FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour Sleaze
Labour Sleaze
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 46 weeks ago
|
So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
If the stories that are circulating are true and the time many have known about it, this is not a good look for labour.
For that reason I would expect very few comments from the usually vocal on here to all things sleaze and wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the stories that are circulating are true and the time many have known about it, this is not a good look for labour.
For that reason I would expect very few comments from the usually vocal on here to all things sleaze and wrong. "
They'll be along with the usual 'if he's guilty he should be sacked' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"If the stories that are circulating are true and the time many have known about it, this is not a good look for labour.
For that reason I would expect very few comments from the usually vocal on here to all things sleaze and wrong.
They'll be along with the usual 'if he's guilty he should be sacked'"
I'm sure one will pop in with that and totally miss the point that the party was aware of his actions a long time ago, if the stories are correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
"
Not a single word on Nick Brown since he was suspended which is rather quite odd.
Maybe SKS has Murdoch on side, in which case according to plenty on here, he definitely wins the GE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
"
I hope they don’t make him deputy chief whip  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested."
"I hope they don’t make him deputy chief whip"
Ooh! I get it.
You're saying that the Tories have already had this scandal, so it's perfectly OK for Labour to have it as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
I hope they don’t make him deputy chief whip
Ooh! I get it.
You're saying that the Tories have already had this scandal, so it's perfectly OK for Labour to have it as well."
No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
I hope they don’t make him deputy chief whip
Ooh! I get it.
You're saying that the Tories have already had this scandal, so it's perfectly OK for Labour to have it as well.
No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately "
I think the main difference here is one you'd be all over and one you offer no comment apart from 'but the Tories promoted someone'.
Flag firmly nailed to the mast, sad to see really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'."
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip "
Don't give me that old Labour line of 'we weren't aware', how many times can you use that defence before it doesn't wash  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip "
Why are you talking about deputy whips? Labour's Ex-Chief Whip has disappeared off the face of the planet  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not labour and haven't read the details but my immediate reactions were
Good that action has been taken and others have been encouraged to come forwards.
Need to know more about "the party knew". In old companies there have been people with reputations. I doubt the bosses knew. And that (slash HR) is what matters for actions. Who in the labout party had suspicions and why wasn't it surfaced to the top?
From what I can tell informal complaint was made so hard to know.
Big question about the role of whips if they were told. That is the biggest issue with the story I have.
Any allegations of sexual misconduct should be treated seriously and immediately. It's a balance of risk thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not labour and haven't read the details but my immediate reactions were
Good that action has been taken and others have been encouraged to come forwards.
Need to know more about "the party knew". In old companies there have been people with reputations. I doubt the bosses knew. And that (slash HR) is what matters for actions. Who in the labout party had suspicions and why wasn't it surfaced to the top?
From what I can tell informal complaint was made so hard to know.
Big question about the role of whips if they were told. That is the biggest issue with the story I have.
Any allegations of sexual misconduct should be treated seriously and immediately. It's a balance of risk thing. "
It is of course good that he's been suspended. I don't for 1 minute think 'word didn't get around' there has already been the complainant and 3 others who said they knew, 2 Labour and a Tory.
It just seems that everytime someone get out from Labour the line is 'we weren't aware'. If that's true, then they serious lack in the 'being in the know dept', its poor regardless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately"
"By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'."
"Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip"
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case."
You know how it works round here...
Tory = incompetent
Labour = its not their fault |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case."
Do we have any evidence that SKS knew? Alexander knew about pincher and then promoted him |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case."
Johnson actually denied that he knew but had known about Chris Puncher's activities. That turned out not to be true.
He was both complicit and incompetent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/62048687 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.
Johnson actually denied that he knew but had known about Chris Puncher's activities. That turned out not to be true.
He was both complicit and incompetent.
https://www.bbc.com/news/62048687"
And was then sacked as PM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case."
was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here. "
Best he got was chair of a committee |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee"
I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference. "
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
"
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
"
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints."
Blimey! You've got to be going some if you have a working girl complaining that you're sexually harassing her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
"
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they "
Yep, the only need to be slightly better, as I keep saying, labour wont win the next election, the tories will lose it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members."
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction."
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they "
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they "
I actually think that they will be significantly better for some period and then they will be overwhelmed with events and complacency.
At least from the perspective of intent if not execution and policy (which is subjective).
New ideas and the intention to do the right thing will corrode over time.
Ironically, less power (a smaller majority or a coalition) forces more honesty and requires better arguments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
"
Then they will get voted out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
Then they will get voted out "
Or they could try and up their game from slightly better, it is after all the country they are trying to run |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.."
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
Then they will get voted out
Or they could try and up their game from slightly better, it is after all the country they are trying to run"
Like the tories? Nah, they just need to be slightly better than the opposition, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse..
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse?"
What exactly are you trying to compare? I'm not entirely sure but I've never said those things.
You've clearly taken a few words in isolation to try to make a point. Can you really tell me the poster who said that didn't clearly imply 'but, but Tories'?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse..
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse?
What exactly are you trying to compare? I'm not entirely sure but I've never said those things.
You've clearly taken a few words in isolation to try to make a point. Can you really tell me the poster who said that didn't clearly imply 'but, but Tories'?
"
"You know how it works round here...
Tory = incompetent
Labour = its not their fault"
"every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.."
What should I make from this?
What does "both are disgusting" mean?
These are similar events happening within the same Parliament. Seems like a valid direct comparison in how it is dealt with rather than a "but, but" considering that the severity of the accusation has been acknowledged and the sanctioning of Davies being applauded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
Then they will get voted out
Or they could try and up their game from slightly better, it is after all the country they are trying to run
Like the tories? Nah, they just need to be slightly better than the opposition, "
I genuinely believe you believe in what you post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse..
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse?
What exactly are you trying to compare? I'm not entirely sure but I've never said those things.
You've clearly taken a few words in isolation to try to make a point. Can you really tell me the poster who said that didn't clearly imply 'but, but Tories'?
"You know how it works round here...
Tory = incompetent
Labour = its not their fault"
"every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.."
What should I make from this?
What does "both are disgusting" mean?
These are similar events happening within the same Parliament. Seems like a valid direct comparison in how it is dealt with rather than a "but, but" considering that the severity of the accusation has been acknowledged and the sanctioning of Davies being applauded."
Have you even read what I was responding to. You'd have to have been running round here blind for the last 2 years to not understand what I was saying.
Perhaps someone else can help you.
Tbh with you, I think your an absolute dickhead who runs here on some sort of big horse whilst your poor wife is suffering so I've decided that you've had enough of my attention. Go and seek some from somewhere else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse..
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse?
What exactly are you trying to compare? I'm not entirely sure but I've never said those things.
You've clearly taken a few words in isolation to try to make a point. Can you really tell me the poster who said that didn't clearly imply 'but, but Tories'?
"You know how it works round here...
Tory = incompetent
Labour = its not their fault"
"every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.."
What should I make from this?
What does "both are disgusting" mean?
These are similar events happening within the same Parliament. Seems like a valid direct comparison in how it is dealt with rather than a "but, but" considering that the severity of the accusation has been acknowledged and the sanctioning of Davies being applauded.
Have you even read what I was responding to. You'd have to have been running round here blind for the last 2 years to not understand what I was saying.
Perhaps someone else can help you.
Tbh with you, I think your an absolute dickhead who runs here on some sort of big horse whilst your poor wife is suffering so I've decided that you've had enough of my attention. Go and seek some from somewhere else."
lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
Then they will get voted out
Or they could try and up their game from slightly better, it is after all the country they are trying to run
Like the tories? Nah, they just need to be slightly better than the opposition,
I genuinely believe you believe in what you post. "
Indeed, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So another sleazebag Labour MP bites the dust.
This time it's Geraint Davies, MP for Swansea West. Allegations include inappropriate touching, unwanted physical and verbal sexual attention, and even taking sex workers to House of Commons bars.
But his behaviour has apparently been well known for a long time, with newer MP's having been warned about him for years.
And meanwhile, what's happening with Labour MP Nick Brown, suspended since September 2022? No details have been released of what he is accused of, and the mainstream media seems strangely uninterested.
When people say that Labour will be slightly better than the Tories they really do mean slightly don't they
unfortunately, slightly better at the start will probably mean a failure in the mid and a disaster at the end.
"
That is a possibility for sure. Though I'm hoping that as they start from such a low point then there is plenty of scope to improve. Very much doubt they will do it with my vote. Be good to hear exactly what a closer relationship with the EU actually means in reality. There seems to be fear that SKS will engineer a way to get the UK back in or on the fringes at least |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan 46 weeks ago
West London |
"No, both are disgusting, one was made deputy chief whip one was suspended immediately
By 'immediately' you mean 'as soon as the press found out', not 'as soon as the party became aware'.
Has he been suspended? Do you know when the party found out? I am just glad that they didn’t make him deputy chief whip
When Chris Pincher was suspended, I seem to remember someone saying that Boris either knew and was therefore complicit, or didn't and was therefore incompetent.
I wonder if that person will apply the same logic to SKS in the Geraint Davies case.was Davies appointed to a HR type role ?
I don't agree with the full sentiment of what has been said, but I can see it has a slightly different angle. Has Davies ever been close to being part of SKS inner team ? That would affect my views here.
Best he got was chair of a committee I'm hoping not anything to do with womens safety?
Okay, given this I could argue to myself there is a difference.
No it was, Environment I think.
He supposedly also boasted of taking working girls into parliament bars.
Supposedly at least 2 of these women did speak with whips about incidents but didn't make formal complaints.
the whips is my issue. People boast. It does mean anything illegal. And doesn't mean the bosses hear.
But imo whips have a responsibility here. Albeit one that conflicts with their role.
Damn right whips have a responsibility, for me, especially to younger/junior female members.
Agreed, although the nature of politics appears to have lead to circumstances where misbehaviour was leverage over votes.
The world has changed, but perhaps the process and attitude is still to catch up?
I would still contend that there is a significant distinction between this sort of behaviour leading to suspension and it leading to the leader denying all knowledge when that wasn't the case and promoting the individual to a position of power knowing their behaviour.
You do not see a distinction.
I do not see a distinction?? I never said I didn't. However, I'm ignoring it because every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse..
Apparently Corbyn would have been a disaster and Labour left a note bout there not being any money left after the global economic crash so it's all their fault.
The point is that a similar set of circumstances had a very different outcome. That is a valid comparison to make.
If someone states that "both are disgusting", how is that an excuse?
What exactly are you trying to compare? I'm not entirely sure but I've never said those things.
You've clearly taken a few words in isolation to try to make a point. Can you really tell me the poster who said that didn't clearly imply 'but, but Tories'?
"You know how it works round here...
Tory = incompetent
Labour = its not their fault"
"every single fucking time Labour does something bad we hear 'Tories did it too, only worse'. That may well be the case but it's not an excuse.."
What should I make from this?
What does "both are disgusting" mean?
These are similar events happening within the same Parliament. Seems like a valid direct comparison in how it is dealt with rather than a "but, but" considering that the severity of the accusation has been acknowledged and the sanctioning of Davies being applauded.
Have you even read what I was responding to. You'd have to have been running round here blind for the last 2 years to not understand what I was saying.
Perhaps someone else can help you.
Tbh with you, I think your an absolute dickhead who runs here on some sort of big horse whilst your poor wife is suffering so I've decided that you've had enough of my attention. Go and seek some from somewhere else."
Just can't help yourself, eh?
Your own words have been quoted back for you and you don't seem to like them. Retrospectively trying to reinterpret what you've written.
You choosing to be abusive and introducing other irrelevant points is all on you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you."
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly."
What's the accordingly response to no complaint? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint? "
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Labour's MP Charlotte Nichols has said Labour have been choosing not to act on sexual misconduct reports. She also said the labour party had to be shamed in acting on the Welsh MP. Looks like a bit of work still to do for SKS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Labour's MP Charlotte Nichols has said Labour have been choosing not to act on sexual misconduct reports. She also said the labour party had to be shamed in acting on the Welsh MP. Looks like a bit of work still to do for SKS"
I think there's a lot of work for, at least, the main parties, still to do. These problems don't just exist in politics but we should have developed by now, simpler and more effective systems to reduce and remove the level of harm that we're seeing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this."
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints? "
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Labour's MP Charlotte Nichols has said Labour have been choosing not to act on sexual misconduct reports. She also said the labour party had to be shamed in acting on the Welsh MP. Looks like a bit of work still to do for SKS"
Exactly, they all knew what was going on and refused to do a thing about it. They need investigate who knew about this and why new labour MP’s are given names of up to 30 labour MP’s to avoid being alone with, get in lifts with and this coming from a labour MP who claims that’s Labour Party can’t keep its own house in order.
Absolutely shocking behaviour and to be allowed to get away with it is unacceptable. What is going to happen to the 30 other Labour MP’s on that list??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 46 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints? "
Do you think they should have ignored a list of approx 30 Labour MP’s that had been put on a list and given to new MP’s with advice of not being alone with them ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them."
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering. "
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done."
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened."
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened.
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments."
Well reading the guardian it says Labour would not normally suspend an individual until a formal complaint had been made or other substantive information had been given.
I trust the guardian over what someone on the fab swingers site says about it being normal to investigate people where no formal complaint has been made or not having any concrete info due to my previous post about rumours and inuendo.
They also have an independent process so when a complaint is made it is dealt with outside of the Labour party so people don't fear they will be hobbled by people investigating their mate.
As soon as there was a formal complaint with info given the guy was suspended and an investigation launched. Did they try and change the parliamentary procedure to avoid the suspension? No. Did they promote him by saying 'pincher by name, pincher by nature?' No.
Did they receive a complaint and deal with it? Yes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened.
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments.
Well reading the guardian it says Labour would not normally suspend an individual until a formal complaint had been made or other substantive information had been given.
I trust the guardian over what someone on the fab swingers site says about it being normal to investigate people where no formal complaint has been made or not having any concrete info due to my previous post about rumours and inuendo.
They also have an independent process so when a complaint is made it is dealt with outside of the Labour party so people don't fear they will be hobbled by people investigating their mate.
As soon as there was a formal complaint with info given the guy was suspended and an investigation launched. Did they try and change the parliamentary procedure to avoid the suspension? No. Did they promote him by saying 'pincher by name, pincher by nature?' No.
Did they receive a complaint and deal with it? Yes.
"
Got it. But, but, Tories
I think I've found the problem... You believe the Guardian |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened.
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments.
Well reading the guardian it says Labour would not normally suspend an individual until a formal complaint had been made or other substantive information had been given.
I trust the guardian over what someone on the fab swingers site says about it being normal to investigate people where no formal complaint has been made or not having any concrete info due to my previous post about rumours and inuendo.
They also have an independent process so when a complaint is made it is dealt with outside of the Labour party so people don't fear they will be hobbled by people investigating their mate.
As soon as there was a formal complaint with info given the guy was suspended and an investigation launched. Did they try and change the parliamentary procedure to avoid the suspension? No. Did they promote him by saying 'pincher by name, pincher by nature?' No.
Did they receive a complaint and deal with it? Yes.
"
BTW, they suspended him after the article was published but before the Formal Complaint.
You need to do better if you're going try and defend the party here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened.
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments.
Well reading the guardian it says Labour would not normally suspend an individual until a formal complaint had been made or other substantive information had been given.
I trust the guardian over what someone on the fab swingers site says about it being normal to investigate people where no formal complaint has been made or not having any concrete info due to my previous post about rumours and inuendo.
They also have an independent process so when a complaint is made it is dealt with outside of the Labour party so people don't fear they will be hobbled by people investigating their mate.
As soon as there was a formal complaint with info given the guy was suspended and an investigation launched. Did they try and change the parliamentary procedure to avoid the suspension? No. Did they promote him by saying 'pincher by name, pincher by nature?' No.
Did they receive a complaint and deal with it? Yes.
BTW, they suspended him after the article was published but before the Formal Complaint.
You need to do better if you're going try and defend the party here."
Ah sorry, you are right. It does seem like they got substantial information as I said in my previous post so suspended him on that, as is policy, as opposed to the complaint. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You cannot suspend people on rumours. Even if 'everyone knows' that's not enough as otherwise all you need to do to take out an opponent is start a rumour then they are out. For example the ViP pedo ring that diddnt exist.
Once a complaint was made they suspended him.
Not sure what more people want.
It does show a difference in how the party's act. If that makes you uncomfortable or you don't want to see it then that says more about you.
At least 2 people spoke to whips, did you miss that part?
Although no 'formal' complaint was made, those whips should have acted accordingly.
What's the accordingly response to no complaint?
No formal complaints was made because those women didn't feel like they'd be taken seriously. Sounds very much like a lot of r*pe victims.
I'm quite honestly shocked anyone is trying to defend this.
I'm not defending anything.
You said the whips should have dealt with it. What is it you think should have been done without any complaints?
There was complaints, to the whips. Just not formal complaints.
What's so hard to understand? We have now had a Labour MP come out and say hierarchy knew and had to be shamed into taking action.
BTW, the action has come after a news article hence the 'shame'.
Sounds very much like you are defending them.
So what did you want to happen when those whips were informed? You keep avoiding answering.
Act accordingly was my answer. You do know whips are high in parties. The equivalent of management.
If someone in a workplace outside Parliament took a complaint like this to management, what would you expect to happen?
By your logic, unless reported directly to the MD or CEO, nothing should be done.
And I asked what appropriately was and you ignored this and asked why I was defending it.
We are just going round now cos you won't answer what HR, political, employment action you think could actually be complete, so enjoy your day.
For the record I think as soon as an formal complaint is made then an investigation should take place, with the person suspended and given anonymity. When the investigation is complete there should be a response in line with party procedures including exclusion from the party and referral to the police if appropriate or no further action if the allegations, of whatever, is found not to have happened.
You don't need to ask what appropriately is, it's just a way to avoid the actual issue.
However, the answer is quite clearly to launch an investigation immediately. According to a Labour MP, this is and was a common theme amongst MPs of all parties.
I noticed you skipped over her comments.
Well reading the guardian it says Labour would not normally suspend an individual until a formal complaint had been made or other substantive information had been given.
I trust the guardian over what someone on the fab swingers site says about it being normal to investigate people where no formal complaint has been made or not having any concrete info due to my previous post about rumours and inuendo.
They also have an independent process so when a complaint is made it is dealt with outside of the Labour party so people don't fear they will be hobbled by people investigating their mate.
As soon as there was a formal complaint with info given the guy was suspended and an investigation launched. Did they try and change the parliamentary procedure to avoid the suspension? No. Did they promote him by saying 'pincher by name, pincher by nature?' No.
Did they receive a complaint and deal with it? Yes.
BTW, they suspended him after the article was published but before the Formal Complaint.
You need to do better if you're going try and defend the party here.
Ah sorry, you are right. It does seem like they got substantial information as I said in my previous post so suspended him on that, as is policy, as opposed to the complaint."
Which has been my argument all along. It took a published article for them to act, as said by a female Labour MP.
This is not new information according to her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Has much as I deplore government ministers and shadow ministers, questionable behaviour at best and law breaking at worse.
Don't you think it pales into insignificance compared too the Tories? They are the next level in sleasery and corruption.
Never voted tory, never will.
Don't understand why the working class would vote for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
