Why has the Tory minister arrested for rape not been named?

You can see how many staff each MP employs online- and if they’re full or part time, and their total staffing bill.

@ShootsFruitsAndLeaves that's not the full picture.
Each MP employs their own staff, and can also subscribe to pooled services If they want.
Most MPs DO directly employ staff.
It’s rare to have an MP who doesn’t.
Pooled services don’t do casework.
(I work for an MP- employed directly)

The victim has said she didn't work for him, and she's an ex parliamentary worker, so no longer working with/near him.

FWIW the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, SNP each have their own pooled research companies. Hence MPs do not in fact directly employ staff but pay a subscription fee in order to access such services at a fraction of the cost of employing a researcher.

The Tories actually have TWO pooled research companies, one a general one, and one focused on leaving the EU, though the latter has only a couple of dozen subscribers.

Exactly pobble
For most of the population, naming the MP won't stop the victim being anonymous. Because we have no clue who works for what MP.
It's only an issue for people who are closer and guaranteed they know already because of office gossip.
I think this is all a red herring to distract from the fact the party are prioritising their mp over womens safety.
Employers deal with this stuff all the time, he could have been suspended but noone know why or for what.
Instead they've ignored it and we are blaming the press. Lets not forget this happened in January and she told the party. Its 6 months later, they've done nothing. That is not because they are protecting her anonymity

It really isn't that uncommon that it is possible for at least some people to work out who a rape victim is. Look at the many instances of rape of spouses/partners, for instance.

It would also be near-impossible to report on the trial whilst completely concealing the link. As soon as it became obvious that facts were being suppressed, people would put two and two together and would work out that the victim must have some sort of connection to the accused.. The only way to avoid it would be to prevent any reporting whatsoever at the trial, but even then it's inevitable that it would come out that the MP had suddenly resigned/been sacked and had subsequently gone to prison - and people would work out that it must have been a sexual offence due to the reporting ban. There is also the issue that secret justice is inherently dangerous anyway.

So I don't think you can necessarily blame the press. It's just a dreadful fact that, if you are raped by a famous man, there is a good chance that your anonymity won't be fully preserved. It's one of the reasons that famous men get away with it. I wish I knew the answer.

I imagine he will be named if he is charged. And quickly.

Therefore he couldn't carry on till the next election, he would have to be sacked or resign immediately

And where does that leave the victim's right to anonymity?

He must e removed from office, therefore she has no right to anonymity.

I'm not sure I wouid want charges pressed if it had to go public. It would certainly be a deterrent to making a complaint. The reporters, who exposed the existence of the working link and made her identifiable, have shut off any chance of finding out who he is without removing her right to anonymity.

The party said (correctly) 'go to the police'. The reaction of responsible Parliamentary bodies has not been reported.

Disciplinary actions towards the suspect is impossible at present.

But the press seem so avid in trying to blame the Tories, that they are not pointing the finger at themselves. They are the real people who let the victim down, by ignoring what her right to anonymity actually means.

The rush to the political story by the press is the problem.

If MP was convicted, and there was nothing in public domain about (former) working link, then a way to imprison/sack/name him (whilst not narrowing down who she might be) would have been found. This way round, impossible.

So she's going to be outed, whether she's happy with it or not, if he gets a custodial sentence. I suppose at least she gets some time to,get used to the idea, but the whole concept that the price of a guilty verdict is loss of anonymity absolutely stinks.

The way the press reported this is so careless of the victim's rights that they need to be held to account

But 'In house' in Parliament IS the independent complaints and grievance body. It was set up for exactly this situation- because the recent report showed that the parties don't deal with harassment properly.
They have the properly trained people.
I'm not criticising her- I just don't understand why you wouldn't go to someone independent to talk to, rather than chief whip, who is more likely to want to protect 'the party'

If convicted, he would have to quietly stand down at next election to spend more time with his family.

You cannot continue to be an MP if you are convicted of a crime resulting in a sentence of more than a year in custody, and pretty obviously if this man were convicted he's get a sentence above that. Therefore he couldn't carry on till the next election, he would have to be sacked or resign immediately.

I can understand that she perhaps thought JRM might have had some leverage.

I'm also not really up for the idea that a rape victim reported the wrong way.

This is a women who worked at parliament having to report that a senior MP from another dept raped her.

I respect maintaining her anonymity. Not convinced the Tory party have handled this well however.

I don't understand why she went to the chief whip & JRM rather than the independent complaints service or the police first.
Given the appalling state of affairs re: prosecuting rape, I'm not surprised she didn't immediately go to the police.
She has the right to be protected from harassment at work. If harassment is being raised as a work related issue, grievance procedure is to try to resolve in house before going to an independent body. In fact many independent bodies won't take on a grievance unless that's been done.
The conservative party are definitely at fault here, if it was a normal workplace she could take them to tribunal for this.

I don't understand why she went to the chief whip & JRM rather than the independent complaints service or the police first.

The victim has said she didn't work for him, and she's an ex parliamentary worker, so no longer working with/near him.

To be clear, I don't think the press should be reporting on him being suspended. But there’s no reason the Tory party can’t act behind closed doors to protect their staff, and the evidence suggests they are not doing this (because he is apparently still working in the same office as his victim).

I think the Tory party could act to safeguard their staff, they just can’t announce it. I can’t see any reason why they can’t tell him to go home and keep his mouth shut, and why they can’t tell the office that he’s not coming and they will not be answering questions about it. Whereas I can see plenty of potential legal liability if they allow an alleged rapist to hang out in the office with his victim, and numerous other potentially vulnerable staff members.

Or if you follow that to its logical conclusion, they can’t jail him if found guilty, because that would out the victim too.

"Is there a double bind here that he can never be named because it will jeopardise her anonymity?"

Pretty much.

Stating that she was his employee makes it impossible to name him, ever. Assuming you want victim anonymity to be waivable only by the victim.

If convicted, he would have to quietly stand down at next election to spend more time with his family. Or earlier if there is plausible ill-health and no obvoius link to this case (as that would in itself violate her right to anonymity)

The Times should not be berating the party for failing to break the law! And journalists who first published the employment link between them need to take a hard look at the consequences of their action.

If the victim is entitled to lifelong anonymity (which I don't dispute), what will happen if the Tory MP is charged and found guilty? He presumably has to resign (or "be resigned") and then we'll know who it is, and could work out who the victim is? (I am assuming that he has a limited number of interns.)

Is there a double bind here that he can never be named because it will jeopardise her anonymity?

My daughter is a journalist. Naming the induvidual isnt allowed because it would lead to discovering the name of the victim who has anonymity. Her employer, a national newspaper, would be heavily fined for doing so.

More in The Times today

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-dismissing-violence-against-women-by-not-suspending-rape-suspect-l0f5v6v9v?shareToken=be33139de517fef66c0551d4e6bfe92d

And comment

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-tories-failure-to-suspend-an-mp-accused-of-serious-sexual-crimes-bad-judgement-m6h3f8075?shareToken=22f4c605c657d70f7b5ccf836dd35025

I am so sorry for this young woman, I believe her, and I hope she is doing as well as can be expected with the weight of all this hanging over her.

Agree with the posts about where male sexual violence leaves women as a class in terms of women’s liberty. Eg women are made to self curfew or travel in groups or be on high alert constantly if we are eg night workers and/or work with the public or just you know want to go out at night and take part in things.

But also that women as a class bear costs in terms of long term stress and anxiety, because of constantly risk-assessing our situation. Also financially it is a tax on women that we have to pay to get to and from places safely often solely because of fear of what men may do to us if we don’t.

And that having performed those ultimately non-protective ‘precautions’, we are still not safe, and then if we are sexually assaulted or raped, we are still not effectively protected by the law and are left with a dilemma about reporting and pursuing justice. The fact that we could end up undergoing another trauma If we bring a case because it may go nowhere except to lose us our own privacy is just shocking.
If we were taking a public health approach to minimising sex attacks on women, I have no doubt men would be required to have a curfew and various other measures needed for daytime.

It’s very very depressing to think about as a woman. As much as we may feel confident that some of the individual male people we know might be safe to be around, that’s always going to be the minority of men we know and meet and have to deal with in some way, in life. The experience of rape being so statistically widespread and then in general handled so shamefully afterwards is a national disgrace. Especially given Dianaslasso has mentioned a ratio of around 6% of men and around 30% of women. (Great post Dianas)

How those men can get away with an R rate (or however we want to describe it) of raping 5 women. I blame that squarely on the rapist obviously, but also on the rest of society that collectively we haven’t taken the right steps to punish and deter and take that 6% of men out of circulation by whatever means would be most effective.

The victim had said she's really upset he hasn't been suspended.

The approach of the Tory party here is pretty questionable, given that.

I cannot help but wonder if this is one of the sources of the biggest differences between women and men. Women are unequal because they are not at liberty to be as equally involved in society as men. Sorry for going on at length.
No need to apologise for that comment
I think men need a license before being allowed out after 10. They would have to demonstrate they understood consent

Naming the MP will enable people to identify the victim. It is for the privacy of the victim.

A low ball estimate puts 6% of men will commit a rape/sexual assault of some kind.

6% is the number American criminologist David Lisak found when he did surveys of male American campus students. His "undetected rapists" as he calls them admitted to an average of 5 rapes each - the same as the numbers found for convicted, incarcerated rapists, suggesting that the populations don't differ in what they do/how often they do it, simply in whether they get caught.

5 * 6% brings you to 30% upper estimate on the number of women in the population who've been raped. Allowing for the fact that some women have the misfortune to be raped more than once, that accords quite well with the 20 to 25% estimate given by asking women.

So, whether your methodology is to ask men, or to ask women, the numbers come out about the same. It's a horrifyingly frequent crime, with a horrifyingly large percentage of perpetrators, almost all of whom are getting away with it.