Parliament votes to exclude MPs arrested for sexual assault

You're right.

Deckchairs & the Titanic

until & unless the sex offenders who have previously been allowed to not just commit crimes, but gain positions of power, are rooted out & removed from positions of power, authority, or influence.

what damage have they done to victims other than those they created themselves? how many have covered up for other abusers? treated them leniently or favourably?

how many have worked to create environments conducive for abuse to flourish? the creation of new victims or potential victims? increased access to the vulnerable?

reduced or waived punishment of abuser or onerous steps to justice or other deterrents to victims seeking help or justice?

really think the likes of Carrick etc were/are putting effort into investigating fellow abusers?

really think the likes of Challeoner would be interested in legislating for increased penalties for abusers? Or greater safe-guarding?

abusers don’t stop until they are stopped, they rarely have only one victim, and become more bold and more abusive the more they get away with it

police, politicians, CPS/PPS, judges, barristers are all areas where one pervert in a position of power could hamper justice, for their victims, and for the victims of others

NI’s new law affording protection of a dead man’s reputation over an abused woman or child’s need to speak about the abuse they’ve suffered is just one example of how society prioritises abusers over the abused

so fucking what about parliament & MPs suspensions or not? - will this make 1 iota of difference to the rates of report, investigation, prosecution, or imprisonment of perverts?

will it make even the tiniest difference to the entitled and damaging behaviour of men towards women generally - because that appears to be increasing not decreasing

NI & Scotland (excluding hate against women on basis of sex) are actively creating a societies with laws favourable to those who mean harm to females

so idgaf about point of accusation, point of arrest, point of conviction, or point of incarceration

because the percentages get increasing smaller - and no-one can know the full extent of abuse happening that never even gets to the point of accusation

fear not tho - MLAs (just shy of Donaldson’s news) have a fix to ensure the abused are even further excluded from justice & abusers can protected

because we are actually at the point where women and children abused by men may be convicted themselves for even making an accusation including up to 25yrs after he’s fucking dead

every bit of it screams ‘shut the fuck up about us abusing you - you’re ruining our good thing’

personally I’m at the point where I will need to see a campaign as funded & promoted & as successful as the seatbelt one, or drink-driving, or smoking, or aids, or bloody recycling

a real fucking concerted campaign against male sexual violence

will we while mostly males run the show tho?

there is no excuse, there is only complacency and ‘oh look a squirrel…..’

Was also going to make the point that surely, when plod are considering arresting someone, when they find out he's an MP, isn't that going to make them rather more circumspect and careful than if he's been a factory-worker or dolescum? In other words, unlike, say, sticker woman, MPs are unlikely to be arrested on a whim.

I don't think whether suspension should occur on arrest or conviction is so much the big story here, and I get that there are arguments both ways. I don't think that equates to a 'pro-women' or anti-women' position. But what jumped out at me was this:

Jess Phillips, who pressed the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, told the Commons: “Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by members of this Parliament; that’s a fairly standard day for me.

Absolutely. That’s why we have codes of conduct and ethics committees.

Well my experience was the police wouldn't even arrest my rapist because there wouldn't have been enough evidence to convict him. So maybe it's not universal all these people saying you can be arrested without evidence but I'd say to be arrested is a fair bar

So you are not suggested he be suspended for safety but for ‘failing to reach a standard’?

That’s exactly why they should be held to the same, if not higher, standards.

People get suspended when the employer finds out.

For an average Joe, it can take a while.

How often in your employment do you pass or amend laws that influence not only the tens of thousands of people you represent but also the country? Including our security, our safety, our taxes, and our industry?

And it’s not true he’d be suspended in any other job.

Really? Which areas of employment wouldn’t suspend someone under arrest for a sexual or violent offence? The BBC certainly did it with Huw Edwards even though the police were clear there was no basis for the accusations and he was never arrested.

We had a real bully on the local council. His behaviour was awful. We had to protect the clerk but weren’t able to protect the councillors. He was an elected representative and had to be allowed to continue as otherwise the electorate wouldn’t have been represented.

In places with facilities you can prevent someone attending apart from meetings and votes.

Alex Salmond was a good (ant least highly visible) example of the problem with this kind of scenario. Smears and allegations are damaging and will be used for best political effect, whether based in truth or not. And that then undermines all trust.

If only we lived in a world where people didn’t capitalise on tragedy.

And it’s not true he’d be suspended in any other job.

Because being an MP is not equivalent to other jobs.

Why not? It’s salaried employment, why would we hold our elected representatives to lower standards than the rest of us? Back in the day when politicians had integrity an MP would be forced to resign if they were arrested on any charge.

I work in the public sector - if I was arrested for sexual assault I would be suspended until the investigation had been concluded. If the investigation concluded I was innocent I would presumably be able to return to my role. I imagine this would be the case in most roles where there are issues both of safeguarding and public perception. I don't understand why the same wouldn't be applicable to MPs and am glad it as at point of arrest.

Because being an MP is not equivalent to other jobs.

If it is about safety then that can be addressed in other ways. If it is about judgement then why limit it to sexual and violent offences? If it is about punishment then it needs to go to court first.

This was a vote to restore the system that had been watered down. It was in force when Rosendell was under arrest. In no other employment would someone under arrest not be suspended so why should MPs get special treatment?

Mr Rosindell was prevented from attending the House of Commons to speak, ask questions or vote for almost two years.

Exactly Voodoo. I would be all for excluding him from the parliamentary estate except the commons chamber and committee rooms and requiring an escort to and from those places.

I am divided on this. There's something unique about parliament compared to other jobs because a suspension would leave ordinary people unrepresented, and that's a serious thing.

I assume we suspend men from their jobs in such circumstances as a safeguarding measure, i.e. to keep women safe in their workplace.

If so, could he still attend and vote remotely? Could he nominate a proxy? I'd not be happy to be unrepresented in parliament.

Surely it isn't to punish him, or to 'send a signal', because we shouldn't do those things until he's found guilty.

The foreign spy making the accusation will have quietly left the country and the legislation will have been enacted into law or not….

Agree.

This can only be used for MPs arrested for Sexual or violent assault. I’m glad it got through, and brings MPs into line with many other work environments, where they would be excluded from the work place on arrest.

If someone issues it maliciously they should be dealt with appropriately.

People's faith in the police not being political, or only arresting when justified, surprises me given I know the people on this board have paid more attention than most to social changes in the last decade 🤔🙃

On balance I don’t think this is a good thing. It will make the act of arresting an mp political and increase the bar to it as the mp will lose their job and what if they are then released without charge, do they get the job back? Do they get compensated?
what if the allegation was found to be untrue? What happens then?