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

@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.

Your comment bears repeating

Yep I won’t be giving any info here or repeating it elsewhere. He’s entitled to his privacy unless charged and found guilty.

I think it can be useful to release names because it can encourage others to come forward and in rape, corroboration of a similar MO from other victims helps a charge/prosecution.

I don't think the choice not to name him was the police. It was legislation politicians put in to protect their own

Oops forgot link
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parliament-votes-keep-mps-arrests-7347827.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Suspension would put his name into the public domain

They could just suspend everyone who might have done it, all at the same time.

But then there'd be no-one left to run the country except women.. oh actually, yes, carry on...

He has been arrested for raping a member of his staff so the victim would be outed too which is incredibly unfair.

I do think the fact that the Tory Whip (the lovely Jacob Rhys-Mogg- yes I am being ironic here) has done nothing. Contrast this to the treatment of poor Rosie Duffield where she has a massive pile on and campaign to chuck her out of the Labour Party.

I hope the little toad is convicted and receives an appropriate sentence.

I'm sadly, not astonished. Sometimes we are correct to judge books by their covers.

I saw a name on a friends Facebook, v interested to see if it is the same one people on this thread know.

I was aware of him from following brexit coverage way back when that was the biggest tory party fuck up. Judging a book by its cover I wasn't remotely surprised, not that I'm claiming that means anything obviously...

A former deputy chief whip says he should volunteer to give up the whip while the investigation is ongoing. This is what other MPs accused of wrongdoing have done in the past (including ones subsequently cleared on all charges, it's not a tacit admission of guilt)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape-should-give-up-whip-voluntarily-says-anne-milton-cdkvfstww?shareToken=12752702ca5cbdeff7e7db4c116c8a0c

If he does anything then it makes his victim identifiable.

She is absolutely entitled to lifelong anonymity.

The protection of the identity of victims in sexual violence cases is paramount.

If she does not voluntarily choose to relinquish her right to anonymity, then anyone who publishes information on the perpetrator (whose identity also identifies her) is commuting a crime, because they have breached her right to be anonymous

Do you think it will help or hinder victims if it became permissible to publish information on the criminal - including your relationship to him - such that your identity was completely public?

Do you want the upholding of the rights of the victim to be paramount?

The papers have really stuffed thus one up already. It is possible that he can never be legally named, even after prosecution, because that also takes away the right of the victim to anonymity.

Secret Barrister is good on this sort of thing, btw

@Siablue I don't think Jacon Rees-Mogg is the Tory whip is he? He's the leader of the commons. The Tory whip is Mark Spencer.

If convicted, sooner or later whoever it is will become a parent as there would have to be a by election.

However, that is beside the point. At the moment, there are a number of good reasons not to name whoever it is, none of which are to do with protecting him.

Oh dear.

A parent = apparent.

🙄

I think based on various surprising events earlier this year that it isn't the person being commonly named on twitter

I also think its disgusting for the Conservatives not to say what action they are taking..

As I am reflecting on this case, and putting aside the naming of the accused. I am very quickly coming around to the belief that in order to hold political office the bar for sexual violence should be higher.

I mean fair enough if a man stands to lose his liberty the standards on the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt, but for holding political office of any kind then I think if any man on the balance of probability DID commit such a crime that should be a total barrier to such a position.

I propose that when situations such as this arise with our elected officials, a inquiry is conducted alongside any police investigation (with judicial oversight) with the burden of proof being as I outlined above as being on the balance of probability.

Does anyone have any thoughts or anything to add? I’m tempted to write to my MP suggesting this and I’d like to be as coherent as possible.

I'm no expert but I think what you are suggesting is the same as "misconduct in public office"
www.google.com/amp/s/thesecretbarrister.com/2019/07/03/boris-johnson-and-misconduct-in-public-office-8-things-you-should-probably-know/amp/
The problem, of course, is that the MP involved is not named. But it might be possible to pursue him under misconduct even if his name isn't in the public arena

Well fantastic if there are mechanisms in place already! This should be pursued rigorously then, thank you very much for taking the time to share.

I think after watching the hell the girl in the Ulster rape trial went through, anonymity in rape trials until conviction should be considered. Clearly something has to change in our appalling rape conviction stats.

That case was the one that rammed it home for me how much so many men, especially sports mad ones, hate women.

Jess Phillip's has tweeted about this. Another factor is that the victim is possibly having to face him day in and day out.
It's pretty common for suspects to be suspended during investigations, it doesn't and shouldn't presuppose guilt.

Unless someone is suspected of being a serial rapist, always on the prowl looking for victims, I don't see how it is in the public interest to name the accused. I don't particularly want to know who it is but we'll find out soon enough if he is charged.

I'd bloody want to know if it were my MP (who is one of the limited number who definitely does fit the criteria given so far).
However he is a total trombone with dodginess as long as my arm and people still vote for him so maybe I'm in the minority.

Why can people not be content to wait until the police have charged the man? It won't be that long.

Twitter makes a mockery of anonymity for high profile accused people these days anyway.

Why can people not be content to wait until the police have charged the man? It won't be that long.
They might not charge him so we will never know then.
Rape is "virtually decriminalised" as we heard last week. And the standards of duty of care to employees are different to "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" as applies in a trial.
I really hope this doesn't end up being a cover up for some powerful man