What did Conor Burns do at Tory conference?

[Tulipomania]

Anyone know why he's been sacked?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/07/senior-tory-mp-conor-burns-asked-to-resign-after-serious-misconduct-claim

Front page Daily Mail has details.

You can't think that it's impossible to know that someone is guilty until they've been through a trial?

it's impossible for ME to know. And for YOU to know. And indeed victims & eye-witnesses are often wrong and even economical with the story. There's a reason for process.

There is a different standard for finding culpability, "preponderance of evidence", which is the threshold that applies in (US) civil suits (I dunno much UK law). There is still a process for considering "preponderance of evidence" and no way has the process been worked thru adequately at this point.

Serving as minister is a privilege & I appreciate the change of policy to suspend his role, not brazening it out.

Remember Andrew Mitchell & Plebgate? That started out looking like a clear cut case of all the weight of evidence = guilty , but then...

This man (and other men that pull this shit) need to realise that the days of people are tolerating this crap are numbered. I hope they throw the book at him and he gets in the bin tbh.

There is a different standard for finding culpability, "preponderance of evidence", which is the threshold that applies in (US) civil suits (I dunno much UK law). There is still a process for considering "preponderance of evidence" and no way has the process been worked thru adequately at this point.

It would be balance of probabilities in the UK. Normally within that standard there are some gradations, i.e. the more serious the allegation and the consequences, the better the evidence needs to be. So something that has the potential to take away someone's livelihood and reputation would normally still need very strong evidence. However, in politics there is also a basic optics factor - once an allegation has been made, the individual's career has been damaged anyway.

Both Rory Stewart and the woman named made statements that this was wholly untrue.

The woman named said “‘While I recognise the seriousness of the allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour, sexual harassment and worse, I wish to emphasise that nothing of the kind implied by my name being included on this spreadsheet ever took place. During my time working in Parliament, Rory Stewart was never anything other than completely professional and an excellent employer. Moreover the inclusion of my name on this list, by parties unknown to me and without my permission, has caused deep distress and anxiety.”

which is why sharing these lists is a bit shit really.

If this is true, it's extraordinary that he let himself get into a state where he did something that is essentially a magnified version of what Pincher did, which was ultimately the cause of Johnson's downfall. It must surely have been obvious that the Conservatives can't be seen to sweep that one under the carpet again?

If she wants to get ahead of the curve then let's have the results of the alleged 56 MPs under investigation and if there are no results as yet why not. This has been known of for months. I'll hazard a guess that Tories are over-represented in this list and that would bring the downfall of the government. They are public servants and if they have committed gross misconduct with staff or others in Parliament then time for action.

inews.co.uk/opinion/mps-investigation-sexual-harassment-pestminster-former-staffer-not-surprised-1594972

The list was apparently the work of the then Chief Whip 'Sir' Gavin Williamson who is by all accounts a snake of the highest order. It was his job to collect and collate 'dirt' on the parliamentary party to exert pressure when needs be for votes.

Most of the names on that list were public, some names have been withheld. However in general I agree with you.

It makes sense that it was a whip's blackmail list, simply because it lists sexual assaults on the same list as consensual relationships between adults - eg Rudd and Kwarteng. Says a lot about the whip that he was tracking consensual sexual relationships and assaults in the same way - purely as a tool of control with no regard to victims.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/68b759e6-4651-11ed-abc9-d0d53e948d21?shareToken=c1254aa9dcda6505521e91a72fa3bee1

There isn't much more in it to be honest

Horizontal recruiting and simple exploitation. That charming custom traditionally practiced by men with power who see younger women and men as a perk of the position. Victims rarely complain for fear of repercussions.

LibDem/Green were both dreadful for this but no shortage of the same at Tory and Labour conferences.

Most Tory men are arrogant, bombastic, offensive, greedy and entitled.

Oh, it isn't only Tory men, though they most definitely lead the field.

It's why I don't get the blethering about "At least the Tories understand what a woman is" so I'll vote for them rather than Labour brainwashed rhetoric on here and other places. Look at the actions, FGS, don't just listen to the weasel words!

😁😁

Sexual assault, if that is indeed what is being alleged here, is a criminal offence in England. To find someone guilty a jury has to be sure the facts show a crime has been committed (this used to be expressed as "beyond reasonable doubt"). On the balance of probabilities is for civil cases.

I don't agree that one political party leads the field in this. Some of the worst abuse of women, particularly younger women, was when the militant wing held power in Labour (many of whom subsequently appeared in green politics).

The individuals we hear about in public will be disproportionately those in power as that is where people are looking.

There are predators in all parties and wherever power exists, which is why the key point is how parties deal with this and manage safeguarding rather than any one publicly known predator.

There are predators in all parties and wherever power exists, which is why the key point is how parties deal with this and manage safeguarding rather than any one publicly known predator.

Absolutely this.

The Tories have the greatest opportunity for it at the moment because they have more power, that's all. It's a problem in all structures.

"The list was apparently the work of the then Chief Whip 'Sir' Gavin Williamson who is by all accounts a snake of the highest order. It was his job to collect and collate 'dirt' on the parliamentary party to exert pressure when needs be for votes."

Is this democracy? How sad and awful.

Whilst I'm as anti-Tory as the next North London townhouse dweller, and delighted to see this apparently nasty piece of work get his comeuppance, I do also want to know what Nick Brown is alleged to have done. I know he's not a government minister, and it doesn't fit well into the flow of the appealing "Tory Conference shitshow" narrative, but he's a very senior Labour figure.

What the hell happened? If I were his constituent and had voted for him as a Labour candidate I'd want to know why my MP had lost the whip. How long is the process meant to take?
amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/07/labour-mp-nick-brown-whip-suspended-complaint

The whips have covered up paedophilia before. This is a particularly shocking interview from the Thatcher era.

.

He’s local to my workplace. Bizarrely, whenever he pops in for a meeting, he’ll bring his (own personal) photographer with him. Who snaps away… It’s odd as we have much more ‘famous’ visitors who wouldn’t dream of such behaviour!
Furthermore, he’s renowned for being absolutely vile to local opposition candidates and their supporters.
Cheers all across Bournemouth last night…

twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1578501030228000769

My comment about Tory men leading the field related to the current crop, not previous politics, and I didn't only mean Tory politicians, but the people who vote them into power.

And yes, power corrupts. Although you could argue that positions of power also disproprotionately attract those with various tendencies right from the off...it's that old saying about those who desire power over others and go all out to get it are pretty much the least suitable to actually have it.

it's impossible for ME to know. And for YOU to know. And indeed victims & eye-witnesses are often wrong and even economical with the story. There's a reason for process.

I want suggesting that I knew, or that you knew. I was suggesting that the people involved in the decision making that has happened so far know. If they didn't, then I suspect different decisions would have been made - such as suspension pending investigation.

I assumed he was got rid of so quickly because he was part of some plot/ideology that was a threat to Truss. That's usually the way these things go. Nothing to do with the seriousness of the offence.

I assume he was got rid of so quickly because giving the benefit of the doubt to an MP with form for random sexual assault when under the influence of alcohol did not end well for Boris Johnson.