Then yes, I'm guessing their desire for that is more to do with whittling down the Tory majority than actually giving a toss about the allegations. (I'm not saying Phillips or whoever doesn't care about the allegations, because anyone who's not a proper wrong 'un cares about people being raped, I'm just agreeing with you that if it were a Labour MP she'd probably be saying "we need to investigate this thoroughly" instead of "kick the bugger out of the party.")
On the other hand: If they hadn't waited until the allegation became public they could have told the MP in question to take a break for health reasons (or some such) while the investigation goes on.
I cannot disagree more strongly. Consider this accusation is false. It is a VERY real possibility. If people get suspended each time there's an investigation, those who are twisted individuals could keep someone suspended indefinitely by having a new accuser pop up from time to time. Also, your description of 'guilty' or 'not guilty', while accurate, is very unfair, almost like anyone accused ever was guilty but was smart enough not to leave evidence behind. Being falsely accused by someone is a horrifying experience: it destroys confidence and makes people question everything about what they thought they knew about others.
As is the possibility it is not. I'd wager there are a lot fewer of those than, say, actual rapists. 's not my description, I'm literally telling you what English law says. You cannot be found innocent by an English court. No ifs, no buts. You can be innocent, but you'll be found "not guilty." (Hopefully, anyway!) And being raped is... well, you get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying false accusations don't happen; I'm not saying this isn't a false accusation; I'm not saying he is guilty, not guilty, or even innocent. I'm saying that suspending someone is the right thing to do, and a malicious string of accusations from a "twisted individual" would be easy to document and prove. (And they'd get arrested and potentially imprisoned on a variety of charges including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.) Let's put it another way: if a bunch of people came forward to say they went in to a surgeon to have their tonsils out and came out minus a leg, would you be happy booking your tonsillectomy while the claims are under investigation?
I'm not getting into a forum battle with you Gareth - from experience, your endurance will win out! Right...not trying to selectively quote, but just want to address what I'm interested in: In regards to the first point, I'd hazard a guess you'd probably be surprised how many are actually false. I don't know the figures, and I would expect true accusations to be the higher percentage, but I'd wager the false ones are more than 'negligible'. In regards to your second point, that's a little bit straw man as it's a bit more obvious! Please bear in mind that there are also those who will deliberately make false accusations against those who've already been accused as they know they're more likely to win (or just mentally ill). I'm going to leave this here. I don't believe people should be suspended when accused, unless there is overwhelming evidence immediately available (such as a video CLEARLY impossible to refute).
My wife would say otherwise. I mean... what? But still the minority. Couldn't quickly find a resource for the UK, but this 'ere quotes the FBI as saying "between 1.5% and 8%" of accusations are later found false but the United States Justice Department says it's closer to 2%. Now, I'm well aware that "proven false" and "was false" are not the same, but if we assume only half the actual false claims are proven false that's 4% (based on the JD figure) - meaning there's a 96% chance an accusation isn't false. (Real number may vary considerably in either direction, and if anyone has any better or UK-centric figures please do share!) Not necessarily: the patients might genuinely be missing their legs, but that has nothing to do with the doctor. If someone had, say, ten accusations against them (and they weren't a celebrity or another type that might reasonably be expected to be exposed to a large audience and thus a larger-than-usual number of nutjobs) then I'd be wondering whether the accusations were true or what the heck they were doing to attract ten people willing to risk their own freedom (again, you can be imprisoned for attempting to pervert the course of justice) to accuse them unjustly. And I disagree and believe that suspension should be the first port of call where it's a clear safety issue (such as, I dunno, an MP accused of abusing his staff) - but with full pay and a hearty handshake welcome back if it turns out to be scurrilous lies. But yes, there we can leave it - we both have our points of view, and I think we can both see where the other is coming from. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a good answer that protects both the genuine victims and the wrongly accused.
You're forgetting that they may have access to more evidence than the public, so have a clearer picture and have decided based on this. The same thing happened to a lot of Youtubers recently, they weren't convicted before they were fired/remove.contracts cancelled, but the weight of evidence was so high they it wasdamming. And also, the conviction rate of sexual assaul is disturbingly low, so wanting for a conviction doesn't always work. I have multiple friends who have been sexually assaulted who won't go to the police because it is utterly awful to go throug, and then the likelyhood of they assaulter being convicted is low.
Can a politician be sacked only if accusations reach the criminal evidence threshold of beyond reasonable doubt? Is the only reason we would want to remove a legislator because they were an actual rapist, or is there some behaviour that perhaps falls short of criminal but which maybe we wouldn't want representing us in Parliament. I guess my point is that even if he is found not guilty of a crime, maybe he still fell bellow the standard of behaviour expected by those in public office.
Or, as in many cases, the officer isn't just accused of assault but is caught on camera committing assault and yet no action is taken. This isn't just a US problem, our police do it too. Outside of bigger cities our police might not be quite as militarised as some US forces are, but they don't need to be wearing full combat gear and carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle to unlawfully and unjustifiably assault members of the public.
And whilst certainly not demeaning their claims, I've had two male friends go through false accusations of inappropriate behaviour from women.
While bad, I don't think that actually compares to having been raped and knowing you won't get justice...
I see your point, but all I'll say is that being in an environment where you're falsely accused and no one believes you is no picnic either.
Acused and then found innocent, which is what will likely happen, is sure annoying but just a blip. But having a system where acusers are treated suspiciously... as I said, if you get raped its already unlikely you'll get any justice...
The psychological effects of being falsely accused and then found innocent sure do not feel like just a 'blip' to those unfortunate enough to go through it. Do they make up a small proportion? Yes, but there again, the current affairs of the world are centering on the suffering of minorities. I'm leaving this particular point of discussion alone now.
So you're saying lets take a spec of societ that we're already failing at and lets make it more difficult for people suffering from its failings to make it more difficult for a tiny minority of people who may be mildly negatively effected... Thats before how you're whole argument is from a male centered, and there for massively privileged position...
