Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Brendan Cox

56 replies

SusanBunch · 11/02/2018 10:45

So he has been accused of groping a woman in an American bar, grabbing her hips and bottom and thrusting his thumb into her mouth after she repeatedly told him no. This is the second round of accusations. In 2015, before Jo Cox was murdered, there were newspaper reports that he had voluntarily left his post at Save the Children after more than one co-worker threatened to make an almighty fuss about his conduct. Obviously these allegations have yet to be proven in a court of law, but it doesn't look great.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. He has traded on his saint-like image since his wife died and the left-wing press love him. He often portrays himself as Dad of the year etc and I think he even did a live chat on Mumsnet. But now it appears that this is a man who assaults women while his wife and small children are at home. It's interesting that the 2015 story was not raked up more when he put himself in the public eye. I wonder if he can survive this.

OP posts:
AskBasil · 11/02/2018 16:45

I don't find it difficult to believe that Brendan Cox is a typical leftyboy.

We know what they're like.

OldEnglishSheepDog · 11/02/2018 18:54

God this makes me so angry. Those poor women, poor Jo and actually poor everyone who supported the causes he espoused and now have to put up with alt-right types being smug about it.

FFS.

keepingonrunning · 11/02/2018 19:19

Geronimo Not all 'the wives' turn a blind eye or are content to pay a price for material benefits. Some spouses are simply extraordinarily good at deceit and their partner has no idea. They are normal trusting people, not dim, naive or mercenary.

Lefty or righty makes no difference. The common denominator is an expectation of power, control and entitlement by some men.

I really feel for Jo's family.

Geronimoleapinglizards · 11/02/2018 20:08

GeronimoNot all 'the wives' turn a blind eye or are content to pay a price for material benefits. Some spouses are simply extraordinarily good at deceit and their partner has no idea. They are normal trusting people, not dim, naive or mercenary.

No, I'm very aware of that. I'm sorry if my messafe implied otherwise, I was sliggtly typing in a rush. But some do turn a blind eye. I know people who do. I don't judge them but it's reality for some. And I don't think it's just about getting material benefits. It's much more complex than that. It might be stability for them and their children, having a companion as opposed to be alone, ensuring their child doesn't then get abandoned by their dad altogether, wanting a couples' lifestyle/social life as opposed to being a single parent. It's very complex.

I don't doubt that many men are extraordinarily good at deceit though, as you say. Many women just simply don't know who they're married to.

SusanBunch · 11/02/2018 20:52

Who really knows. She may have been planning on leaving him at some point anyway or maybe she was staying with him for the sake of the kids. She came across as a strong, independent woman. It's just such a shame that a guy who was lucky enough to get a woman like her and have a beautiful family would still go round putting his slimy hands on any woman unfortunate enough to cross his path.

It's relevant to the other thread on here about men hating women. I am sure Brendan Cox loved and admired his wife (in his own 'special' way). But the other women he worked with and met were just expendable fuck-toys essentially. He didn't give a shit about their thoughts, feelings or bodily integrity- they literally did not matter. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much he goes on about loving Jo- he is still an example of a man who hates women.

OP posts:
nauticant · 12/02/2018 08:28

I thought it was strange that over the course of yesterday, this story wasn't picked up by other media outlets.

I've just heard the head of Save the Children UK being interviewed on Radio 4 Today about the scandal of charities turning a blind eye to abusive behaviour and there was no mention of Brendan Cox.

The media in general would seem to want this story to go away. I don't think it's a conspiracy but to me this looks like "the path of least resistance" in operation.

southlondonmama7 · 12/02/2018 10:44

I worked with BC for 7 years at Save the Children, this is not only true but the tip of the ice berg. I left STC as I was sickened of the level of cover up by the board and Justin Forsyth (who went on to work for the UN at Unicef). I personally know the women who went to the board and had him FINALLY removed as they threatened to go to the police but didn't want to hurt the charity. He is the worst kind of man.

hurtingheart · 12/02/2018 10:53

The saddest thing is, this simply does not surprise me.

Arrogant men like him always think they can behave as they choose whilst bleating about what great, kind GOOD people they are.

SusanBunch · 12/02/2018 13:20

Thanks for sharing, southlondonmama. They can still go to the police and in fact, I hope they do. Brendan Cox should feel the repercussions of how he has treated women in the workplace. The days where we just put up with this crap should be well behind us.

Poor Jo and the kids.

OP posts:
Collidascope · 12/02/2018 13:57

Doesn't surprise me, southlondon. They said at Save The Children, 'women' reported him. That means at least two. And, with the complaint to police, that makes at least three women. I imagine the majority of men who grope and harass never get officially reported. If three women complain, you're either innocent and the unluckiest man ever, or you're a fucking prolific sex pest.

OldEnglishSheepDog · 12/02/2018 14:08

I have seen this reported in the Mail, someone told me it was mentioned on R4 but otherwise, nothing. I don't understand why other pro-Brexit media outlets aren't all over this - surely it's an easy win for them?

nauticant · 12/02/2018 14:28

I think it's just too complicated and unpredictable for media outlets. With anyone else the media would be all over it but Brendan Cox seems to have some kind of saint-by-proxy invulnerability.

Having seen the Mail stick its neck out over this, and then everyone else becoming suddenly distracted in other directions, including reporting in-depth about the scandal of sexual abuse being tolerated in the charitable sector, it's clearly too risky to cover this without further corroboration.

I'm finding the media non-response to this to be fascinating.

Babayaggatheboneylegged · 12/02/2018 14:31

oldenglishsheepdog the fact that he resigned from STC in 2015 after accusations of inappropriate behaviour towards female colleagues was fairly widely reported at the time.

This new story about him assaulting a woman at Harvard in Oct 2015 has been stood up and reported by the MoS, but it's not a 'new' story as such. It just helps build a picture of BC and his behaviour towards women.

But, it's dodgy/risky for other publications to follow up on without doing any investigating of their own. If these allegations don't stand up, BC would be able to successfully sue for defamation.

Also, do you think the press really want to stick the knife in to a widower/dad of two bereaved young kids? What would they really stand to gain from it?

More might come out of course, particularly in light of what's going on at Oxfam and if this is indeed the tip of the iceberg re BC

I wonder if he will sue the MoS?

hurtingheart · 12/02/2018 14:40

Jo Cox MUST have known what he was up to then, no? If he lost his job over it?

nauticant · 12/02/2018 14:41

I wonder if he will sue the MoS?

The would be a spectacularly risky and arrogant thing for him to do. I could imagine all kinds of stuff would come out into the open if it became known that legal action was starting.

AskBasil · 12/02/2018 14:45

Hurtingheart never underestimate the power of denial

Babayaggatheboneylegged · 12/02/2018 14:55

nauticant I can't help but think of Jeffrey Archer and Tommy Sheridan, who successfully sued in similar circs

MrPan · 12/02/2018 14:59

if a shyster lawyer could convince him there was a case, then why not?

SusanBunch · 12/02/2018 15:01

Jo Cox MUST have known what he was up to then, no? If he lost his job over it?

She would have known that there were allegations but he managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for the past couple of years, so maybe he told her they were all made up. Or maybe she was planning to LTB but was waiting for a good time. Either way, she is not in any way to blame for his actions. I know a lovely lady whose ex husband was a disgusting creep but very charming. He got away with it for years before she found out and finally dumped him. She didn't deserve it and it was partly because she was such a nice person that he managed to fool her for so long.

Have just been watching clips of BC on youtube. I know it sounds dumb but he really has cold unfeeling eyes.

OP posts:
hurtingheart · 12/02/2018 15:03

No, she is not to blame.

I agree, I did not warm to what I saw of him.

SusanBunch · 12/02/2018 15:05

I wonder if he will sue the MoS?

Well, the DM are nasty but they aren't idiots. They will have made sure all sources were checked and that this story was true (ie that the police report existed). He would be very stupid to sue because it's likely that this will prompt the numerous women that he appears to have harassed to come out of the woodwork and tell their story.

OP posts:
hurtingheart · 12/02/2018 15:09

Course he wont sue.

He'll pretend it's out of respect for his late wife but it's really because the slimeball will lose.

nauticant · 12/02/2018 15:18

Thanks for the reminder about Jeffrey Archer and Tommy Sheridan, Babayaggatheboneylegged. Their legal adventures were mixed enough for both of them to end in prison.

A high risk strategy best left to monstrous narcissistic egos.

Melamin · 12/02/2018 15:43

Jonathan Aitken was another one - high risk strategy.

numbereightyone · 12/02/2018 16:05

The allegations must be taken seriously, no matter how much of an inconvenient truth they may turn out to be.