Parliament votes to exclude MPs arrested for sexual assault

[TooBigForMyBoots]

By a margin of 1!

I'm delighted that women working in Westminster will be safer. I'm not at all surprised that only 8 Conservative MPs voted for it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mps-sex-offence-arrest-parliament-commons-b1157500.html

I’m amazed it was as many as eight.

Probably concerned that there would only be 3 members left by the election 🤷‍♀️

I wonder though.

Does anyone remember how - a Green Party member was prevented from attending to put forward motions by injunctions being taken out on him?

All that’s needed is an accusation to prevent ‘difficult’ MPs from attending.

I agree. The conservatives wanted it at point of charge which seems more reasonable to me. Think how many women have been arrested based on spurious accusations of ‘hate’. Or accusation of ‘literal violence’ directed at those standing up for women’s rights. (Violence is covered here too). All it takes is to make accusations prior to a sensitive vote.

Given that rape has been practically decriminalised under the Tories and they paid for private hospital treatment for at least 1 rape victim of a Tory MP, then told her to "Get over it", I'm happy that it's at the point of arrest.

It brings Parliament into line with many other sectors.

I am not surprised that Tory Leader-in-waiting and all round MRA, Penny TWAW Mordaunt voted against.

And it takes more than a baseless allegation to get arrested doesn't it? So being arrested is quite significant.

No it doesn’t.

You think the police go around arresting people without any evidence @Sloejelly? Nonsense. They conduct an investigation first. That's why they haven't arrested Angela Rayner. They need to investigate if a crime has been committed first.

So yes, it's pretty significant if an arrest is made. That's why it's the bar for suspension in many other sectors.

I think access suspended if arrested sounds reasonable to me. It’s presumably what would happen in other sectors.

Some examples of people being arrested:

Lesbian Nana arrested teen
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13117093/West-Yorkshire-Police-apologise-autistic-girl-lesbian-nana.html

Sticker woman
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60161666

Holding a sign saying ‘Hamas are Terrorists’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/

Many (including myself) would like to see Nicola Sturgeon banned from Parliament but if no charges could be laid…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65871857#:~:text=Former%20First%20Minister%20Nicola%20Sturgeon,is%20being%20questioned%20by%20detectives.

And in relation to MPs and sex crimes there was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/operation-midland-four-top-public-figures-falsely-accused-by-nick

Those MPs weren't arrested. They were investigated. None of the other cases you linked are sex assault cases. At least one of them is due to malicious intent by the police.

They conduct an investigation first.

Arrests are part of the investigation

Exactly, malicious intent.

What about this case?

https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24122930.andrew-rosindell-mp-probe-harvey-proctor-slams-met-police/

Arrested, then the case dropped two years later without charge.

Don't worry, @Sloejelly. This will not effect MPs arrested for holding banners or stickering or calling the police names.

Only if the have been arrested for sexual assault. Funny how it's mostly the Tories who are worried about this. It got cross party support in the HoC including with 8 Conservative MPs.

What about Andrew Rosindell?

Actually I'm quite disgusted that you would draw any parallel between stickering and sexual assault.

Are you saying Andrew Rosindell was the victim of a malicious complaint?

They arrest persons of interest all the time during the course of an investigation. You don’t need evidence the person has committed a crime to arrest them. A lawful arrest by a police constable requires two elements:

• a person's involvement, suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence, and
• reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary

They only charge a person when they have evidence sufficient to go to trial that a person has committed a criminal offence.

There’s something dodgy about elected representatives being prevented from representing their constituents in parliament.

Every time you read “arrested and released without charge” in the news that means there was no evidence the person arrested had done a crime. If there were evidence, they would have been charged.

Are you saying we should assume guilt? Even though no charges were laid and the case was dropped two years later?

Mentally ill people are arrested if it is suspected they might harm property, others or themselves. As in they haven’t yet…

What does that have to do with people, mostly men, being arrested for the crime of sexual assault?

I'm happy that it's at the point of arrest.

I am not. Innocent people are arrested all the time on mere suspicion.
I think it should be suspension from arrest for violent or sexual offence
If released with no charge, immediately unsuspended
If charged suspension continues until after the criminal trial
If not guilty/charges dropped, immediately unsuspended
If guilty, then permanently excluded for life