Parliament votes to exclude MPs arrested for sexual assault

This will be misused.

And the politicisation of the decision is evidence of that. Every comment criticising the tories about this, proves it.

MPs on both sides will be sex pests. It’s a tendency of men in power regardless of their political affiliation.
Imagine a world where you knew you’d be safe because of how a man voted.

What I consider more worthy of attention is how much easier it appears to be to get convictions for sex crimes against men. But that’s purely my perception, no evidence to back that up.

So you are deciding he is guilty until proven innocent and in your mind he has not been proven innocent? And therefore his constituents should be denied parliamentarian representation. The fact you mention the Tory party, when other parties also have their sex pests, shows your true intent. That is a dangerous and authoritarian route to go down.

Safety of women (and men) in parliament could be addressed through other measures without denying 75000 voters any representation for years on end or allowing the manipulation of Parliament.

Arrested? Or detained under the Mental Health Act?

No, I’m not. Charging decisions are made by CPS. Their criteria for charging and proceeding with a case is not “is there any evidence against the accused”. It is does the evidence they have give them a “realistic prospect of conviction”. (They say this = are they more likely than not to win, which should mean any chance >50% of winning but looking at conviction rates, which are significantly higher, they clearly apply a somewhat more stringent standard.)

They do not charge every single case for which there is any evidence.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-we-make-our-decisions

Only if the have been arrested for sexual assault

It isn’t only sexual assault. It is also violence. But now we have started banning MPs from representing their constituents for a suspected involvement in a crime, for which there was insufficient evidence (or potentially no evidence) to charge, why not add to it?

This goes two ways:

• there is now a strong motivation for certain individuals or foreign powers to make vexatious complaints, or for malicious intent by the police, leading to arrests prior to certain votes - eg gender recognition, reaction to Gaza, funding of the military, Rwanda policies. It also provides additional power to blackmailers ‘encouraging’ actions by MPs, once again including foreign powers.
• police hesitate in arresting MPs for serious crimes because they don’t want to be accused of manipulating parliamentary activities.

No, you are describing when charges are dropped.

It has to do with your strangely naive claim that arrests are only done if there is evidence the person has already committed a crime.

Btw, mentally ill people can and do commit violent and sexual offences due to their mental state. So it is relevant that you can be arrested merely under suspicion that you might commit one of these crimes. As in zero evidence as no crime has happened yet.

No, it doesn't. It means there wasn't sufficient evidence for CPS to think they have a reasonable chance of getting a criminal conviction (which currently seems to be about a 66% chance of winning) or, sometimes, that the victim no longer wishes to pursue the case.

I'm happy that it's at the point of arrest.

I am not. Innocent people are arrested all the time on mere suspicion.
I think it should be suspension from arrest for violent or sexual offence
If released with no charge, immediately unsuspended
If charged suspension continues until after the criminal trial
If not guilty/charges dropped, immediately unsuspended
If guilty, then permanently excluded for life

Mentally ill people are arrested if it is suspected they might harm property, others or themselves. As in they haven’t yet…

Are you saying we should assume guilt? Even though no charges were laid and the case was dropped two years later?

Every time you read “arrested and released without charge” in the news that means there was no evidence the person arrested had done a crime. If there were evidence, they would have been charged.

There’s something dodgy about elected representatives being prevented from representing their constituents in parliament.

They arrest persons of interest all the time during the course of an investigation. You don’t need evidence the person has committed a crime to arrest them. A lawful arrest by a police constable requires two elements:

• a person's involvement, suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence, and
• reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary

They only charge a person when they have evidence sufficient to go to trial that a person has committed a criminal offence.

What about Andrew Rosindell?

What about this case?

https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24122930.andrew-rosindell-mp-probe-harvey-proctor-slams-met-police/

Arrested, then the case dropped two years later without charge.

Exactly, malicious intent.

They conduct an investigation first.

Arrests are part of the investigation

Some examples of people being arrested:

Lesbian Nana arrested teen
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13117093/West-Yorkshire-Police-apologise-autistic-girl-lesbian-nana.html

Sticker woman
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60161666

Holding a sign saying ‘Hamas are Terrorists’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/

Many (including myself) would like to see Nicola Sturgeon banned from Parliament but if no charges could be laid…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857#:~:text=Former%20First%20Minister%20Nicola%20Sturgeon,is%20being%20questioned%20by%20detectives.

And in relation to MPs and sex crimes there was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/operation-midland-four-top-public-figures-falsely-accused-by-nick