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

No, it doesn't. It means there wasn't sufficient evidence for CPS to think they have a reasonable chance of getting a criminal conviction (which currently seems to be about a 66% chance of winning) or, sometimes, that the victim no longer wishes to pursue the case.

It has to do with your strangely naive claim that arrests are only done if there is evidence the person has already committed a crime.

Btw, mentally ill people can and do commit violent and sexual offences due to their mental state. So it is relevant that you can be arrested merely under suspicion that you might commit one of these crimes. As in zero evidence as no crime has happened yet.

No, you are describing when charges are dropped.

Only if the have been arrested for sexual assault

It isn’t only sexual assault. It is also violence. But now we have started banning MPs from representing their constituents for a suspected involvement in a crime, for which there was insufficient evidence (or potentially no evidence) to charge, why not add to it?

This goes two ways:

• there is now a strong motivation for certain individuals or foreign powers to make vexatious complaints, or for malicious intent by the police, leading to arrests prior to certain votes - eg gender recognition, reaction to Gaza, funding of the military, Rwanda policies. It also provides additional power to blackmailers ‘encouraging’ actions by MPs, once again including foreign powers.
• police hesitate in arresting MPs for serious crimes because they don’t want to be accused of manipulating parliamentary activities.

Given we know that false rape claims are really rare, and sex abusers in the Tory party aren't, I think it best to err on the side of women's safety. He should have been suspended.

No, I’m not. Charging decisions are made by CPS. Their criteria for charging and proceeding with a case is not “is there any evidence against the accused”. It is does the evidence they have give them a “realistic prospect of conviction”. (They say this = are they more likely than not to win, which should mean any chance >50% of winning but looking at conviction rates, which are significantly higher, they clearly apply a somewhat more stringent standard.)

They do not charge every single case for which there is any evidence.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-we-make-our-decisions

Arrested? Or detained under the Mental Health Act?

So you are deciding he is guilty until proven innocent and in your mind he has not been proven innocent? And therefore his constituents should be denied parliamentarian representation. The fact you mention the Tory party, when other parties also have their sex pests, shows your true intent. That is a dangerous and authoritarian route to go down.

Safety of women (and men) in parliament could be addressed through other measures without denying 75000 voters any representation for years on end or allowing the manipulation of Parliament.

This will be misused.

And the politicisation of the decision is evidence of that. Every comment criticising the tories about this, proves it.

MPs on both sides will be sex pests. It’s a tendency of men in power regardless of their political affiliation.
Imagine a world where you knew you’d be safe because of how a man voted.

What I consider more worthy of attention is how much easier it appears to be to get convictions for sex crimes against men. But that’s purely my perception, no evidence to back that up.

On balance I don’t think this is a good thing. It will make the act of arresting an mp political and increase the bar to it as the mp will lose their job and what if they are then released without charge, do they get the job back? Do they get compensated?
what if the allegation was found to be untrue? What happens then?

People's faith in the police not being political, or only arresting when justified, surprises me given I know the people on this board have paid more attention than most to social changes in the last decade 🤔🙃

This can only be used for MPs arrested for Sexual or violent assault. I’m glad it got through, and brings MPs into line with many other work environments, where they would be excluded from the work place on arrest.

If someone issues it maliciously they should be dealt with appropriately.

Agree.

The foreign spy making the accusation will have quietly left the country and the legislation will have been enacted into law or not….

I am divided on this. There's something unique about parliament compared to other jobs because a suspension would leave ordinary people unrepresented, and that's a serious thing.

I assume we suspend men from their jobs in such circumstances as a safeguarding measure, i.e. to keep women safe in their workplace.

If so, could he still attend and vote remotely? Could he nominate a proxy? I'd not be happy to be unrepresented in parliament.

Surely it isn't to punish him, or to 'send a signal', because we shouldn't do those things until he's found guilty.

Exactly Voodoo. I would be all for excluding him from the parliamentary estate except the commons chamber and committee rooms and requiring an escort to and from those places.

This was a vote to restore the system that had been watered down. It was in force when Rosendell was under arrest. In no other employment would someone under arrest not be suspended so why should MPs get special treatment?

Mr Rosindell was prevented from attending the House of Commons to speak, ask questions or vote for almost two years.

Because being an MP is not equivalent to other jobs.

If it is about safety then that can be addressed in other ways. If it is about judgement then why limit it to sexual and violent offences? If it is about punishment then it needs to go to court first.

I work in the public sector - if I was arrested for sexual assault I would be suspended until the investigation had been concluded. If the investigation concluded I was innocent I would presumably be able to return to my role. I imagine this would be the case in most roles where there are issues both of safeguarding and public perception. I don't understand why the same wouldn't be applicable to MPs and am glad it as at point of arrest.

Because being an MP is not equivalent to other jobs.

Why not? It’s salaried employment, why would we hold our elected representatives to lower standards than the rest of us? Back in the day when politicians had integrity an MP would be forced to resign if they were arrested on any charge.

We had a real bully on the local council. His behaviour was awful. We had to protect the clerk but weren’t able to protect the councillors. He was an elected representative and had to be allowed to continue as otherwise the electorate wouldn’t have been represented.

In places with facilities you can prevent someone attending apart from meetings and votes.

Alex Salmond was a good (ant least highly visible) example of the problem with this kind of scenario. Smears and allegations are damaging and will be used for best political effect, whether based in truth or not. And that then undermines all trust.

If only we lived in a world where people didn’t capitalise on tragedy.

And it’s not true he’d be suspended in any other job.

And it’s not true he’d be suspended in any other job.

Really? Which areas of employment wouldn’t suspend someone under arrest for a sexual or violent offence? The BBC certainly did it with Huw Edwards even though the police were clear there was no basis for the accusations and he was never arrested.

If only we lived in a world where men weren't sex offenders.

How often in your employment do you pass or amend laws that influence not only the tens of thousands of people you represent but also the country? Including our security, our safety, our taxes, and our industry?

People get suspended when the employer finds out.

For an average Joe, it can take a while.