Vocal Voices

Apparently an MP is under police investigation on suspicion of indecent assault, sexual assault and rape. He has not been named, which is correct, but he has been banned from the parliamentary estate during the investigation. That is also correct.

Just as shocking is the news that 56 MPs have allegations against them for various acts of sexual misconduct. They should also be banned from parliament until any investigations into the allegations are completed. Some will have no case to answer, but others will not.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for a victim to see their (alleged) attackers walking about their place of work on a daily basis.

There is the element of innocence before guilt is proven. MP's attendance and voting records are a matter of public viewing. It would not be very had to find out which MP's were accused.

If it were not for the fairly recent implosion of several rape cases, where it turned out that the claims of rape had been a simple matter of spite and the best way to "get back" at the person, I would be more inclined to go with the exclusion. But where the defendant denies the claims, we have an accuser and a defendant.

If your principle says MP's can be excluded from parliament simply by the accusation, I could see an attack on government by trying to exclude enough MP's simply by accusations. If you consider the last government with, sometimes, a very few seats between a majority and minority, this gives a malicious body the ability to impact the functioning of our government.

It is a hard call. Plenty of these MP's act like entitled scum who can do pretty much whatever they want. Which leads to wanting to put controls on them. But the consequences of those controls are not always easy to predict if we have a knee jerk reaction to one or two bad apples.

We have to avoid knee jerk reactions. Witness Blair and the "the hand guns were to blame for Dunblane, ban the hand guns". At which point half the thousands of illegal hand guns wound up on the black market and into criminals hands. They were safe where they were, now they are anything but safe.

I agree with you both to an extent.
It is right that the MP isn't named now. Diverging slightly, 18 (I think) people were charged with historical sexual abuse in Wakefield a few years ago, but were not named. And as far as I'm aware, still haven't been. Open justice eh?
While it's still just an accusation it is right to be anonymous imo.
But looking at the House of Commons with all the expenses fiddling, sexual misconduct, lying, threatening (one female MP recently threatened to throw acid in the face of another woman) you have to wonder what sort of person enters politics; because there seem to be a lot of wrong 'uns in it.

cromwell wrote:you have to wonder what sort of person enters politics

Today we are growing a lot of Woke Snowflakes who aren't too keen on work.

IMO threatening to throw acid in the face of anyone is threatening behaviour, something which should merit a warning for the first offence and an ASBO if repeated. MP with ASBO, IMO, should be suspended on no pay till the ASBO was spent and automatically deselected for the next election.

Only then will we get the type of people we deserve in Parliament. There should be no antisocial behaviour in Parliament, that is not what Parliament is for. I know it goes on but it needs to be torn out at the roots.

I know it is a case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and the Turkeys would need to vote for Christmas the way they behave. But it does need to happen. Unfortunately the only way I can see it happening is for a pressure group party to gather enough votes to threaten an election result and I don't think toerags in parliament has the same traction as Brexit.

Innocent until proved guilty is why they should not be named, but being suspended until such innocence is established should be fine. Knowing the suspension is liable should MPs misbehave might concentrate minds.

There is no indication that the accused are from one party making it incumbent on all parties to get to grips with these problems.

However, if the accusations are proved to be unfounded and malicious I have no problem with the false accusers being named and shamed.

Yes, Cromwell, there are some despicable creatures slithering around Westminster.

We have to wait now to see if the Metropolitan Police formally change anyone. I do agree that the calibre of MPs entering Parliament seems to have dropped drastically over the years. We get what we vote for and what a mixed bag we have got. And the suggestion is that 16 year olds should be given the vote - I shudder to think what would arrive in the House of Commons purporting to represent us.

No WM I never thought one party. There are these kinds on all sides unfortunately.

Meds, the whole 16 year old issue can only be resolved by making 16 year old's legal adults. In Scotland a 16 year old is a legal adult and can get married and be prosecuted in the courts as a full adult. However that same 16 year old cannot join the force as an adult nor vote in the Westminster parliament. Because in the rest of the UK 16 is not a legal adult age.

My take would be to revise Scottish law upwards generally. But there are some Scots kids who actually need the full force of adult law at 16 and I have seen the damage they can do. So I'm somewhat conflicted. Unless a 16 year old is actually engaging in life as an adult, I see no reason for them to vote.

Nevertheless the denizens of Westminster need a short sharp lesson in the difference between a contribution and a commitment. Ham and Eggs, the Chicken makes a contribution. MP's make a commitment and they need to know it.

I have no idea when a child is classed as an adult in England Suff - child maintenance is paid up until the age of 20 in some cases. By that I age I had just got married and we had put a deposit down on a house!

medsec222 wrote:I have no idea when a child is classed as an adult in England Suff - child maintenance is paid up until the age of 20 in some cases. By that I age I had just got married and we had put a deposit down on a house!

18 you become an adult in the eyes of the law. However maintenance covers into full time further education because the "adult" child is still dependent. They still get the vote at 18 though.

When we stopped the vote being for people who owned property, we opened up the voting system to a vast host of people who don't really know how the country works. The same "reasons" for not allowing people without property, or people under 21, or "women" to vote; are also being trotted out for the 16 year old's.

I would contend that a 19 year old in further education, living at home, not doing any work, is likely to be as oblivious as a 16 year old. But the law is 18 and that's the end of it.

However, giving the vote to 16 year old's and then telling them that certain MP's are sexual predators or violent, could actually break the voting mould. Because we have brought them up to believe this is totally unacceptable in any form.

So giving 16 year old's a vote might have entirely the opposite reaction that you might think. They are not so politically aware but they have a good idea between right and wrong vis a vis sexual predators and they live on social media where this stuff gets out.

Interesting concept.

He may not have been named officially, but his name is out there on the net Allegedly the offences are historic, going back over 15 years ago.