- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 3716 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 83589
FEMALE STAFF AT WESTMINSTER ARE NAMING AND SHAMING SEX PEST MPS ON A SECRET WHATSAPP GROUP, IT HAS BEEN REVEALED.
Yeah, whoever it was in /iq/ that said this deserves to be a real thread is quite right. This is going to blow up badly for some people and I think we should
share the details consider it carefully. I know that the odd politico type comes here, spill the fucking beans!
|>>|| No. 83591
>Yeah, whoever it was in /iq/ that said this deserves to be a real thread is quite right
If /iq/ was good enough for Keith Vaz and his washing machine rent boys, it's good enough for politicians who like to go around squeezing bottoms.
|>>|| No. 83593
We get it, earnest discussion of gender issues make you uncomfortable. You can stop being glib now.
|>>|| No. 83610
>A close ally of the defence secretary said: “Julia is a good friend of Michael’s. He overstepped the mark when he put his hand on her knee. She made it clear it was unwelcome and he rightly apologised 15 years ago.”
>Hartley-Brewer rejected the idea that Fallon should be pursued over the incident, saying: “I have not been a victim and I don’t wish to take part in what I believe has now become a Westminster witch-hunt.”
Is there something else he did? His name's on ze list but the
allegation gossip isn't anywhere close to damning. Have we reached a point in time where the retort "you pay too much attention to what fringe feminists say online" has lost its credibility?
|>>|| No. 83612
There absolutely something else, there's no fucking way Fallon went because he touched a journo's knee. "Standards of the armed forces"; what a load, those animals tolerate bullying, rape and forced consumption of human excrement.
Also every time he pops up in the news I remember he got a knighthood and my whole body flexes with annoyance.
|>>|| No. 83613
>The BBC understands his decision was not related to new or specific claims.
|>>|| No. 83614
>>83613 Odd. Definitely odd. I imagine something fresh is going to come out in the next few days.
|>>|| No. 83615
Oh, aye, everything is always known to the public and nothing happens behind closed doors.
Think it through, lad.
|>>|| No. 83616
Check whether his voting record is consistent with his lifestyle. Also, as has been alluded to by others, there may be something there that we don't yet know.
|>>|| No. 83617
I think you hallucinated and experienced me saying I wholeheartedly believe the BBC and their information to be accurate when I did not.
|>>|| No. 83618
There's a mountain of shit about him, calling it.
So you think the BBC is lying? Or that Fallon is lying to the Beeb? Perhaps you should do more than greentext some near-contextless quote.
|>>|| No. 83619
I don't particularly feel the need to think much of anything without more information to go on.
|>>|| No. 83621
I think thats obvious - nobody resigns about touching a female journalists knee fifteen years ago - particularly when the journalist concerned has come out and talked about how it was dealt with then and wasn't a big deal. There must be a mountain of other shit out there.
|>>|| No. 83622
Well, it is a big deal, it's sexual assault. The victim just happened to not be too bothered about it. Someone else might have felt utterly violated and powerless. So while I agree there's an iceberg, I must assure you this is the tip of it.
|>>|| No. 83625
Can you cite an example where a single touch of the knee lead to a sexual assault conviction?
|>>|| No. 83626
It's a mystery to me why anyone bothers with relationships when they're this much of a fucking minefield.
|>>|| No. 83627
And your new SoS for Defence is ... Chief Whip Gavin Williamson. Cue lots of questions about this being answered with "I'm not a whip anymore so it wouldn't be appropriate to comment" and the like.
|>>|| No. 83628
One time someone hit on me 15 years ago and made physical contact like a human being and I did not like it, I asked them to stop and they immediately did, have I been raped?
Yes if you feel uncomfortable even for a second it is NOT a fact of life, and a awkward misunderstanding, but a terrible crime. No one should have to experience the kind of advances you'd accept and wish Mr.Right would do from someone else.
|>>|| No. 83629
Picture emerging from those in the know is that it wasn't an isolated incident but part of a long history of inappropriate touching, particularly while drunk, which apparently he tends to be rather more often than most. It appears that the headline was the least objectionable incident with the least bothered victim. Sounds like a bona fide limited hangout.
Looks like we're seeing House of Cards play out in real life. I'm calling it now. In five years, Williamson will be PM and will end up in a fight with King Charles.
|>>|| No. 83630
Yes lad, an ugly bird touching your arm is exactly the same as a sitting MP feeling up an intern's arse.
|>>|| No. 83633
This is all so ridiculous. Society needs a collective lobotomy.
|>>|| No. 83634
That's not why he's been booted, idiot. Fucking think beyond the headline, will you? Although with your level of reasoning I'd be impressed if you made it that far. And I was pretty obviously talking more widely about the range of allegations at Westminster, which is the topic of this thread, in case you'd failed to notice that too.
Now fuck off and pretend to have made contact with another human being elsewhere, there's a good lad.
|>>|| No. 83635
Do you even bother to read conversation chains before you reply? Or does your knee jerking blur your vision too much?
|>>|| No. 83639
>>83634 I can't tell if there's loads of angry 12 year olds who post on /pol/ these days or it just happens to be you and you post all the time.
|>>|| No. 83640
Mmm. When they exploded at me, I interpreted that to be ego defense for not admitting fault and an ironic demonstration of the premise of the post they protested against; that they are indeed a hyperbolic cunt.
|>>|| No. 83643
Can you point to the part of my original post where I was being hyperbolic?
|>>|| No. 83645
Don't be purposely obtuse. He was obviously requesting a photograph of you pointing.
|>>|| No. 83649
I would assume "Journalists knee, not intern's arse you hyperbolic cunt."
Would be self evident.
But it was where you wrote "Intern's arse" here >>83630 not journalist's knee, you hyperbolic cunt. No one is disputing that had he grabbed an intern's arse his behavior would be unacceptable but since he touched a journalist's knee mentioning an intern's arse is hyperbolic, cunt.
|>>|| No. 83650
>but since he touched a journalist's knee mentioning an intern's arse is hyperbolic, cunt.
You really haven't got the hang of this yet, have you?
|>>|| No. 83652
You asked me why I thought you were a hyperbolic cunt I clarified why. Not about what you said later, do you not understand how causation works. Now I know you aren't a hyperbolic cunt just that you have shitty communication skills.
Given you were replying to this post >>83628 which is a reply to this post >>83622, which is a reply to this post >>83621 how would that be relevant when referring to that specific incident? It wouldn't, you came off as sounding like a hyperbolic cunt, which is why I updated my position to "Do you even bother to read conversation chains before you reply?" because evidently you aren't a hyperbolic cunt you are just shitty at communication. Can you now in your words; "fuck off and pretend to have made contact with another human being elsewhere, there's a good lad".
|>>|| No. 83654
Is this because there were over things other MPs have done which isn't relevant to the point, or are you trying to not break a umbongo whilst breaking an umbongo?
|>>|| No. 83655
>Sir Michael Fallon was forced to quit after Cabinet colleague Andrea Leadsom complained about his behaviour, it has emerged.
>Tory sources said Mrs Leadsom, the Leader of the Commons, complained directly to Theresa May about ‘vile’ language used by Sir Michael towards her at a parliamentary meeting six years ago. The former Defence Secretary is said to have told Mrs Leadsom, who had complained of cold hands: ‘I know where you can put them to warm them up.’ Sir Michael is alleged to have been ‘tactile’ and put his arm around Mrs Leadsom in what a source described as ‘unwanted attention’.
>However there was a backlash against Mrs Leadsom who was accused of speaking out to further her own career. One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'
|>>|| No. 83656
>One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'
The whole party's going a bit The Thick of It in terms of vocabulary.
|>>|| No. 83657
No, it's because there were other things that he specifically had done, which is relevant to the point, you mouth-breathing mong.
|>>|| No. 83658
>One senior Tory raged: 'What the fuck does Leadsom think she is doing?'
Philip Davies? It sounds like the sort of thing he'd say.
|>>|| No. 83662
>>83661 I consider myself pretty open minded and supportive towards stopping sexual harassment/assault, but this story just really feels quite absurd.
It sounds like she got a hug, he may/may not have hugged her too low, or possibly did grab her bum. Either way she didn't care, danced with him, enjoyed his company, then when news about the sexual harassment in Westminster then decides she was upset by it? Or was it just that it fit the definition that has been published and she felt duty bound to report it regardless of context like some sort of good samaritan?
Please do stop me/tell me if I'm being some sort of horrible dinosaur here, but this does genuinely perplex me. I'm not looking to minimise sexual harassment or anything like that, nor do I want to come off as some sort of UKIP voter, but this is just getting weird isn't it?
|>>|| No. 83663
>he may/may not have hugged her too low
That's probably what happened.
You are, however, minimising sexual harassment by suggesting that it's somehow weird for women not to report it unless they feel encouraged to do so by, for instance, a major scandal.
As she says, "When this stuff happens it is us who have to do the work, it’s the women. Every single time. You have to put yourself out there. You have to explain why you didn’t say anything at the time."
|>>|| No. 83664
What a bizarre quote. It's not like the police will swoop in with their psychic bumfondling powers.
|>>|| No. 83665
She's not saying she expects the police to guess. She's saying it's not acceptable that women who report abuse are expected to explain why they didn't report it sooner. It should be pretty universally understood at this point that there's plenty of reasons to not want to report a sexual assault immediately, yet there's still so many who say things like "well why didn't she say anything at the time"
|>>|| No. 83666
In this specific case, it would seem to be a reasonable question. Actually, the ruder alternative question - which is usually what's implied when people ask "why didn't you say anything at the time?" - is the interesting question here. We know why she said nothing at the time, but why did she mention it now? (That's not, as it implies, to say she shouldn't have done - but is it because she personally felt violated, or just because she felt it was something worth mentioning even if she didn't care?)
Ordinarily there would seem to be reasons you just don't inquire about out of politeness. (i.e. if someone was very distressed at the time and then later raised it once there was some distance.) Where those who do inquire are usually just trying to imply "Why are you causing trouble by bringing this up now?" but the specific case seems a bit odd.
Regardless of everything I've just said I'm vaguely aware of the fact that while nobody can stop most people having these thoughts, it still might not be appropriate to say them. But this is an imageboard none of the participants will see or suffer from my thinking-aloud, so whatever.
|>>|| No. 83667
There are plenty of rape cases that are thrown out because they are really just buyers' remorse. That isn't to say it isn't awful to feel used, but it is not considered criminal.
|>>|| No. 83668
Bitching about rape is to women what looking at tits and ass is to men. Womens magazines are full of it. It turns them on to think about it. The more people they can bitch to, the more they love it.
Women are throwing men under the bus in order to get their rocks off.
|>>|| No. 83670
That's all well and good, it's perfectly understandable that some women may not feel comfortable to come out about these matters until they have support and backing.
However it's also perfectly reasonable to spot how a lot of this stuff starts pouring out at once when it looks like there's a quick buck or a spot in the limelight to be had.
|>>|| No. 83671
I have vague recollections of a sudden jump in the number of leads in the Savile case in the days immediately after an ambulance-chaser appeared on the news saying that victims could potentially claim against his estate for compensation. The numbers turned out a bit like the 'Pistols in Manchester.
|>>|| No. 83673
It's worth stopping to think where this list might have come from. The was talk that it was maintained by staff as collective self-help, but given the list includes Liam Fox and that entry in its entirety reads simply "Adam Werrity" I'm tempted to think it's actually a summary of kompromat from the whips' office. Well, that and whoever leaked it thinking fucking Guido was the place to do it.
|>>|| No. 83675
>However it's also perfectly reasonable to spot how a lot of this stuff starts pouring out at once when it looks like there's a quick buck or a spot in the limelight to be had.
It's been reported that Leadsom's real motive for her complaint about Fallon was that she feared being axed from the Cabinet over rumours she's plotting another leadership bid and because he had suggested getting rid of her in the next reshuffle as he views her as a weak link. Apparently Leadsom believes being a whistleblower will make her untouchable over being sacked from the Cabinet.
|>>|| No. 83676
One 'high profile' rape case that I could think of off the top of my head, last year.
Don't pretend to be naive just because the details of the failed case against Joe Bloggs doesn't make the rags there aren't plenty of them. The selection bias dictates that cases you would have heard of is reserved for celebrities and the spectacularly cruel nobody and then probably only at conviction, never the case that go nowhere involving nobodies so you don't see those.
I'm sure if you think about people you know there is probably at least one of them who has been accused of such things by at least one mental ex, just that ex may never have indulged themselves quite enough to go to court over it.
I'm not willing to waste my time researching to find you examples of something you'd dismiss off hand because it doesn't match with your world view anyway.
If you don't believe me talk to a judge or a lawyer. They will confirm that the amount of buyer's remorse cases has gone up, and for one very simple reason, the CPS can't use its own judgement to not bring those cases to trial as a matter of policy, if the victim wants to go to trial they are required to, this is also the reason for the low conviction rate of sexual crimes compared to other crimes.
|>>|| No. 83677
>I don't actually have any evidence for this, but just believe me anyway, okay?
Nobody disputes that it happens. The extraordinary claim you're making (that'll require extraordinary proof) is that it's somehow reached epidemic proportions.
|>>|| No. 83683
Sorry you are right, when I said pleanty what I meant was epidemic how clumsy of me.
|>>|| No. 83684
So, are you actually going to lay out a proper argument with facts and shit, or are you just going to get pissy about synonyms?
|>>|| No. 83685
You are not deserving of such a time investment. Maybe go watch paint dry. Cunt.
|>>|| No. 83686
That's all right, Humpty. It's fine if you can't actually explain yourself, but at least be honest about it instead of blaming everyone else.
|>>|| No. 83687
I don't know why they're being so rude/lazy, but there are plenty of statistics here https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php, including:
>Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)
>1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16
>Rape Crisis Centres provided in excess of 450,000 sessions of specialist support, including advocacy, emotional support and counselling, an increase of 29% since 2015-16.
These figures are taken from
>End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW)
>Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit (CWASU), London Metropolitan University
>Ministry of Justice
>Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
>Crime Survey for England and Wales (formerly the British Crime Survey)
>Office for National Statistics (ONS)
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "epidemic" but if 20% of women claim to have experienced sexual violence then that's pretty close to an epidemic. Also, if ~95% of rape cases end up getting thrown out, I think it's fair to assume that a lot of them are what >>83667 refers to as "buyer's remorse". Ugly terminology but probably accurate.
|>>|| No. 83688
>I think it's fair to assume that a lot of them are [false]
On what basis?
>(Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)
You might want to look over that report (HORS 293). The executive summary outlines some of the reasons why the conviction rate is so low. It finds that the rate of false reports is lower than most officers thought it is, and even then more than half of those were wrongly classified as false.
|>>|| No. 83690
I read the relevant part of the report.
>even then more than half of those were wrongly classified as false.
I couldn’t find anything to suggest this claim in there. I did find this though
"We spend a lot of time dealing with allegations of rape that really aren’t rape, that take a lot of time up. I would say a good half that come through are not genuine ones."
I then looked through the stats
False allegation is 9.4% of all reported raped according to the study, but this crucially only covers where the police considered it false not where it might be false but it isn't demonstrated to be so, firstly there are Victim declined to complete initial process. Next comes situations where is insufficient evidence and no evidence incidents, this includes some where the victim’s account was either regarded with suspicion or not supported by other evidence, sometimes because they were lying sometimes because the police/CPS concluded the sex was consensual. Then there are cases that were dropped by the police for 'reasons unknown'.
There is 'victim withdrawal' at different stages that could be for that reason, and could equally be true for any cases discontinued by the CPS themselves.
And all of this is before anything has gone to trial where cases are withdrawn during trial could account for some. And one most presume that some of the acquittals are for this reason. So based on that study we now have a margin of anywhere between 9.4% and 72% of all rape claims that involve going to the police are false.
|>>|| No. 83691
Just a suggestion, but you lot might want to look at Scottish figures since they include 'not proven' as a verdict.
|>>|| No. 83693
>I read the relevant part of the report.
The rest of your post suggests otherwise.
|>>|| No. 83694
The stupid(er) Hitchens brother has some desperate, controversy baiting, nonsense on this.
>You (he means people complaining about sexual harassment) have lots in common with Militant Islamists on this subject. They, too, believe that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators.
Wrong and wrong. Islamists think women are all harlots who corrupt men, not vice versa, and even within Westminster the number of men accused are a very small minority, so not even a majority, never mind "all". Then he helpfully goes on to suggest this.
>The welfare system is about to melt down. And you think the most important thing in your lives is a hunt for long-ago cases of wandering hands, or tellers of coarse jokes? Yes, you do.
Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.
It must be hard needing to disagree with everyone, all of the time, forever and ever. And I know it suits the far-right's rhetoric to equate and confuse Islamism (their own ideological bedfellows) with social liberalism, but to do so in an article where you also bemoan PDAs just takes the piss and mick flavoured biscuit.
|>>|| No. 83695
>Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.
He sounds like my boss, who insists we're too busy fighting fires to make the sort of changes that would mean fewer fires.
|>>|| No. 83697
>Islamists think women are all harlots who corrupt men
They might be on to something, you know.
>Meaning they should just wait for one of those quieter months in Parliament before mentioning anything the frequent and ongoing sexual misconduct.
I mean frankly it's hard to sympathise with a load of attention whoring bints when you're struggling to get out of rent arrears just so you can afford the bus fare to the food bank.
I'm being intentionally obtuse of course but it's very, very difficult not to see this scandal as a ploy by various enemies of the Tory party and/or Brexit opponents. Hitchens is one of those broken clock cases, he accidentally has a good point every now and again.
|>>|| No. 83698
Of course I didn't that's why I didnt quote any of the report, or stats from it.
|>>|| No. 83699
The whole affair started as an attack on Labour by Guido Fawkes. He either got a tip or went digging and found the embarrassingly misogynist posts by Jared O'Mara. Someone on the red team fired back by tipping off the press about the Whatsapp group, which was followed by a leak of the Tory shit list.
I think that the Tories have plenty of dirt to fire back, but they're cleaning house first. The Tories have always been far better at decisive and unified action (c.f. the leadership election process), which they can press to an advantage here. If they sack enough people to convince the press that they've dealt with the issue, they then have carte blanche to attack Labour.
If the rumours are to be believed, some fairly senior people within the Labour party have been complicit in covering up multiple rapes. If the Tories have just sacked a load of people for touching knees and saying slightly inappropriate things, these allegations look infinitely worse. Going by their track record, Corbyn's team won't be able to orchestrate a decent damage-limitation strategy.
Of course, if there's more serious dirt on the Tories yet to be uncovered, it could be equally damaging to both sides.
|>>|| No. 83700
Fuck me. What a useless country. At least the Americans houses aren't this fucked up.
|>>|| No. 83701
Good to see you're getting it. Now go and read it instead of just using Ctrl-F.
|>>|| No. 83703
I'm sorry I read your report and found it to be lies and statistics composed in bad faith towards an agenda. It would be nice if it was only 9.4% of rape accusations that were false but it isn't. It is just lies and statistics.
To quote the part on insufficient evidence and therefore cases reported as insufficient evidence in the paper
"For the remaining cases, police decision-making turned on evidential issues connected to the complainant, largely where the victim’s account was either regarded with suspicion or not supported by other evidence: in 17 cases the victim’s credibility was explicitly referred to; in 10 cases the issue of previous allegations was seen to cast doubt on the current complaint; in 27 inconsistencies or lies were referred to; and in 26 the police and/or CPS took the view that sex was consensual".
If victims lying and consensual sex is insufficient evidence rather than false allegations of rape I'm a banana.
|>>|| No. 83704
>Going by their track record, Corbyn's team won't be able to orchestrate a decent damage-limitation strategy.
Well what do you know? Right on schedule:
>Jeremy Corbyn has defended his decision to appoint an MP to his shadow cabinet who had been reprimanded for allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
>The Labour leader said he was aware Kelvin Hopkins had been rebuked by the party's chief whip in 2015 after concerns raised by a young activist.
I guess we're back to the times when he couldn't open his mouth without putting his foot in it.
|>>|| No. 83705
>B-b-but the numbers must be wrong!
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
|>>|| No. 83707
You're right. Clearly this peer-reviewed report commissioned and accepted by the Home Office is wrong because some random bloke off the internet said so.
|>>|| No. 83708
I went to a consent class at my uni run by a girl from the feminist society, she crunched the number of several different studies and surveys and arrived at the figure of 95% of women having been raped in the past.
|>>|| No. 83709
If you think that's bad, 100% of the population either have died or will die.
|>>|| No. 83710
What makes you think the home office is interested in accurate statistics. The correct conclusion is the one that confirms what the government of the day's agenda is. And what makes you think academia, has any interest in anything other than reinforcing the consensus and that peer-review is remotely meaningful in social sciences. Clearly you have never worked in either.
I'm not expecting you to beleive a random bloke on the internet what I expect is that If my assessment is wrong, it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain how my interpretation here >>83703 and here >>83690 is wrong, given I've set quite clear boundaries of where I think there are issues. It is alright I'll wait.
|>>|| No. 83713
>What makes you think the home office is interested in accurate statistics.
2/10 SEE ME
|>>|| No. 83717
Are you two still at it? Fucking hell, what a way to spend a weekend.
|>>|| No. 83718
>An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood.
Carl Sargeant, 49, lost his job as cabinet secretary for communities and children last Friday. He was suspended from Labour after the first minister learned of a number of alleged incidents involving women.
I guess we'll never know whether he truly did it or if he felt there was no way out from the pressure of the witch-hunt and trial by media.
|>>|| No. 83719
Maybe he used his position as secretary for communities and children to diddle kids.
|>>|| No. 83720
I'm not sure >>83719 is on the money, but that does seem like an overreaction or perhaps he's had past issues with his mental health and this was, sadly, too much.
Maybe he was just a massive pervert and died having a strangle wank?
|>>|| No. 83721
I've never diddled anyone, but I think if people started saying I was in the papers and I lost my job over it I'd probably be well on the path to topping myself too.
|>>|| No. 83723
It reminds me of a story I got from a libel lawyer of how he ended up in the profession despite its less-than-idealistic reputation.
He had once practiced family law as a new barrister and loved his job until one day he was representing the father in a messy divorce. The mother had made up a complete bullshit story that he had diddled their daughter and the father was barely hanging on. There was absolutely no evidence that he had done anything of course but still, at the end of that days session the judge ordered him put in the cells. The barrister did everything he could to stop this, even being threatened by the judge himself but there was no way to bring reason into the equation.
That night the father hung himself. If I was in a position where I was convinced I was going to be sent down for something like that I would do the same.
|>>|| No. 83724
That's the thing really. Allegations of this sort are enough to ruin your career and reputation, regardless of whether or not they are true. The mere accusation is enough to discredit someone and colour their reputation for years to come.
I mean, what's the actual argument against anonymity for alleged perpetrators of crime? Why isn't that a thing, considering the level of ethical restraint our media can be relied on to display these days?
You can read into it however you want. He topped himself before the sordid truth came spilling out, or it was just the tragic straw that broke the camel's back. The fact he is now dead is a failure of civilised justice either way.
|>>|| No. 83725
>I mean, what's the actual argument against anonymity for alleged perpetrators of crime?
It creates a situation where the police are dragging people from their homes with nobody knowing what they did wrong. The dreaded midnight knock is one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime and of course, often justified to protect people.
The results are often disastrous when the public knows what someone is accused of sure, but the other side of the coin is a system of justice without accountability.
|>>|| No. 83726
There's also the argument that naming offenders encourages other victims to come forward. It's not always the first one that gets you, as Bill Clinton found out.
|>>|| No. 83727
It encourages chancers to come forward too, which makes them look more guilty regardless of the facts.
I dunno, not trying to get into this debate here, just my thoughts on your post.
|>>|| No. 83728
You're right, we should forget about any other potential victims in case someone tries it on.
|>>|| No. 83730
What do these phantom 'chancers' have to gain?
If you say fame and fortune, do you remember the names of anyone who accused Jimmy Savile? Have any of the current victims sued for damages, or said that they will?
I mean no-one ever accuses victims of burglary of having smashed their own windows and thrown away their possessions for attention, do they?
|>>|| No. 83731
They might be fantasists, like that woman who thought she was literally raped by the character Ken Barlow rather than Bill Roache.
|>>|| No. 83732
Slight tangent, but Priti's replacement would seriously get it.
|>>|| No. 83734
I appreciate the irony of appointing such a blatantly filthy tomboy tart in the midst of this scandal.
|>>|| No. 83737
I'd enter her lobby IYKWIM.
I'd take her whip IYKWIM.
I'd ask her to accept an intervention IYKWIM.
I'd observe her pair IYKWIM.
I'd rise inside her chamber IYKWIM.
What do you know? Parliament really is full of smut.
|>>|| No. 83744
This is exactly what I expected in the thread about sexual harassment. Keep up the good work, lads.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]