Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

105 replies

Dervel · 02/08/2020 11:05

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

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

OP posts:
Mumoftwoyoungkids · 02/08/2020 13:46

My MP is in his 50s but has never been a minister.

I bet he has never been so glad to be an “also ran” in his life!

roarfeckingroarr · 02/08/2020 13:49

Don't want to even hint because of legal. Needless to say though I wasn't surprised, having worked around Westminster for years.

NiceGerbil · 02/08/2020 13:50

I have strong views about the calls for anonymity for those accused of rape, until they are convicted, which is called for by some.

In this case I think it's the right thing to do. Having a massive public load of press about this man now, with all the she's after money, doing it for political gain etc would be a bad thing. Her name would be smeared thoroughly before it ever got near a court

Having said that I can't see this coming to anything as he's a powerful man and she's a female intern.

I was very surprised by the outcome of the Alex salmond trial (I shouldn't have been) and he had multiple different women give evidence.

zanahoria · 02/08/2020 14:44

It is the clues I do not understand, it's like the police are enjoying the guessing games

Seriously, why do it?

Dreeple · 02/08/2020 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

DidoLamenting · 02/08/2020 15:19

@ErrolTheDragon

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.

Well said. This thread should go.
Longtalljosie · 02/08/2020 15:35

I doubt the times has “messed up royally”. They have expensive lawyers and this is basic stuff. When people aren’t being named it is either because of an injunction or because naming them would identify a victim of sexual assault OR prejudice further proceedings. Watching people expressing outrage while scrabbling round to find the name (thereby potentially jeopardising trials) makes my teeth itch.

Original poster
Dervel · 02/08/2020 15:53

I simply posted the question because I was
uncertain that political influence hadn’t been leveraged to shield a potential perpetrator, and to prime the timing of any sort of announcement to suit the government. It turns out there are solid reasons to hold off until charging has occurred, so I’m willing to reserve judgement on that. I’d be happy to see the thread go if that’s what people think is best.

OP posts:
eddiemairswife · 02/08/2020 23:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

GrimDamnFanjo · 03/08/2020 01:27

Yes there's a name on Twitter and not a household name - I had to google him!

DidoLamenting · 03/08/2020 01:32

*simply posted the question because I was
uncertain that political influence hadn’t been leveraged to shield a potential perpetrator, and to prime the timing of any sort of announcement to suit the government.

DidoLamenting · 03/08/2020 01:34

Sorry posted too soon there's nothing unusual at this stage in the name being withheld

jessstan2 · 03/08/2020 02:52

Probably because he has yet to be charged.

ShootsFruitsAndLeaves · 03/08/2020 07:19

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.

Pay more attention. The Belgravia MP is Charlie Elphicke, who has just been found guilty of sexual assault. He has been replaced as MP by his wife, who is divorcing him now.

This man was accused of offences in Lambeth, Westminster, Hackney, and arrested on Saturday taken to an east London police station.

The present man is ONLY not being named because by describing the relationship between the accused and the victim, it makes it possible for her to be identified.

It's NOTHING to do with his anonymity, but because the media have already given enough information to make her likely identifiable.

jessstan2 · 03/08/2020 07:56

We'll find out soon enough. I don't thinking knowing the man's name will do any of us any good, frankly, unless the person is our neighbour. Apart from that it would probably 'out' his alleged victim, as someone above said. Let's wait until he is charged.

Alltheprettyseahorses · 03/08/2020 08:16

I don't see why his name is being kept secret unless it genuinely is to protect the victim of his crime. Suspects' identities are released before charge all the time for crimes of carrying severity, just look at police appeals in local papers or Crimewatch or that telly programme on after BBC Breakfast sometimes. Rape suspects shouldn't be treated differently. Oh, and the whip should have been removed immediately.

Hmmph · 03/08/2020 08:17

By him not being suspended, does the poor woman have to continue to work for him in, what sounds like, a fairly small working environment? Because that is awful.

The Times releasing enough details to work out who she is if people know who he is are basically holding her to ransom to protect him. (I have no idea what the Times wrote or whether they wrote what they did deliberately).

There is potentially a woman who has been raped working in a small office in Parliament for this man with him and her colleagues knowing what he did and that he is able to carry on with his life and that enough details have been released to punish he by identifying her should his identity become known.

So awful.

Whiskyinajar · 03/08/2020 08:18

It’s exactly who I thought it was. No surprise really.

Interestingly he could have been my brother in law...he pursued my sister relentlessly for a while when we were in our 20s. Thankfully my sister has better taste. Grin

PlanDeRaccordement · 03/08/2020 08:20

It’s standard not to release names until charged if in public interest or convicted if run of mill.
It can be illegal to do so. It’s why Tommy Robinson went to jail- for releasing names of a child sex ring during their trial.

QuentinWinters · 03/08/2020 08:23

I'm horrified he hasn't had the whip removed, whomever it is.

VikingVolva · 03/08/2020 08:37

I think it is right that suspects are not named until they are charged.

Whatever the charge.

Being suspended wouid be a way of confirming who the suspect is (from the twenty or so people it could be) and that might in turn lead to the identity of the complainant. And that would be very wrong.

Parliament is in recess until September, so withdrawing the whip now makes absolutely no difference to what the MP can/can't do. They will need to decide by the resumption of parliament what they are going to do should charges be likely (wouid they know?).

I assume from the Tory party statement (as reported) is that their stance will completely change if he is charged. It's really only now, during early investigation and also during a lengthy recess, that they can hold the current line

PerkingFaintly · 03/08/2020 08:52

It’s why Tommy Robinson went to jail- for releasing names of a child sex ring during their trial.

Not quite. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson went to jail for filming and attempting to film the accused, editorialising about them and broadcasting this during the trial. He did this twice.

So it wasn't a simple issue of the reporting of names being restricted until after the trial, although that does happen in some cases.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/29/edl-founder-tommy-robinson-jailed-13-months

Pobblebonk · 03/08/2020 08:54

@PlanDeRaccordement

It’s standard not to release names until charged if in public interest or convicted if run of mill. It can be illegal to do so. It’s why Tommy Robinson went to jail- for releasing names of a child sex ring during their trial.
Self-evidently people who are on trial have been charged. In this case there was a specific order than names not be released because there was a series of trials, and releasing information could have prejudiced fair trials for those coming later.
Pobblebonk · 03/08/2020 08:56

I can't see that The Times has messed up at all. They haven't published anything that they are not perfectly entitled to publish.

Ethelswith · 03/08/2020 09:09

Saw a relevant tweet this morning

"Just because someone is an odious Tory MP of a certain age doesn't make him guilty of a serious sex crime. Let's not jeopardise a rape trial with uninformed speculation"

Suspension would put his name into the public domain, would lead to all sorts of speculation being published on social media, and worst case would indeed make prosecution impossible. And I think that is the worst possible outcome,

So bad as it sounds, right now it's the right call.