Why has the Tory minister arrested for rape not been named?

[Dervel]

Just that really. Does your party being in power shield you from this sort of thing?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53625829

I think it may be more the innocent until proven guilty judicial system in this country.
Personally I think it's the right thing, and I believe its wrong to name anyone just because of them being arrested, I know it's unlikely but it's possible it's a malicious claim.

Suspects aren’t normally named until charge.

They have to be formally charged.

Yes - surely this is standard practice if you've not been charged?

I did also wonder whether it was because naming them would make the complainant immediately identifiable. It's not simply that media can't publish the names of complainants/victims in such cases but also that they can't publish details that would enable jigsaw ID.

But I dunno. Trying to be generous.

Here's the Sunday Times piece which the bbc one is based on.

I'm somewhat of the opinion (though open to be convinced otherwise) that early release of the name of any suspect before much investigation can have occurred may not be wise.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-ex-minister-arrested-over-rape-qdm897rv2?shareToken=09f41ac13d65239c8443c2655e8475f7

There have been too many cases of trial by media getting in the way of court cases. This man has only been arrested on suspicion - I’ve always thought it was wrong that people who have just been arrested are splashed all over the news with the resulting career ending backlash. Maybe the media has learnt from cases like Cliff Richard and the whole ‘high level paedophile ring’ debacle which turned out to be a complete malicious fiction and ruined many lives.

It looks like they haven’t actually been charged yet, typically names aren’t published (for other crimes as well) until the person is charged. Obviously names still regularly leak.

Suspects aren’t named uNTIL they’re charged, unless they’re Cliff Richards.

There’s 27 MPs who fit the profile of being ex ministers and in their 50s. I bet 26 of them are furious.

I’ve seen the list and only heard of 4 or 5 of them. So chances are it’s nobody well known.

Presuming it will be leaked on Twitter by the end of the day, anyone else?

The problem is that I think there are only a few people who fit the description of a current MP in his 50s who is an ex-minister. It becomes pretty unfair on those who aren't under suspicion to make them the target of speculation. Though I suppose if all those who haven't been arrested announce that fact it won't be difficult to work out who's keeping quiet.

I’ve looked at the list I’ve seen....if you also think about who has a house in Belgravia there’s only one I think who fits the bill. Possibly 3 but the other 2 are ex MPS and I think this is a current MP.

@Pobblebonk

The problem is that I think there are only a few people who fit the description of a current MP in his 50s who is an ex-minister. It becomes pretty unfair on those who aren't under suspicion to make them the target of speculation. Though I suppose if all those who haven't been arrested announce that fact it won't be difficult to work out who's keeping quiet.

They’ll probably be instructed not to confirm or deny anything to prevent this happening.

Well, I am nosy and want to know who it is. Where can I find this list?

@eddiemairswife

Well, I am nosy and want to know who it is. Where can I find this list?

Reddit.

Just google for “Tory mp arrested reddit”

Quite a few threads....none actually naming him.

Well, I am nosy and want to know who it is. Where can I find this list?

I'm nosy but recognise that prurient interest should never be allowed to jeopardise fair trial and - if guilty - conviction.

I'm nosy but recognise that prurient interest should never be allowed to jeopardise fair trial and - if guilty - conviction.

This. Further details will undoubtable emerge if there's enough evidence to charge him, and I'd much rather wait than jeopardise any trial.

@PerkingFaintly

I'm nosy but recognise that prurient interest should never be allowed to jeopardise fair trial and - if guilty - conviction.

This. Further details will undoubtable emerge if there's enough evidence to charge him, and I'd much rather wait than jeopardise any trial.

Of course even if he's guilty the chances of him being charged, let alone convicted, are extremely low leaving young female interns at undue risk.

I'm not commenting on if he is guilty or whether it's wrong to withhold his name, but both options create dangerous potential consequences.

Ok looks like there are some sound reasons for holding off for now. Thanks for the insights.

Of course even if he's guilty the chances of him being charged, let alone convicted, are extremely low leaving young female interns at undue risk.

True, though I'd hope that those in the system who know who this is about keeping both their eyes and minds open.

There is a legal thread on Twitter on this. Basically it seems to boil down to the Times publishing enough detail that, should he be named, the complainant will be easy to identify.

Which puts everyone in a bit of a pickle; if charged, an employee with a role with safeguarding implications might normally be suspended pending investigation. However, that now can't be done without it becoming public knowledge. The Times have messed up royally.

Hi folks

Can we make sure we don't speculate on names?
If this happens, we will need to delete the thread.

I know who it is. There will be howls when it comes out.

@roarfeckingroarr

I know who it is. There will be howls when it comes out.

In what way?

Bet you don't !