firefly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:32 pm R.W.

That was wrong and shouldn't have happened.

Uncle D

It wasn't the rape that they said was shocking. Of course rape is shocking, if it happened, which hasn't been proved.

What has the fact that a Tory MP was found guilty last Friday, got to do with this thread ?

Only that there 'may' be more than one rapist in the Tory party.

David

There 'may' be many in the Labour party, and worse.

Firefly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:26 pm David

There 'may' be many in the Labour party, and worse.

What's it got to do with Labour, it's two Tory MPs? One was found guilty of sexual assault last Friday and the other arrested over alleged rape of a young girl.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Labour, just another red herring to deflect attention from your beloved corrupt Tory Party.

Jim

A Conservative MP was arrested on Friday on suspicion of rape. At the time of publication, he has not been named publicly. Why?

Why hasn’t Parliament named the MP?

It used to be that if an MP was arrested, the Commons Speaker would have to tell the House – either in an oral statement or by “laying” a letter in the House of Commons Library. This meant the arrested member’s identity quickly became public knowledge.

But in 2016, the rules changed at the recommendation of the House of Commons Standards Committee. The Speaker is no longer obliged to tell the House of a member’s arrest, and can only do so if the MP agrees.

The Committee’s rationale was that the previous arrangements were incompatible with a person’s right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights and other elements of UK law.

They said they wanted to bring the rules around naming an arrested MP in line with standard practice for naming an ordinary member of the public in such circumstances. Official guidelines say that police will only name an arrested person if there’s an exceptional reason to do so, like a threat to life.

Why hasn’t the Conservative party named the MP?

We asked the Conservatives why they have not named or suspended the MP in question.

A spokesperson told us: “These are serious allegations and it is right that they are investigated fully. The Whip has not been suspended. This decision will be reviewed once the police investigation has been concluded.”

Why hasn’t the media named him?

Once someone’s been arrested, the rules around what can be published are very strict. The idea is to make sure that if a case ever reaches a court trial, future jurors will not be prejudiced by what they’ve read or seen in the media.

In May 2020, the Court of Appeal endorsed a previous ruling by the High Court that said “in general, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police investigation up to the point of charge”. That case involved the news organisation Bloomberg, who had wanted to report the name of a businessman identified in documents relating to a bribery investigation.

According to the Society of Editors, which campaigns for press freedom, the ruling “that those under investigation by the police have the right to remain anonymous until charged will serve to help the rich and powerful evade scrutiny”.

Whatever you make of the decision, we should remember that journalists hear plenty of rumours in the normal course of reporting. In order to publish them, we have to be confident that they’re true. In a case like this, most media outlets would wait until the person has been named by the police.

And the stakes are high. Publishing something that turns out to be incorrect could result in libel action from someone who was wrongly accused, or even a conviction for contempt of court if a judge thinks what was published might prejudice the outcome of a trial. These rules also apply to ordinary members of the public, including on social media.

Thanks Jimgym.

Jim

I have to say, that I have always found the naming of alleged rape accused, to be very strange. In the minority of cases, where the accusation has been proven to be false, the harm has already been done. I think it also puts off victims who should find the process of taking a case to the courts too troubling. There was an emotional LBC radio show last evening where male rape victims spoke and in the main had not done anything about it and many were now elderly and still harmed. The stigma of being raped still has attached to it a “well, did you do anything to lead him on?” Or did you dress in a particular way. It is a horrendous crime that too often goes unpunished, like paedophilia and others.

Should have been gaoled and chemically castrated. It doesn't matter what party they support as far as I'm concerned.

Jim