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

I'm kind of a lone voice on this thread

Maybe you need to wonder why you are?

There are also secrecy laws. And libel laws.

Well, Cleverly has made excellent use of his freedom of speech to tell us who he is.

And when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Oh.

Apparently Sunak was at the Downing Street reception where Cleverly was sounding off in this charming vein about drugging women.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67813689

Although to be fair there's nothing to suggest Sunak heard him.

He can't have heard him - because otherwise he would have immediately pulled him up on it ?

It's inconceivable he could have heard it and agreed, isn't it ?

You can tell always tell more about someone from the company they keep than what they say.

It seems a bit contradictory to champion unrestricted expression yet be offended by someone exercising that right.

I had a part time job in a pub once and a barman was let go for joking about "roofies".

I hold the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to a higher standard than a casual barman.

"Free speech" isn't "consequence"-free speech though is it?

James Cleverly exercised his right to free speech when he said it.

No one stopped him saying it.

No one interfered with his right to say it.

They merely reported that he said it.

And people have opinions about him saying it.

Mine is that there should be consequences for. Home Secretary that tells people that a little bit of drugging women isn't illegal.

So:

Sunak considers the matter closed.
However - Cleverley is doing the media rounds today - so this will be interesting to see if it's raised.

@beastlyslumber you have hugely misunderstood the first amendment. Do you really believe that eg slagging off about your employer online will not get you sacked because “it’s free speech innit?”

The first amendment limits government from imposing restrictions on free speech. It certainly doesn’t limit employers from punishing employees for spouting shit.

He was on the R4 Today programme this morning talking to Mishal Husain about the immigration targets. She raised the issue of this ‘joke’ at the end of the interview and he blustered his way through some stuff about his track record of championing women. She was clearly unconvinced, as was I.

The first amendment

Is irrelevant in the UK ...

and this is why it matters - it makes him unable to do his job as every interviewer will continue (quite properly) to ask how someone who makes "jokes" like that is fit to be in charge of a policy of eliminating the environment in which "jokes" like that are acceptable.

And it's not like people had much time for him before anyway.

Today's radio stuff came at the end of a whole list of lies and are covering.
"I never said sh*t in parliament" well people heard you
"We have cleared the backlog of asylum seekers" - hotels and organisations are losing their government contracts so where are these people expected to go
"I can't comment on the mone case as it is an ongoing enquiry"
"I respect women" - doesn't his wife count as a woman
I suppose he is performing to job description - don't do anything don't say anything

Well no, I haven't based my argument on the first amendment. When asked about my approach to free speech I said I wished we had something like the first amendment here. We don't, so it's kind of pointless speculating about what protection it would or wouldn't offer in this case.

When asked about my approach to free speech I said I wished we had something like the first amendment here.

The UK is allegedly a liberal democracy. We don't need laws that allow anything, it's the default state.

(And as the US has shown over the centuries, a constitution is just fine words.)

@beastlyslumber

In your opinion a senior Govt minister can make (legal) jokes about anything at all, without consequence.

So jokes about racism, current murders, abductions, rape (we ve already agreed thats all ok) child abuse..... (rape is illegal too) all ok and presumably for everyone else at work too, equality and all that.

Thats a very extreme pov you are taking there.

Headline reporting is now that he is saying the joke was hurtful "to a number of people".

(I completely accept spiking 'joke' was hurtful for a number of people )

So he's sorry we feel that way then ?

Way to go - apologise by blaming your audience. What a twat.

Make no mistake - this was a deliberate message to the Tory "Antiwoke" base that while the government may make noises about protecting women it doesn't really mean it. This is what this lot do time and again. Smoke mirrors and dogwhistles straight out of the Trump playbook.
Nobody (man or woman) with a shred of decency should consider voting Tory ever again.

Make no mistake - this was a deliberate message to the Tory "Antiwoke" base that while the government may make noises about protecting women it doesn't really mean it.

If he could wink and talk at the same time, I'm sure he would have.

Hmm, that's not exactly what I've argued. I think context is pretty important, given his position, so I wouldn't make that blanket statement so absolutely. But in this case, I don't think he should have lost his job, no. I'm sure he got a reprimand and it sounds like he also got some media training. That seems proportionate to me.

Should a minister of state really need media training to know and understand that rape and drugging women is not a joke?

I used to expect ministers to be of good judgement, not anymore. This lot wouldn't know good governance if it looked them in the eye. That this is even a debate and he is still a minister shows how low Sunaks government is.

it sounds like he also got some media training.

It wasn’t very effective if his Today programme interview this morning is anything to go by. He was awful.

Right ok, so we now have FoS but with consequence, which now becomes subjective.
Who sets that bar?

He has "joked" about a horrendous crime which surveys suggest affects 10% of all women (and many men too) just imagine how someone who has perhaps been raped by several men, is taking pregnancy and STI tests feels upon hear this "joke".

Had he been defence or environment secretary, i could perhaps go along with a reprimand etc but he is Home Secretary in charge of Law and Order.

Do you not think he should or someone else should consider his position? he was either drunk or lacks any sort of judgement, neither make him fit got his office.

Well, Sunak could hardly have carpeted him in from of the journalists. And TBF I very much doubt Sunak speaks of women like this.

However Sunak has a Cabinet full of people like this – we've just been hearing the Covid inquiry evidence that the macho culture in Downing Street probably cost lives.

Sunak has had to keep Cleverly because, thanks to the neverending Tory soap opera, he's completely run out of people.

So I didn't expect Cleverly to actually be sacked. But I've taken note of what he's told us about himself.

And also of what his apologists have told us about themselves.