The Home Secretary "jokes" about spiking his wifes drink with Rohypnol

[cakeorwine]

As the other thread has been automatically hidden

"James Cleverly has apologised for joking about spiking his wife’s drink with a date rape drug in comments made at a Downing Street reception.
The home secretary’s remarks came just hours after the Home Office announced plans to crack down on spiking, when someone puts drugs into another person’s drink or directly into their body without their knowledge or consent.

Cleverly told female guests at the reception that “a little bit of Rohypnol in her drink every night” was “not really illegal if it’s only a little bit”, the Sunday Mirror reported.
He also laughed that the secret to a long marriage was ensuring your spouse was “someone who is always mildly sedated so she can never realise there are better men out there”."

So much to say about this

100%. As a manager I have had to discipline people on the grounds that their public utterances have brought their employer into disrepute. In most workplaces it is not tolerated - but in members of Government we are supposed to put up with it?

The Home Secretary is one of the Great Offices of State, his conduct should be absolutely above reproach. Why is that too much to expect? If he had an ounce of honour he would have resigned already; if not he should be sacked. It won't happen of course though.

I think these days that there's a lot of blokes on here pretending that they're women. And a number of women with an agenda (Spads, TRAs, MRA apologists, women in certain kinds of marriages/relationships, bored idiots). They seem to positively gravitate toward these threads.

I do wonder about that sometimes @AutumnCrow.

I know not all women care about violence against women and girls.

Or care about good government.

But it's difficult to envisage anyone who takes violence against women and girls seriously justifying joking like this about it.

One or two of the women defending this as just a joke are lifelong Tory voters who are pretty vocal about continuing to vote for them because they know what a woman is. Evidently treating women or indeed people with respect isn't important to them, and nor is fitness for office and being an appropriate role model for law enforcement.

I agree. I just cannot bear to think this is a normal train of thought for ordinary women.

What gets me is how Labour are held up to a far far higher standard than the Tories who seem to be able to say anything, do anything, be guilty of rape and sexual misconduct.... yet there are still people on here who defend them. What does it actually take to think to yourself.... hmmm, they have let me down, they are not the political party I thought they were.

I just cannot bear to think this is a normal train of thought for ordinary women.

Bear it or not, it is the case.

What gets me is how Labour are held up to a far far higher standard than the Tories who seem to be able to say anything, do anything, be guilty of rape and sexual misconduct.... yet there are still people on here who defend them.

That's how the media works.

Appalling.

They have all done it several times including the royals. What's so unique about this situation? Let's sack them all. Some have done worse.

You know, you don't have to actually commit a crime to be sacked from your job.

But several MPs have committed crimes and not been sacked from their jobs.

Maybe it's cosmic balance ?

What exactly does this man have on Sunak or the Party? They keep throwing the most senior government posts his way, despite the fact that he has form for being foul. For a man in his position even to think it is a 'joke' to trivialise a doubly horrendous crime (against women mainly) shows that he is unfit for that office or indeed to be an MP.

It's not about freedom or some notional excusable form of humour. It's about values and standards. To throw such comments in the face of women and victims for whom this is a real fear or an actual terrible experience shows a lack of decency, judgement and intelligence such that he has no credibility to function in that office. It also damages the reputation of the government - and Sunak if he does not sack him. The Party should also investigate and discipline him.

I wonder if any women or group have started a petition for Sunak to take action.
The apology by his spokesperson (not the government, take note), that was quoted earlier in the thread - which I can't find now - came across as glib and with an air of smug flippancy as if to bat it away with a flick of the hand.

What exactly does this man have on Sunak or the Party? They keep throwing the most senior government posts his way, despite the fact that he has form for being foul.

Remember they couldn't find anyone in their 350 MPs to be foreign secretary and had to parachute David Cameron into the Lords to do it. Cleverly is clearly the best they have.

I wonder if any women or group have started a petition for Sunak to take action.

Why ? Would it make a difference ? Has it ever made a difference ?

If over6 million signatures on an official government petition can disappear into thin air, what chance will your paltry tens of thousands have ?

Rishi can sack him surely ? Would it be usual for a PM to make a statement or get involved ? Not that he seems to do much of anything.

Rishi can't sack anybody. Even if he had the power.

His previous Home Secretary was actively briefing against the very police force she was supposed to oversee and didn't get sacked. This is a mere bagatelle in comparison.

You really have to wonder what you would have to do to get sacked. Even waving your willy around in public doesn't count as an offence in Toryland.

Just to be clear, in response to some of the more recent comments, some of which I am assuming are intended to include me:

1. I'm not defending JC or what he said. I'm defending his right to speech. As Voltaire said (he stole this from English novelist Evelyn Beatrice Hall, a woman): "I wholly disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You may disagree with the principle of free speech, but it's an established principle that an educated person ought to be familiar with. It's disingenuous to pretend that people defending free speech are actually defending the content of that speech.
2. I'm a woman. I've been posting for years on MN under this name (and years before that under other names). Accusing people who you disagree with of being men, as though women all think the same way, is unbelievably sexist and misogynist. Women are people, too. We are individuals with our own minds, thoughts, and opinions. We disagree with each other all the time. Since I have been polite, and mostly patient, and willing to set out my argument and defend it without resorting to any deliberate logical fallacies or silencing tactics, I think accusing me of being a MRA, TRA or other kind of troll is very weak indeed.
3. I hope you're all having a lovely Christmas eve. Luckily we are in a position to be able to debate and discuss these matters openly and without fear, when so many women in the world have been silenced and have no voice, and even, in many cases, no vote. So I'm very grateful for our disagreements.

No one's falling for your "free speech" straw man, beastlyslumber.

Too bloody right they’re not.

I'm not sure why you think it's a straw man or why you think I'm trying to fool anyone. I set out my arguments very clearly and cogently, if I do say so myself, a few pages back. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. We could figure that out, if you were willing to go beyond name-calling and engage in conversation. But hey ho. I can't be arsed to get into a back and forth with someone who doesn't have the capacity for thoughtful discussion. It's Christmas, I'm happy, nothing terrible has happened, so I shall wish you well.

Also, this is a written medium. We can see that defending him is exactly how you started.

beastlyslumber · Today 10:17
But wasn't the joke at his own expense? He was saying, I'm punching above my weight here/I'm a loser and hope my wife never realises it. He wasn't actually saying, it's funny to spike women's drinks. He was saying, it's funny I'm such a loser compared to my wife.

Either way, okay, it was tasteless and perhaps offensive, but I don't think it's a punishable crime to tell a tasteless or offensive joke. It shouldn't be, anyway. Everyone says dumb things or makes stupid jokes sometimes. I don't really want to live in a society where people are punished for making jokes, even bad ones.

beastlyslumber · Today 18:50
[...] I'm not defending JC or what he said.

He said his wife was a victim of his violence and coercive control and a little bit of that isn't illegal.

I used to think he was a sensible minister, willing to do the interview circuit when shit was hitting the fan at various times, especially in the BJ era.
I realise, after the Stockton comment and now this, that although he may think he’s smart or funny he’s just a complete asshole.

We not still doing ‘at least they know what a woman is’?

I don't see any contradiction here? I say people shouldn't be punished for telling jokes, even bad ones. Whether or not they are at their own or others' expense. Or even if they are tasteless and perhaps offensive, as I say in my original comment.

Please quote some of my other comments, as I think I developed my argument quite effectively

This is an interesting question for PMQs

In the world of employment, people can lose their jobs for inappropriate comments in the workplace. Does the Prime Minister think that the Home Secretary's comments about spiking were appropriate?

(I can hear the answer now)