@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Who are these women
are there women who are more truthful/more believable/ more acceptable to you?
@Olivier5,
really
how is the name going to effect what you think about the matter?
__
this is precisely the kind of attitude and tone that prevents/prevented women from coming forward
@Olivier5,
I've already posted this and you know it. These are time wasting tactics employed by the likes of Baldimo and Layman. That's where you are.
Quote: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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42664917
@ehBeth,
There's no way I can "believe" secret statements made by secret people... I need SOMETHING to believe or to doubt. In the absence of clear allegations, all I can say is that anonymous tips made in the secrecy of political cliques are not always the most trustworthy. Politics are a dirty world. IMO, there would need to be a detailed police report or journalist article on these allegations, for anyone to be in a position to believe or disbelieve anything.
I can make a secret allegation about you eBeth, and tell it in secret to someone secret. Pray tell, is my secret allegation is true or false???
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Olivier5 wrote:Of what is the guy supposed to be guilty or innocent, exactly???
didn't you determine that before assuming his innocence?
Nobody knows what Sargeant is accused of. That's the biggest problem in this story: lack of transparency and due process. Justice needs to be served. The police should force the First Minister to cough up the allegations made to him in secrecy. If he still doesn't want to speak when faced with the police, he should lose his job, if not go to jail.
@izzythepush,
That is a totally different story, though. Irrelevant to the case of Sargeant.
@Olivier5,
The issue of process has to be addressed, I've already said that. However, I'm against giving the police extra powers, especially the power to dismiss elected politicians. That's a police state, and it's quite shocking that you would advocate such things.
Your comments weren't specifically addressed to Sergeant, but Westminster politicians, in fact you had difficulty differentiating between Westminster MPs and members of the Welsh Assembly.
If my comments weren't relevant to what you intended to say that's down to the confused nature of your posts.
@izzythepush,
My comments were entirely focused on the Sargeant case, saying those were secret allegations by secret people. And then you answered: "Crap, one of the women only went public.....". I assumed in good faith that you were referring to the same case, not an entirely different one. I'm not the one confusing national and welsh politics, you are.
Edit: Seems to me that if a man is dead in suspicious circumstances, a criminal enquiry could be launched.
@Olivier5,
He wasn't murdered, he took his own life.
What you're saying is that if a woman reports a rape and her rapist tops himself she should face a murder trial.
And you claim not to hate women.
The persistent personal undermining of Carl Sargeant
Leighton Andrews, November 9, 2017
This is hard to write, but it needs to be said. Yesterday I told a couple of journalists that there had been deliberate personal undermining of Carl Sargeant from within the Welsh Labour Government over several years.
I am not going to name names today. But I made a complaint to the First Minister about one aspect of this, of which I had direct evidence, in the autumn of 2014. An informal investigation was undertaken. I then asked for it to be made formal. I was told it would be. I was never shown the outcome. There was no due process.
After some weeks, Carl and I talked about this, and came to the conclusion that nothing would be done, and we should just get on with our jobs. Under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, a General Election was due; we both had legislation to take through – I had the Violence against Women Bill, which Carl had provided the drive for, and a White Paper on Local Government to get out; we each had a long list of family, political, constituency and ministerial commitments; and in politics you don’t waste time and energy, your most important resources, on pointless activity.
I have some of this documented in my personal diaries. [...]
There are two points I want to make. The first goes to the question of due process. Carl’s solicitor, his family and friends, believe that he was not given the benefit of due process over the complaints made against him, and that the interviews given on Monday by the First Minister prejudiced any inquiry in themselves.
Friends in north Wales tell me those interviews fuelled Carl’s despair.
But in terms of due process, they undermined what had been set in train when the issue had been handed off to the Labour Party last Friday.
There was no due process either when I made my complaint to the First Minister in 2014.
The second point goes to Carl’s state of mind. For too much of the 2011-16 Assembly, the atmosphere on the Fifth Floor, the Ministerial Floor in Ty Hywel, was toxic: minor bullying, mind-games, power-games, favouritism, inconsistency of treatment to different ministers, deliberate personal undermining on occasion. The undermining was of ministers, deputy ministers and special advisers. Some of this undermining was shared as gossip with people outside the government: I know this from comments made to me by a prominent outsider close to government who always likes to affect an awareness of what is really happening ‘on the Fifth Floor’.
I found that the atmosphere was unquestionably worse after I returned to government in September 2014 than it had been in the period May 2011- June 2013. Carl was unquestionably the target of some of this behaviour. The relentless drip-drip of disinformation – and worse – had a strain on his and others’ mental health. The First Minister was made aware of this by several ministers, including myself. Nothing was done.
In a normal workplace, it would have been tackled. [...]
https://leightonandrews.live
@Olivier5,
Funny how you latch onto this one case and ignore all the others where sexual harassment, assault and even rape are indisputable. You keep banging on about this because you believe it supports your fiction, that powerful men are being used by vulnerable women.
Your concern is such that you initially referred to Sergeant as a Westminster MP.
The only valid point you have to say is that the procedure followed was faulty. Everyone agrees with that, but you keep going on about it because it's preferable to looking at the thousands of other cases of harassment. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la I can't hear you.'
If you and Max want to live in a fantasy world that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to share your delusions.
@izzythepush,
Quote:you initially referred to Sergeant as a Westminster MP.
That is clearly not true. I never said any such thing. And it's 'SArgeant'.
Quote:The only valid point you have to say is that the procedure followed was faulty. Everyone agrees with that,
The case illustrates the limits of a public delation campaign with no due process. Glad we all agree about that.
@Olivier5,
Stop using cheap rhetorical devices, it belittles the debate.
The procedure in question is that of the Labour Party, not the Welsh Assembly. So far it's an internal party matter, the party will conduct its own investigation but that might be all there is.
@izzythepush,
It
deepens the debate to consider the possible negative consequences in terms of due process, fair treatment of allegations, as well as commensurate responses to possible misdeads depending on their gravity. These have been key debating points around #MeToo.
@izzythepush,
Quote:The procedure in question is that of the Labour Party, not the Welsh Assembly.
Nope. The breach of due process being investigated by Permanent Secretary Dame Shan Morgan on request of Carwyn Jones (FM) is relative of the sacking of Carl Sargeant by the Welsh Government in breach of normal procedure for a Minister of the Crown, and about leaks of his sacking to the local press a few days before AM Sargeant was told himself. There's another investigation also commissiond by the Welsh Government on whether Jones mislead the assembly about bullying targeted at Sargeant and othets in 2014, entrusted to Irish lawyer James Hamilton.
Carl Sargeant was AM but also Minister of local governments and communities in the cabinet. It's not about the assembly, and not about the Labor party either, not directly at least.
@Olivier5,
Nobody has said due process was followed, the fact you keep banging on about it to the exclusion of anything else means you're not interested in the big picture, but would rather use an isolated example to avoid what's actually going on.
@izzythepush,
I'm aware of the big picture, don't worry. I also support MeToo in the big scheme of things.
IMO it's just a telling example of political manipulation under the guise of propriety. Jones had wanted to sack Sargeant for a long time, but the AM was popular. Then the Wesminter scandal erupts. It's quite possible Carwyn Jones dug up some old and new complains of various gravity and framed Sargeant with them, sacked him whithout daring to confront him with the allegations because he knew they were flimsy...
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
Olivier5 wrote:Of what is the guy supposed to be guilty or innocent, exactly???
didn't you determine that before assuming his innocence?
Nobody knows what Sargeant is accused of.
then how did you decide innocence was the way to go?
__
To be very clear I'm not coming down on the side of guilt or innocence. I'm on the side of full and complete investigations.
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:It deepens the debate to consider the possible negative consequences in terms of due process, fair treatment of allegations
you're trying to push the realities of #metoo to the side
possible negative consequences were usually only considered by men or women considering reporting sexual assaults
assailants knew the odds were against reports let alone any investigations or charges
I am very happy that there is currently a tiny change in the odds.
More reports, more investigations, perhaps more charges. It has the potential to make life and work better for people with less power.
The pushback against this is disturbing but not surprising.
