This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Sexual assaults in politics
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 braunstoneagle  the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 02 Nov 17 10.43pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
andi peters? whose lee? bet phillip scophield touched up holly willoughby all in the name of banter. maybe we could start a “celebrity sexual predator list” thread. also theres no way dave benson phillips comes out unscathed
‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| simlaboy coulsdon 02 Nov 17 10.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Is it Martin Peters and Francis Lee ? Will never look at my ESSO coin collection in the same way
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 03 Nov 17 1.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Jimenez
They lacked the balls to suspend Vaz a couple of years back though. Now on the NEC what a party eh' Corbyn wasn't leader then.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rubin 03 Nov 17 1.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Tim Fortescue taking about 'scandals involving young boys'. There's a lot to come, I reckon, proper stuff, not touching someone on the leg or jokingly asking them to buy sex toys.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 03 Nov 17 3.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Labour aren't messing about. Have suspended Kelvin Hopkins as an mp. The complaint was in 2014. They'd ignored it and promoted him in the meantime.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Nov 17 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
The complaint was in 2014. They'd ignored it and promoted him in the meantime. Completely unacceptable behaviour.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 03 Nov 17 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Completely unacceptable behaviour. Yep. Almost as bad as withholding information about people so it can be used as leverage by whips.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 07 Nov 17 2.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Accused Welsh minister kills himself: I guess they were more than allegations then?
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 07 Nov 17 2.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No sexual offences should be tolerated and no offender protected. This isn't about left or right wing, but right and wrong. A rapist is a danger to the public. Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Nov 2017 9.26am) While that may be true it's essential that the offence actually happened. It's also about right and wrong that an innocent person should be protected from false allegations. Also that the maker of the false allegation is made to pay and not just let off. A rapist must be proved to have committed the offence, in many cases in the past it has not been with no cost to the accuser. I would also have a time limit of a month to report, and not re-visiting imagined wrongs years later. An end to ruining a person's reputation after death and access to their estate. No trial by media or the PM.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Nov 17 3.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
While that may be true it's essential that the offence actually happened. It's also about right and wrong that an innocent person should be protected from false allegations. Also that the maker of the false allegation is made to pay and not just let off. A rapist must be proved to have committed the offence, in many cases in the past it has not been with no cost to the accuser. I would also have a time limit of a month to report, and not re-visiting imagined wrongs years later. An end to ruining a person's reputation after death and access to their estate. No trial by media or the PM. I'm not so sure on this, and I'll explain why. Proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult in such cases, and shouldn't serve as our only means of establishing the truth. Certainly, it should serve as proof for sending someone to prison. However, its very telling that in many cases where someone claims totally false allocations, that they do not sue for deformation / slander and libel, where in the evidential requirement is much low (balance of evidence). Freddie Star was cleared of sexual assault in court, but lost a claim for damages on the basis that the judge concluded for the respondent (the accuser) - That there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no doubt that the evidence was that the events in question took place, and that the woman was telling the truth. And that's quite common, a lot of people who's careers were 'ruined by outrageous lies' don't sue their accuser for damages, on advise of their legal teams because they'd lose. Reasonable doubt is a valid defence for prosecution - it doesn't mean you didn't do it, it just means you cannot be convicted of the crime.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Nov 17 3.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
While that may be true it's essential that the offence actually happened. It's also about right and wrong that an innocent person should be protected from false allegations. Also that the maker of the false allegation is made to pay and not just let off. A rapist must be proved to have committed the offence, in many cases in the past it has not been with no cost to the accuser. I would also have a time limit of a month to report, and not re-visiting imagined wrongs years later. No trial by media or the PM. I disagree, because if we've learned anything from recent history, its that stacks of these kind of offences have been occurring and people getting away with it, because of their influence and status. I'm less worried about ruining peoples reputation after death, given how many people seemed to have been able to maintain their reputation in life whilst committing some of the more heinous offences possible. That said, they should still need to be proven allegations.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 07 Nov 17 3.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I disagree, because if we've learned anything from recent history, its that stacks of these kind of offences have been occurring and people getting away with it, because of their influence and status. I'm less worried about ruining peoples reputation after death, given how many people seemed to have been able to maintain their reputation in life whilst committing some of the more heinous offences possible. That said, they should still need to be proven allegations. and because they haven't actually been reporting them to the police when they've occurred. I don't mind if cases get revisited later when there's new evidence or further victims, but reporting them somewhere close to the time they initially happened should be required.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.