I know I shouldn't laugh but "handsy at parties" is such a ridiculous description. This is the way I'd describe my 20 month old son.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK government compiled list of sexual harassment for blackmailing votes. It's leaked.
- Thread starter Jackpot
- Start date
It's not really the government's whip's jobs to stop parliamentary researchers from compiling a list of rumours and sex stuff about their own side's MPs. It's also not their job to stop somebody either inside or outside that group alerting the press that the list exists.
Remember that this was a list constructed by junior researchers, not the whips. Whips are not the sort to go writing all their dirt down somewhere.
Was it ever established why the put it down on a list?
It just seems to absurdley stupid. The language used also seems odd.
Mind you, maybe that is it, they are just stupid.
Probably as an exercise in naming and shaming, or just collecting gossip. So the researchers bandy together around some drinks and brainstorm what they know and see what everyone else knows, likely in the wake of the recent Hollywood scandals. This gets passed around on a Whatsapp group and the rest is history.
Tory and Labour whips have some grimy stuff to cover up from the sounds of it, in the mean time Lib Dem whips are currently shredding entire excel workbooks full of "once had a poo in a bush" and "doesn't really like rice pudding".
There's dirt in the LDs too (Lord Rennard) and there has been historic misdeeds by Liberals (Thorpe, although he was exonerated, and of course Smith).
Rennard is an ugly business in general with a lot of bad moods around it.
Rennard is an ugly business in general with a lot of bad moods around it.
OP
OP
Dominic Raab's statement on his list entry:
And Rory Stewart on his:
And Rory Stewart on his:
This story is completely untrue + deeply hurtful. Neither of us have any idea how our names appeared on the list. See @sophiebolsover below
The Raab comments are interesting as it's a matter of public record that he sought a gagging order on the Miss E in the case he's referring to. See: https://order-order.com/2011/12/13/press-freedom-campaigner-dominic-raab-seeks-gagging-injunction/ - I would wager that is what the line is referring to. It might not be true, of course, but this was a list compiled by junior researchers who were collecting together what they'd heard, not a font of fact.
Not a good look, even outside of the fact this list is unverified and may well be unfairly naming incorrectly.
Something stinks.
Much like the Cameron pig story, I think it says a lot that regardless of how much of this turns out to be verifiable, everyone deems it entirely plausible.
Piggate was not regarded as plausible by everyone - Hislop throw a lot of cold water on it quickly.
I'd probably keep an eye on Private Eye for the next few weeks given these allegations. Nobody comes close to that paper for exposing rotten stuff.
I'd probably keep an eye on Private Eye for the next few weeks given these allegations. Nobody comes close to that paper for exposing rotten stuff.
I think most people just found it funny, a Tory MP on BBC news saying it didn't matter if the PM did it with a pigs head actually happened.
Not an MP, but him saying it 'reflected well' was Toby Young's finest hour
Isn't that a different list? I thought this list was the whips office blackmail list, hence why it's only Tory mps. The westminster workers whatsapp list is different and hasn't yet leaked AFAIK.
A bunch of the stuff on that list ie 'known to use male prostitutes', 'likes to have sex with men wearing women's colonge' and a couple of others don't indicate sexual harassment at all and we shouldn't be poring over people's private/sex lives. I mean it's funny cos it is the puritanical Tories but I don't think that's fair.
How did Toby Young ever become a thing, he doesn't half talk a load of bollocks.
I think it's OK if there is obvious hypocrisy between their public(political) and private behaviour, but I'm not really going through the list with a fine toothed comb to look for it, mostly because I don't really want to think about these people at all.
You'd be completely right, if it wasn't this government (and these MPs) passing anti-pornography legislation and ratcheting up internet surveillance.
Nothing on the Conservatives list will bring down the Government IMO. I have a feeling this is the classic Conservative play of getting their drama out of the way and then seeing who from the other parties takes a fall. The concept of Yesterdays News in play.
That probably deserves a new thread - didn't expect that.
Were there any allegations other than the knee touch incident?
Were there any allegations other than the knee touch incident?
That's a lot of (alleged) sexual harassers for one party. Not a great look. And once known, using it to leverage votes instead of for justice for the victims shows a complete failure of government to tackle that issue at the very least. I really wish more conservative politicians could generally just focus on behaving decently and treating all people with respect, while looking to control spending where sensible to do so. The hypocrisy is so tiresome.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41838682
May appreciating the serious manner in which he considered his role... Yeah, sure.
Weed them all out and shine light onto the rats.
That would be better for the Tories than it happening weekly.
I agree with the concept of what you're saying here, but with Jackson, specifically, this comment is unfortunately indicative of the extent to which public opinion can trump evidence. This gets long, so I'll spoiler it.
Jackson was pursued rigorously and in both cases there are major questions as to the reliability of the allegations. In the first case, the allegations came from the child's father in the wake of his wife leaving him; he was, in the absolute most charitable viewing, planning on profiting massively from his son's sexual abuse. He was on record gloating excitedly about how much money he was going to make; this doesn't preclude the allegations also being true, but it's surely pretty exploitative and raises questions about his intentions. The child at the center of this case (which was ultimately settled by Jackson's label, against his wishes) in the years after became legally emancipated from his parents, left the country and has not spoken to them in decades. At the 2005 trial, he refused to testify against Jackson (to be clear: this is not evidence of anything) but sworn witnesses were prepared to tell the court that he had told them the allegations were a lie his parents had made him tell and that he would never speak to them again because of what they had made him do.
In the 2005 trial, there were again many questions about the reliability of the testimony of the alleged victim and his family. The dates they claimed the abuse to have happened were fairly quickly found to be impossible (Jackson was not present in the period they first gave), so they changed. Memory is fallible, maybe they just had their dates wrong. The alleged victim testified that Jackson manually "interfered" (my word, I'm avoiding getting too graphic) with him, telling him that if he didn't do this, the victim "might rape a girl". When asked what he knew about masturbation, he explained that his grandma taught him it's something boys have to do or they "might rape a girl". This is a weird meme, is it going around? People's grandmas and pop stars go around teaching people masturbation is necessary to prevent becoming a rapist? Oddly specific advice to receive from two unrelated people. Continuing, the alleged victim's younger brother claimed to have walked in on Jackson molesting his brother at night twice, setting off Jackson's bedroom alarm both times ... without Jackson hearing it or noticing anybody entering. This third description didn't match the original version he had told police in an interview, or the second version he had told a psychologist in the case.
Obviously some may take the following as evidence of the elites closing ranks, so presented without comment: comedians Jay Leno, George Lopez and Chris Tucker had all had interactions with the family of the alleged victim which made them wary. Lopez said he was framed by the family as having stolen $300 from the wallet of Jackson's alleged victim, Tucker said they had taken advantage of his generosity and expected too much from him, and Leno had received a phone call from the alleged victim offering him lavish praise, while a woman's voice (presumed to be the alleged victim's mother) coached him on what to say in the background; Leno found it unsettling and refused to take any more calls from the family.
Back at the trial, the alleged victim's mother was not found to be credible by the jury. The prosecution was forced to object to his own witness' testimony repeatedly as she veered off into rants and arguments about unrelated subjects. She had previously accused a security guard at a J.C. Penney's of sexually assaulting her (a case which was settled in her favor). She enrolled her children in acting classes in the lead-up to that trial, and in the Jackson trial admitted that she had lied under oath in the prior case.
The jury unanimously found Jackson not guilty on all charges. This was not a case of Jackson being able to afford better lawyers; the case against him was brought by the State of California and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District Attorney, an accomplished prosecutor with decades of experience. Is it possible that Jackson was guilty after all? Of course. Much of the public thought so. Is it possible that the allegations were false? Of course. The jury certainly thought so. This is absolutely not a clear case of an abuser getting away with their abuse, as so often happens. This is a far more complicated story than that. In short: Michael Jackson is not the O.J. Simpson of child molesting.
In the 2005 trial, there were again many questions about the reliability of the testimony of the alleged victim and his family. The dates they claimed the abuse to have happened were fairly quickly found to be impossible (Jackson was not present in the period they first gave), so they changed. Memory is fallible, maybe they just had their dates wrong. The alleged victim testified that Jackson manually "interfered" (my word, I'm avoiding getting too graphic) with him, telling him that if he didn't do this, the victim "might rape a girl". When asked what he knew about masturbation, he explained that his grandma taught him it's something boys have to do or they "might rape a girl". This is a weird meme, is it going around? People's grandmas and pop stars go around teaching people masturbation is necessary to prevent becoming a rapist? Oddly specific advice to receive from two unrelated people. Continuing, the alleged victim's younger brother claimed to have walked in on Jackson molesting his brother at night twice, setting off Jackson's bedroom alarm both times ... without Jackson hearing it or noticing anybody entering. This third description didn't match the original version he had told police in an interview, or the second version he had told a psychologist in the case.
Obviously some may take the following as evidence of the elites closing ranks, so presented without comment: comedians Jay Leno, George Lopez and Chris Tucker had all had interactions with the family of the alleged victim which made them wary. Lopez said he was framed by the family as having stolen $300 from the wallet of Jackson's alleged victim, Tucker said they had taken advantage of his generosity and expected too much from him, and Leno had received a phone call from the alleged victim offering him lavish praise, while a woman's voice (presumed to be the alleged victim's mother) coached him on what to say in the background; Leno found it unsettling and refused to take any more calls from the family.
Back at the trial, the alleged victim's mother was not found to be credible by the jury. The prosecution was forced to object to his own witness' testimony repeatedly as she veered off into rants and arguments about unrelated subjects. She had previously accused a security guard at a J.C. Penney's of sexually assaulting her (a case which was settled in her favor). She enrolled her children in acting classes in the lead-up to that trial, and in the Jackson trial admitted that she had lied under oath in the prior case.
The jury unanimously found Jackson not guilty on all charges. This was not a case of Jackson being able to afford better lawyers; the case against him was brought by the State of California and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District Attorney, an accomplished prosecutor with decades of experience. Is it possible that Jackson was guilty after all? Of course. Much of the public thought so. Is it possible that the allegations were false? Of course. The jury certainly thought so. This is absolutely not a clear case of an abuser getting away with their abuse, as so often happens. This is a far more complicated story than that. In short: Michael Jackson is not the O.J. Simpson of child molesting.
I personally think the jury made the right decision and that the charges were not substantially proven, and came to that opinion before I had any interest in him as a performer. To go further: I personally believe that Jackson was almost certainly innocent, but also pretty weird, and foolish to put himself in the position he did.