And if it is true then I wonder how he manages to bed anyone. And regardless: I think it depends upon the circumstances in which consent is obtained. Take the example of being under the influence of drink or drugs (could be as a result of being plied with them by a predatory suitor). Or the example of being compelled to consent (via force or other threat). Iirc in law you need to have both freedom and capacity to provide consent.
You can't withdraw consent if you provided consent while drunk or being coerced, because under such circumstances the consent was never valid to begin with, so the idea of withdrawing it falls flat on that basis.
Yeah, I get the concept of how consent has to be given, but frankly I find it such a huge swathe of options that I've no idea how a judge in a case where consent was withdrawn after the fact would reach a fair judgement. I have a sneaking suspicion that when consent is revoked it's before or during most of the time - Although absolutely no data to back that up - But I wonder how many women, were they not faced with the astronomically shitty odds @Gareth Halfacree mentioned earlier, would reconsider their consent in the heat of the moment. Although I do wonder quite how far off topic this branch of the discussion is dragging the thread..
Yeah, we're not even on page 4 yet, so there's plenty of time for things to get really sidetracked. Personally, I don't consider a BT thread sidetracked until the fifth sidetrack, but you might disagree.
He doesn't sleep with many because they won't sign it. He think's it will stop him from being accused, but it won't if someone wants to accuse him they are going to accuse him. Personally I am happy being single and not putting myself in the situation where I might get accused just because someone changes there mind.
"The Met has referred itself to the police watchdog after Ms Williams accused the force of racial profiling." If that ever made any real difference then these figures (from the Sky article) would be different: Sure, they might have reviewed the body cam footage as well as media footage, but did they ever review the footage from the camera(s) on board the police car? Did they actually see a blacked-out SUV driving on the wrong side of the road and failing to stop? Was it the same vehicle they stopped? It's getting harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that we are an institutionally racist country.
I don't imagine there are many, if any, countries that can claim to not have an institutionalised racism of some kind tbh.
Legally, there are some things you literally cannot consent to in any way shape or form. No paper documents, recordings, or direct testimony can allow you to consent to ABH for example, making many forms of BDSM legally rather risky beyond any immediate physical risk to either party (or parties). Here's a simple example: you want to have sex with someone, and they want to have sex with you. You ask them "are you currently a carrier for any STIs?", and they tell you "no". The following day, they tell you they are HIV positive. You have not been using PrEP because you have not had a need to. Consent needs to be informed consent to be useful, so finding that information you used to make a decision was omitted, distorted or fabricated means you did not consent to what actually happened. It's also one that is rather easy to solve for the supermajority of cases via a simple rule of thumb: anything other than an enthusiastic 'YES!' is a 'no'. This has two things going for it: a lack of ambiguity, and that whoever you are consenting to do stuff with clearly wants to do that stuff too, which generally makes things more fun. --- Back to the discrimination topic: absolutely something that needs be tackled at all levels, from systemic level on down (and from hiring practices all the way back to education and societal pressure during childhood). I am a white cisgender male working with a team who are entirely male, cisgender, and the vast majority white. Sexism is rife to the extend that someone was literally fired for sexual harassment (subsequent to the sole remaining female employee leaving their role) and to a man nobody thought that attending (or actually listening to) the subsequent training on workplace conduct was valuable or necessary. For all the lipservice paid to diversity, very little actually filters down to actual implementation, and can easily hit the wall of people whose actions will actually need to change to get anything done. It's rather depressing.
I support Boris in this. The guy is innocent until proven guilty. It's the cornerstone of our modern society.
This should always be the case, however a lot of times it's the opposite. Who ever is accused should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the "Crime" is. The one thing that always annoys me about stuff like this is, that the person who is accused of it is named all over the media but the person who accuses them is never mentioned. If this MP is innocent then his name is ruined because it's all over the media but her name is not mentioned so she can just carry on with no real repurcussions. I think there needs to be a change in the way these things get reported on though, and names should never be revealed until it's dealt with either proven innoncent or guilty, because all it takes is one person to decide to take justice in to there own hands and that person who has been named, gets assaulted etc before they are found guilty or innocent.
...except being suspended pending investigation says nothing about guilt, it simply protects those who would be at risk if the allegations are true. If a fire inspector is accused of arson, you suspend 'em - with pay - until it can be prove or disproven so they're not, worst case, setting a bunch of buildings on fire. If a police officer is accused of assault, you suspend 'em - with pay - until it can be proven or disproven so they're not, worst case, beating a bunch of people up. If that nice Mr. Shipman is accused of helping a few (hundred) old folk cross over, you suspend 'em - with pay - until it can be prove or disproven so they're not, worst case, literally killing people. If a politician is accused of rape, you suspend 'em - with pay - until it can be proven or disproven so they're not, worst case, trying to play non-consensual hide-the-sausage with any more ministers' aides. Now, if your argument was that the politician can't be suspended without publicising his name and thus making it clear who the complainant, whom you are absolutely not allowed to identify by law, is - yeah, you've a point. But "you can't suspend him until you've proven him guilty?" Boll, if you will excuse my French, ocks. Point of fact: you cannot be found "innocent" in an English court. You are either found guilty or not guilty; "innocent" isn't an option. It's not just a pedantry thing, either: "not guilty" and "innocent" are not synonyms. Think about "not guilty by reason of insanity:" they still did it, so they're definitely not innocent. "Not guilty" effectively means "guilt couldn't be proven," which is a far cry from proving innocence. (Though there are a few outlying possibilities, like someone pleading "nolo contendere," literally "no contest," isn't technically being found guilty but will be punished the same as if they had...)
I feel like not suspending the accused is, perhaps, sending the wrong message internally. I do wonder, though, when the accused's name gets leaked whether they'll get suspended then because it's all out in the open and there's no privacy anymore anyway. I guess not, because Boris'd get even closer to shooting his support in the mouth if he was seen to be going after other party members.. Although I do also wonder how much of my not agreeing with Boris is because.. Well, it's Boris. I find myself very reluctant to see anything he does as not for personal gain.
Unfortunately I think this is the case here. If the party were to take any kind of disciplinary measure at all at this point, the press would find out and it would take them no time at all to reverse engineer the timeline and the alleged victim. Whilst I doubt any of the major news outlets would publish the victim's name it would take no time for it to be on social media, at which point the Mighty Righties would get into their usual harassment campaign with great gusto (just a jilted ex, politically motivated, ruining a man's life on hearsay, why now and so and so forth). If charges are brought then people absolutely should be suspended. But until that point do nothing, say nothing seems to be the only course of action that won't make things blow up.
This right here is why no names should be published, because instantly the "Accused" is attacked but that's fine, let that happen just don't dare let it happen to the "Alleged Victim". This is not about politic's, this is about someone being accused of doing something horrible and not being judged guilty instantly without fair process. Yes protect the "Alleged Victim" but the person who is "Accused" should also be protected, because there are people who will destroy the "Accused Persons" life just because of being accused, just as bad if not worse than the people who will attack the "Alleged Victim". We have already seen it in this instance with MP's saying he should be sacked just for being accused, doesn't matter whether he did it or not, he should be sacked for simply being accused, I wonder if they were accused they would be happy to lose there job? It's the same with these "Pedo Hunters", they live stream turning up at peoples houses and accusing them, doesn't matter whether they are guilty or not that persons life is now ruined, if they have done it then fine but if they are not, they have just basically killed someone for "Likes and Shares" there has been instances where they have turned up at someones house only to find the person has not done anything at all. Social Media is one of the worst things to ever be invented.
Have we? I've seen lots of calls for suspension, but none for sacking. Happy to be wrong on that front, though: I try not to listen to MPs too much, and I can totally believe that an opposition party MP would see an opportunity to take another one off that 80-strong, or is it 79-strong now, majority. They're all politicians, after all, and therefore lying bags of opportunistic shite.
Having the "Whip" removed is basically the same as being sacked, and that is what Jess Phillips and others are asking for, not suspension but sacking. Yes they would keep there seat but they would be a "Independant MP" not part of the party anymore. Then come the next local election, they lose there job because they more than likely won't win as a Independant MP.
