In a string of texts Griffiths called himself “Daddy”, promised money if he received racy images and described perverted and rough sex he claimed to have had with other women.
The shamed Tory wrote:
• “I’m going to need something filthy to put a smile on my face. I want to see you both naked.”
• “Take off the bra and panties… you’ve got Daddy in such a frenzy.”
• “I’m going to bring you to London and do whatever I want to you.”
• “I’m thinking maybe we need a flat for Daddy’s girls. I’m taken by you both. You girls are spectacular.”
Many more messages go into shocking detail about his liking for certain sexual acts and are too disgusting to print in full.
>The MP sent the girls money in return for X-rated pictures and videos.
>Imogen, 28, tonight told the Sunday Mirror: “I wanted him to be a nice guy, but by the end I felt dirty. I felt like I was being used for this wealthy man’s gratification.”
Boggles my mind how if you're a public figure you'd think you can get away with such things, in today's age.
I mean wouldn't you at least try and hide your identity? You just need to use a false name and in all likelihood these kind of bints would never find out you're their local MP. I certainly don't know what mine looks like.
I mean I'm a nobody and I try to keep tinder dates from finding out who I am in case they turn out to be a nutter.
>Boggles my mind how if you're a public figure you'd think you can get away with such things, in today's age.
I'm sure there is some sort of unintended correlation between the people who are involved in deviant acts and significant public figures I'm not quite sure why it seems to be at a much higher level than the background level for novel sexual activities. I think it might be a personality type.
>>84348 Well I'm just someone with access to a searchable directory of virtually all of humanity's wisdom, but I think it is a pretentious health food freak term for almonds soaked in water.
The gist of this story, is that these girls were 100% willing and consenting, until Imogen either got bored or decided that the papers would give her money than he would.
He's still a complete numpty not to have seen this coming though.
Weirdest part is how he kept referring to himself as "Daddy" when you consider he had recently become a father when he was sending these messages.
>>84351 It's quite odd when you read up on it. He'd been stalking the two women on Facebook and Snapchat after one of them caught his eye whilst she was at work as a barmaid. He repeatedly watched their Snapchat videos for months, before deciding to message them after the lass who went to the papers uploaded a video in just her bra. He then kept pestering them for more videos and was offering money for it, with his demands becoming increasingly lewd and controlling over time.
He clearly pictures himself as some sort of powerful Fifty Shades of Grey type character.
>Weirdest part is how he kept referring to himself as "Daddy" when you consider he had recently become a father when he was sending these messages.
That's a very common part of this kink and has absolutely nothing to do with fatherhood. It's hard to explain without the context of years of being a sexual deviant, but it's a very normal thing to be saying in a dom/sub situation.
Still entirely odd and embarrassing to be read after you've finished your wank, mind.
I used to find stuff like this funny but I actually find it kind of sad now that, whilst embarrassing, he's not actually done anything illegal and has merely participated in the type of fancy millions of adults up and down the country will enjoy or have at least tried during their sexual experiences.
It's weird seeing lads on here call it deviant behaviour and such yet in the other thread I can see lots of lads posting about how they smash posh girls with these sorts of kinks and nobody bats an eye.
Exactly my thoughts. This is rather mild as kinky stuff goes, when it comes down to it, and like you say, is not really that bothersome, other than the fact he's cheated on his wife I suppose, but I can't imagine he'd be forced to resign if he'd just been shagging some au pair or civil servant.
It's a bit sad he's had to say he's 'seeking help' as well. I suppose it reflects on how repressed we are as a country at heart.
>>84352 But the Mirror said he "sent the girls money in return for X-rated pictures and videos". This suggests to me the videos were for a time forthcoming and >>84351 has it exactly right. You're a bit of a numpty if you think the bra video was a one-off and still she was happy to hand it over to the Mirror to publish so they can illustrate the innocent mistake that started this. Elsewhere they said he sent £700. If this was really an unwanted relationship (your words: a stalker) why would you accept that?
Two thousand messages and no mention of how she told him to fuck off, blocked his number or reported *an MP* to the police? No quotes of her messages at all in fact? Really makes you think.
They've really laid it on very thick, to the point of essentially lying about the nature of the story. "Man attempts to cheat on wife with barmaid who sent dirty pics" is going to get many fewer clicks than "MP relentlessly bombards and sexually harasses innocent lady".
>>84357 >You're a bit of a numpty if you think the bra video was a one-off
The bra video was what prompted him to get in touch so she was clearly doing this sort of thing before for attention. If this is how she looks at age 28 then she's past her prime and trying to make the most of it as she declines. The Mirror video makes clear she's as thick as two short planks so she's probably aiming to be as famous as that lass Wayne Rooney was caught drunk driving with or the prostitutes who were bumming Keith Vaz.
However, it's clear he went full on here. It's one thing to send her money for saucy videos. It's another thing to message her two thousand times in the space of three weeks, offering to pay for a flat, buy her dresses and making all sorts of demands. Just because you consent to one thing doesn't mean you consent to other things; I suppose in your eyes doing those videos for money means that she's asking for it for whatever follows next.
>>84358 I'm not sure you actually need to consent to receive text messages from private individuals. Obviously it'd approach harassment if they had one interaction and then he sent 2000 messages while she worked a shift at the pub but we know they were having conversations. She wanted to get to know him and his work she claimed. If you ask me conducting mutual conversations and sending dirty vids is consent enough for having sexual conversations.
Nowhere is it claimed she ever told him to stop contacting him. Nowhere is it claimed she told him to contact him less frequently. Nowhere is it claimed she told him to stop speaking sexually.
The man was watching her social media! How is he not in prison already? One rule for MPs and one rule for us. It's disgusting!
"A bit full on" is not a crime and even if it were the Daily Mirror is not responsible for nor interested in righting these wrongs. Might be good for a few more dollar bills though.
>I suppose in your eyes doing those videos for money means that she's asking for it for whatever follows next.
Erm, no?
I mean, my girlfriend and I sent about 2000 messages to each other in the first month of our relationship, that's just a conversation online.
If it was a one way thing, him sending her 2000 messages and her not responding, then yeah, weird - but it's pretty clear they were talking to each other, which, even if he was more verbose, means SHE SENT HIM A THOUSAND MESSAGES! lock her up.
>>84360 You're a filthy perv and so is your mrs. Probably worth selling your story to the mirror for a few quid? Are you photogenic? Do you have access to stock photos of photogenic people, if not?
>>84365 What's gay about hammers? Is there some link between homosexuality and hammers that I'm missing, unless this is the Confederation of Gay Builders or something? Why's it got to be pink? Why've they got to have special pink hammers? Surprised they haven't gone all out and made the handle a cock.
>>84366 I'm guessing either something something Freud or something something commies. It's odd how many LGBT/LGBT-sympathetic types at my uni proudly sported USSR garb or flags given the Union's stance on homosexuality. If they were being charitable you were merely a person with an unfortunate psychiatric condition, less charitably you were infected with Western degeneracy and an active threat to the revolution if you dared talk about it. Russian views on these matters are nothing new.
>>84367 It's odd how many LGBT/LGBT-sympathetic types at my uni proudly remember the fallen on Remembrance Day given the allies' stance on homosexuality. If they were being charitable you were merely a person with an unfortunate psychiatric condition, less charitably you were infected with perverted degeneracy and an active threat to the society if you dared talk about it. Western views on these matters are something new.
>>84371 You surely can't think this is an adequate comparison? Remembrance Day is to mourn the horrors of the ordinary men and women who got caught up in the pointless slaughter of war, not bemoan its cost to the invidious British imperialism that preceded it.
>>84372 It's odd how many LGBT/LGBT-sympathetic types at my uni proudly celebrate the 1966 World Cup victory given the English stance on homosexuality. If they were being charitable you were merely a person with an unfortunate psychiatric condition, less charitably you were infected with perverted degeneracy and an active threat to society if you dared talk about it. English views on these matters are something new, although football remains stubbornly unwilling to accept this given a total absence of openly gay top flight footballers to this day.
>>84373 I'm really not drunk enough to find your shitposting funny, lad. I'm sure you're a strong, independent privileged westerner who don't need no capitalism.
>>84374 You'll recall that you were the one suggesting the gays ought to criticise the USSR on its treatment of gays rather than its failed economic system.
Now, nearly four months on, the former minister is trying to work out how he went from being a respected figure at the dispatch box to lying sedated in a hospital bed after a mental breakdown.
“I have re-read the messages I sent and they reduced me to tears,” he whispered on Friday. “I am ashamed of those texts, but more ashamed that my wife had to read them. Many of them I do not even remember sending.”
The first Kate knew of the messages was when he warned her in the 48 hours before the tabloid published the story. When we meet in a private office in Westminster, Griffiths is almost unrecognisable. He has lost more than two stones and the clothes hang from his frame. His eyes have the appearance of recent tears and his hands are shaking.
Until now he has been banned from discussing his resignation. But after last week’s meeting of the disciplinary panel, which is expected to rule shortly on whether he will be kicked out of the Conservative Party, Griffiths is free to speak.
His voice cracks as he explains why he feels he must tell his side of the story. When he was growing up in Dudley in the 1970s, his father was the only Tory councillor. He remembers the playground taunts and is determined his daughter will not suffer the same fate.
“I don’t for one second try to excuse what I did,” he asserts. “The texts were horrible and I apologise hugely for them, and to everyone I have hurt. I am ashamed and embarrassed. But I need to put into context why it happened, so that in 15 years, when my daughter reads this interview, she’ll understand exactly why I found myself in this terrible situation. The worst thing about the scandal is its effect on Kate and eventually Alice, he says. “I have embarrassed and humiliated the people I love most. But it’s only through hours and hours of talking with therapists and psychotherapists that I now understand the drivers that made me act the way I did.”
Although the immediate cause of his breakdown was recent, he says the origin of his depression and mental illness is in childhood, when he was eight years old and was sexually abused by an older boy.
“When my own daughter was born, I became obsessed by my childhood and not wanting her to suffer in the way that I had,” he says. “I worried about Alice having to cope alone.” Griffiths’s father was 48 when he was born and spent much of his childhood in and out of hospital before he died when the MP was 25. He recalls an incident when he was 18 and his father wet himself as he tried to get off a hospital trolley.
“I remember picking up a load of paper towels and trying to clean him up, and I became obsessed with Alice not having to go through something similar — that’s just anxiety and the way it works.”
Griffiths pinpoints the moment his mental health started to collapse at another happy event this year. When Alice was two months old, he watched his 31-year-old niece walk down the aisle.
“It was such a perfect day and the sun was shining and I could not have been any happier,” he muses. “And then it just hit me that if Alice gets married at 31 like my niece was, then I would be 79.”
Already anxious, he learnt a few weeks later that his brother had cancer and was to have his colon removed. It was a terrifying reminder of his own mortality. Two days later he sent the first incriminating text to the barmaid. “The irony is that my brother is now cured of his cancer and is going to the football and enjoying a beer, and yet my mental health continues to poleaxe me,” he says softly.
All this for being a bit kinky. If he'd merely cheated on his wife with some other middle aged bint he'd likely never have even seen the dull end of the news cycle, but because he was a bit more interesting about it, his life, and apparently mind, has been destroyed.
I'd really like to know why nobody just says: "OK, I did wrong, I behaved like a pig, I am sorry." All this melodrama with the (probably fake) hospitalisation, mental breakdown and revelation of (GASP!) childhood abuse feel just like deep denial. At least to me. It looks like manning up and admitting your own faults went out of fashion.
BoJo, Trump and Saville have shown the power of brazenness in politics. It probably doesn't say great things about our society, but a lot of people respect someone who just says "I'm an arsehole, I'm not going to change for anyone, deal with it".
>>84712 I think the effect is probably more on the public at large than at the bubble they're in. I mean be honest, does anyone in the general public actually know who this guy is? It's more the kind of scandal that bothers people in the westminster-media-that-kind-of-thing bubble, the people who actually vaguely know about him. If you appeal beyond them to the general public, the general public will either find out you exist and some of them will be with you, or they'll respond with silence - proving they're not actually outraged at all.
I feel like the UK could do with someone truly Brazen, someone who doesn't equivocate on their nastiness or retreat, a sort of Trump type, just to show that emperor middle-class decency is well and truly in the nude. Perhaps our libel laws are why that's not happened yet.
A Conservative MP who sent sexual messages to two barmaids has been cleared of wrongdoing by the parliamentary standards watchdog.
Andrew Griffiths, 48, resigned as small business minister last July after the messages were published in a newspaper. The watchdog said it found no evidence he sent them while he would have been engaged in parliamentary activities. Allegations he breached the House of Commons Code of Conduct were not upheld, it added.
It's as though we expect MPs not to be human. Embarrassing, sure, but is it really in the public interest? Perhaps the sexual development our culture is going through might help to address such issues.
>I suppose in your eyes doing those videos for money means that she's asking for it for whatever follows next.
It certianly means they're likely to be receptive to similar offers.
It all reaks to me of someone trying to make a quick buck by selling out to the papers. They probably could have networked their way into something quite lucrative if they had keeped their mouth shut. Instead they've probably got themselves blacked balled from the biggest opportunity of their life and any others where discretion is expected, but they are probably too stupid to realise it.
>>95020 >Judge Williscroft made a number of findings of fact - on the balance of probability - about the way Mr Griffiths had treated Ms Griffiths. The judge said Ms Griffiths had "proved in her oral evidence to me" that Mr Griffiths "did rape her when sexual intercourse took place".
>Mr Griffiths said no assault had taken place but Judge Williscroft said she "preferred" Ms Griffiths's account.
I feel odd defending him as he's obviously a wrong'un but, you fucking what. So a family law judge can just label you a rapist on a he-said she-said with no criminal trial involved and then it can be plastered in all the bloody newspapers despite that being as good as guilty in everyone eyes.
>>95021 Why would a woman who has been publicly humiliated by her ex-husband's indiscretions lie to a family court during a hearing to do with the custody of their children?
