Me Too

He was fired and publicly shamed before the investigation was carried out.

He was fired and publicly shamed before the investigation was carried out. This is guilty until proven innocent.

How is this different from any other witch hunt driven by any other public outrage? In the US we had the McCarthy Witch Hunts (I talked about my uncle's experience with that). People were accused of being Communists, they were fired and publicly shamed based on allegations.

That is how these things work (whether it is Salem, or McCarthy, or MeToo). The public is out for blood. Anyone who is accused can't defend themselves. And anyone who questions the public hysteria is attacked (even women who are questioning MeToo are being pretty viciously attacked).

Olivier5 wrote:

many personalities and feminists

and just regular people

Marlène Schiappa, Secretary of State for Equality between Women and Men: "To rub a man's sex against a woman on the subway, without her consent, is a sexual assault, which is punishable bt up to 3 years in prison and a 75,000 euros fine."

Labour has stepped up its investigations into two MPs accused of sexual harassment.

The cases of Ivan Lewis and Kelvin Hopkins have both been referred to an internal disciplinary committee.

Mr Lewis said he would "co-operate fully," while Mr Hopkins said he was happy to go to the committee to "clear my name".

The Bury South and Luton North MPs, who both deny the allegations, were suspended by the party in November.

Their cases have now been referred to Labour's national constitutional committee (NCC), which deals with disciplinary matters and has the power to order expulsion from the party.

The two men are among a number of MPs of different parties being investigated over allegations about past conduct towards women.

Mr Lewis has represented Bury South since 1997 and has served in various roles in the shadow cabinet, most recently as shadow Northern Ireland secretary until September 2015. He served as a minister in Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's governments.

He said: "I note the decision of the Labour Party to refer this matter to a full hearing of the National Constitutional Committee. I will continue to co-operate fully with any investigation."

Mr Hopkins has been MP for Luton North since 1997 and spent most of his career on the backbenches but was briefly promoted in July 2016, before returning to the backbenches in October that year. He was among 36 Labour MPs who backed Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid in 2015.

He said in a statement: "This issue needs to be dealt with by due process and I am happy to go to the NCC to clear my name. I shall be making a full statement when the inquiry is complete and am not saying anything further today."

The woman who made the complaint against him, Ava Etemadzadeh, has said he sent her inappropriate text messages and made inappropriate physical contact while hugging her in 2014 and 2015. She had complained to the party later in 2015 - Mr Hopkins was promoted to the front bench, albeit briefly, in June 2016.

Speaking on Friday, Ms Etemadzadeh said she would "cautiously welcome the fact that my case is finally being heard" but, she added, it was only happening because she went public with her complaint, having been previously "fobbed off", while Mr Hopkins went on to be promoted.

"I know the NCC will take its responsibilities seriously, act with integrity and I look forward to finally having my say," she said.

In a statement issued on Friday, the Labour Party said: "After consideration of statements provided by the complainant and the respondent, the NEC's sexual harassment panel has agreed that on the balance of the evidence the matter should be referred to a full hearing of the national constitutional committee.

"The Labour Party will not be commenting further on this case until the conclusion of that hearing."

The woman who made the complaint against him, Ava Etemadzadeh, has said he sent her inappropriate text messages and made inappropriate physical contact while hugging her in 2014 and 2015.

it is a shame that a man's death got in the way of an urgent investigation into text messages and hugs

Fortunately my Uncle didn't take is own life. If he had, as a family member I would have been upset if they had continued to investigate him after his death.

The son of late Labour assembly member Carl Sargeant has been selected by party members to fight the by-election caused by his father's death.

Jack Sargeant, 23, was chosen by party members in Alyn and Deeside ahead of the by-election on 6 February.

Jack Sargeant said he would be "seeking justice" for his father and "getting to the truth about the chain of events that led to his premature death".

He had vowed to clear his name, and the first minister has ordered an independent inquiry to consider the circumstances around his sacking.

Jack Sargeant said: "I am humbled and honoured to have been selected as Labour's candidate.

"I would like to thank local Labour Party members for the faith they have placed in me."

"I will be standing on a platform of being a powerful voice for local people - in the proud tradition of my father."

[...] It has been "extremely difficult" for his family following the death of his father. [...]

Opposition parties will have to deal with the emotional weight that will inevitably surround his campaign and the undoubted popularity within Labour ranks of his late father, particularly in and around his hometown, and power base of Connah's Quay.

A ‘cruel system’ killed Carl Sargeant says a close friend and businessman who added his death must be a 'wake up call'.

Askar Sheibani, a Labour activist and Deeside tech entrepreneur, said the global hysteria over allegations of inappropriate behaviour and the failure to protect the identity of people accused created a situation that led to the Alyn and Deeside AM’s death. ....

Mr Sheibani, group president and CEO of Comtek, said: “Carl Sargeant has been the victim of a cruel system, this led to his death.

He said: “Under the current system and the pressure that has come from the situation that has come out of Hollywood and Westminster I don’t think Carwyn Jones [the First Minister who sacked Sargeant] had any choice but to take the action he did.

"It is one of those situations where you are damned if you act and damned if you don’t. Everyone is terrified of not taking action in this current climate. [...]

He believes the system should protect the identity of both the accuser and the accused until an initial investigation is carried out and that the rules of employment law should apply to politicians. [...]

Mr Sheibani said for Mr Sargeant the pressure he faced would have been immense.

He said: “There is this idea high profile politicians like Carl are like concrete walls and can take any pressure thrown at them. They are human beings and I knew Carl to be a sensitive man.

“He was not the typical politician, he was a true working class man who came from the community he represented.

“He was a role model for that community, he showed that a working class person could still rise to a high level in politics.

"He connected with his community, he was unique, not like so many politicians who come from middle class backgrounds and don’t connect with the people.

“This meant when these allegations emerged he felt the pressure even more because he was living in this community, he would have felt embarrassed and ashamed that people were talking about these allegations.” [...]

“What has happened has been so sad, we can’t let this happen again. There is so much emotion around now but we must use logic to create a system that prevents this happening again.”

The law says one is innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't say we should assume one is innocent because that would compromise juries.

I assume he's innocent until proven guilty, as a matter of principles.

The allegations surrounding Sargeant need to be investigated and adjudicated on. Let's look at the evidence first.

one of the women only went public after the man she complained about was promoted.

and thus assuming the women are lying - as a matter of principle

Of what is the guy supposed to be guilty or innocent, exactly???