MPH Posted 9 June 2011 Posted 9 June 2011 The BBC understands that the Tory MP who was arrested and has now been bailed is Andrew Bridgen MP for Leicestershire North West story developing.
lcfcadam Posted 9 June 2011 Posted 9 June 2011 Can't someone frame Keith Vaz for something? I'm sure I remember him once asking me if I had any indecent images of children or something like that...
accessory Posted 9 June 2011 Posted 9 June 2011 That would incriminate you more than him. I'd offer very long odds on Bridgen ever being convicted. However the threat of charges may deter the tabloids (especially the Sunday ones) from going nuclear on the story.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Hilarious. I wonder how the media would react if it was graham partner our local bnp candidate?
Finnegan Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 'Hilarious?' Really? And as much as I loathe the Tories, I would have thought it was far bigger news that it's a supposedly civilized politician. A BNP candidate being a complete misogynist scumbag would hardly be as shocking.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Makes me laugh that you automatically class a bnp candidate as what you wrote. Surely you're acting in the very same manner that you assume a bnp candidate does if you pre judge someone like that?? What is sexual assault anyway? A new term for rape? She said no andrew, she said no
Fosse Boy Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Sticking up for the BNP? Really?!?! And sexual assault refers to an attack where the offending body part was not a penis. Rape is with penis.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 So he fingered her ! It has nothing to do with sticking up for them. Some of the time they speak sense, other times they don't. Bit like any other politician really.
hairy Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 So he fingered her ! Or grappled her tits or arse, for example. Maybe he just brushed past her in the corridor and she took offence. Who really knows.
lcfcadam Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 That would incriminate you more than him. Not if I answered no!
Bellend Sebastian Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Or grappled her tits or arse, for example. Maybe he just brushed past her in the corridor and she took offence. Who really knows. He fingered me, but I didn't mind. I don't see what all the fuss is about
Finnegan Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 I didn't say the BNP were all rapists and misogynists, I said the general public would be less shocked to read about a BNP politician doing something vulgar and it would thus be less newsworthy to Fleet Street.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Disagree- the media would jump on the bandwagon is a bnp member had done this. I think the reaction to bridgen is quite quiet perhaps cos hes tory? Haven't watched the news, but I drove past his house earlier and there was quite a few cameras etc there.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 Or grappled her tits or arse, for example. Maybe he just brushed past her in the corridor and she took offence. Who really knows. Exactly. Don't know the guy or his politics, but I think it's hugely unfair that he's plastered all over the news "before" any evidence is produced or being found guilty, yet the woman remains anonymous. Not saying we should know who the woman is, but a guy should at least have his privacy - innocent until proven guilty and all that. Even if he's proved innocent it'll still stick and to an extent his career is tarnished. If a person's identity was kept secret until an adverse judgement was given, then it would cut down on the number of times people make allegations, simply in the knowledge that mud sticks; even fake mud. Of course, it might turn out he's an sick, twisted and evil pervert - but we shouldn't know that until after the trail. Now people are already making their mind up.
Zingari Posted 10 June 2011 Posted 10 June 2011 I always think of Sir Norman Fry on Little Britain making up those ridiculous excuses ,whenever an MP is accused of stuff like this
Webbo Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 BBC Police have confirmed a sexual assault case against Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen has been dropped.Backbench MP Mr Bridgen, 46, was arrested in central London in the early hours of 9 June after a 29-year-old woman made a complaint to police. The North West Leicestershire MP was questioned by officers but not charged and released on bail until mid-July. A Metropolitan Police spokesman confirmed no further action would be taken against Mr Bridgen.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 Thats why people are arrested on suspicion of an offence as usually there is not enough evidence to charge straight away
ozleicester Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 Appalling that this kind of slander is allowed to occur. I dont know the guy or the details, however, his name has now been forever muddied. There really should be some protection from this sort of defamation. All media outlets should be forced to give exactly the same amount of coverage to his dropped charges, as they did to the original.
MPH Posted 16 June 2011 Author Posted 16 June 2011 Appalling that this kind of slander is allowed to occur. I dont know the guy or the details, however, his name has now been forever muddied. There really should be some protection from this sort of defamation. All media outlets should be forced to give exactly the same amount of coverage to his dropped charges, as they did to the original. The fact the charges have been dropped doesn't always mean he didn't do it. It could also mean that there just wasn't enough evidence, which is something completely different. He will either be as you said forever muddled and an innocent man will have his life severely effected., or maybe his lawyer found a legal loophole..or the arresting officer perhaps said the wrong thing to him when arresting him, ect and didnt follow police protocol with the paperwork. I am pretty sure both scenarios are played out on a daily basis in the British judicial system and indeed legal systems around the world. I am good friends with a barrister and we have often had heated discussions on just what extent legal experts will go to, to get people off the hook, even if they themselves believe the defendant to be guilty of the offence. Either way. not much we can do about it. Wonder whats for tea tonight...
Jon the Hat Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 The fact the charges have been dropped doesn't always mean he didn't do it. It could also mean that there just wasn't enough evidence, which is something completely different. He will either be as you said forever muddled and an innocent man will have his life severely effected., or maybe his lawyer found a legal loophole..or the arresting officer perhaps said the wrong thing to him when arresting him, ect and didnt follow police protocol with the paperwork. I am pretty sure both scenarios are played out on a daily basis in the British judicial system and indeed legal systems around the world. I am good friends with a barrister and we have often had heated discussions on just what extent legal experts will go to, to get people off the hook, even if they themselves believe the defendant to be guilty of the offence. Either way. not much we can do about it. Wonder whats for tea tonight... No this means he is innocent in the eyes of the law, and should be treated as if nothing was ever said. Not possible you say? So he should have the right to anonymity.
ozleicester Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 The fact the charges have been dropped doesn't always mean he didn't do it. It could also mean that there just wasn't enough evidence, which is something completely different. He will either be as you said forever muddled and an innocent man will have his life severely effected., or maybe his lawyer found a legal loophole..or the arresting officer perhaps said the wrong thing to him when arresting him, ect and didnt follow police protocol with the paperwork. I am pretty sure both scenarios are played out on a daily basis in the British judicial system and indeed legal systems around the world. I am good friends with a barrister and we have often had heated discussions on just what extent legal experts will go to, to get people off the hook, even if they themselves believe the defendant to be guilty of the offence. Either way. not much we can do about it. Wonder whats for tea tonight... Guess so, but... "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
ozleicester Posted 16 June 2011 Posted 16 June 2011 No this means he is innocent in the eyes of the law, and should be treated as if nothing was ever said. Not possible you say? So he should have the right to anonymity.
MPH Posted 16 June 2011 Author Posted 16 June 2011 No this means he is innocent in the eyes of the law, and should be treated as if nothing was ever said. Not possible you say? So he should have the right to anonymity. oh i don't think i said he wasn't innocent in the eyes of the law... did I?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.