It will be interesting to see what his constituents think of his behaviour come the 2015 Election. Makes one wonder about the personal qualities of all the others that we vote for too.
I did not say I did not or would not debate it. I said I did not want to debate it with you for the reasons give in post #199
Thats not my post, it is someone agreeing with my post.
Its not me saying this should have not gone to trial, its what is being reported, that the evidence was flimsy and some witnesses were backing down from what they said.
But never mind this man has lost his career and also a lot of money, why worry.
It will be interesting to see what his constituents think of his behaviour come the 2015 Election. Makes one wonder about the personal qualities of all the others that we vote for too.
Thats not my post, it is someone agreeing with my post.
Its not me saying this should have not gone to trial, its what is being reported, that the evidence was flimsy and some witnesses were backing down from what they said.
But never mind this man has lost his career and also a lot of money, why worry.
Totally surreal. You are now denying that posts of yours that I directly reply to are not yours.
Totally surreal. You are now denying that posts of yours that I directly reply to are not yours.
I give up
No I am not, I take a different view to you and you seem to find that offensive. Why do you think it should be left to a judge to throw a case out, it is the job of the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to prosecute.
No I am not, I take a different view to you and you seem to find that offensive. Why do you think it should be left to a judge to throw a case out, it is the job of the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to prosecute.
Yes you are.
That is not what I said. Under your logic the Judge should not have the power to dismiss charges or cases as the CPS would get their decision right in every instance. Well if that was the case we can dispense with jury trials just ask the CPS as according to you they are always right
That is not what I said. Under your logic the Judge should not have the power to dismiss charges or cases as the CPS would get their decision right in every instance. Well if that was the case we can dispense with jury trials just ask the CPS as according to you they are always right
No not really but how would a judge know to throw a case out untill he has heard all of the witnessess, the CPS have all the evidence in front of them..The judge in this case did dismiss a couple of charges but I doubt he would have thrown the case completely out until he heard all the evidence. I question whether this should have gone to trial and if the CPS were doing their job properly, you have to admit they have not got a good record on these abuse cases, its only 5% so far, I hope in the long run it does not stop the genuine victims coming forward.
It will be interesting to see what his constituents think of his behaviour come the 2015 Election. Makes one wonder about the personal qualities of all the others that we vote for too.
If he was found not guilty of all charges, why would his constituents be worried about his behaviour. Or are you saying that you still believe he's guilty?
You may read English quite well, but it seems you ignore what you read.
No not really but how would a judge know to throw a case out untill he has heard all of the witnessess, the CPS have all the evidence in front of them..The judge in this case did dismiss a couple of charges but I doubt he would have thrown the case completely out until he heard all the evidence. I question whether this should have gone to trial and if the CPS were doing their job properly, you have to admit they have not got a good record on these abuse cases, its only 5% so far, I hope in the long run it does not stop the genuine victims coming forward.
A Judge did throw out a case just last week without hearing all the evidence. It was the Deana Uppal libel case .......................
Not quite like that, Wollaston went to the Speaker and asked him to investigate complaints that had been made to her it was Bercow that called in the police. I have no objection to the case being investigated but it seems the police had very flimsy evidence to pass over to the the CPS, one or the other should have thrown been this out.
Not according to the Guardian:
"At first, the alleged rape victim told no one what happened........He was not to know that around the same time his friend – the other key complainant – made what he described as an "off-the-cuff remark" to Wollaston about his own encounter with Evans.
.......A month later, in April 2013, the alleged sexual assault victim confided in more detail to Wollaston in a one-on-one meeting, and she decided to set up an urgent meeting with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow. Shortly before the meeting with Bercow, Wollaston's phone rang. It was the alleged rape victim who, for the first time, gave her his account of what happened when he had slept at Evans's cottage.
.............Wollaston, a GP with 20 years' experience including a spell working as a police forensic examiner where she dealt with victims of sexual and domestic violence, told Bercow about both complaints against Evans at a meeting in the Speaker's office, where Bercow's secretary and the alleged sexual assault victim were also present.
KEY PARAGRAPH:
Bercow said it was for the young man to decide whether he should take the matter to police. A meeting with the alleged rape victim was scheduled for the following week but, following legal advice from the Speaker's counsel Michael Carpenter, Bercow's secretary informed Wollaston that the Speaker "cannot handle this".
..........Wollaston, frustrated by the response from Bercow's office, took the matter into her own hands and passed a police telephone number to both men, telling them they had a duty to come forward and ensure Evans was apprehended before any other young men were assaulted."
I would add to my earlier comments that I think Wollaston almost certainly acted in good faith.
To those who say the evidence was flimsy, and the CPS was all wrong, my questions are why do you think that one of the men alleged incidents involving Evans four years earlier to Fabricant, McLoughlin, Corby and others in the party and particularly why he then did so entirely out out of the blue to the Wollaston in 2013, an MP who had specialist experience in such areas, immediately followed by a more serious allegation by one of his friends?
So, that is, why specifically the initial contact with MPs, why the delay of four years, why then contact with an MP who was known to have specialist experience in such areas and why the amazing coincidence that the second occurred at the time his friend was alleging something more serious? What was in it for them and from whom?
Contrary to what is suggested in the post by flagpole, I have no more opposition to the Conservative Party than I do to any other party. Before the Maria Miller affair, I slightly preferred them to Lib Dem and Labour. And a particularly good local green Conservative has received my vote on occasions as one of the three votes I have for the Council.
Evans wants a time limit on when allegations of abuse go to court even though the alleged rape was as recent as 30 March 2013 and the other cases were only as old as 2008-9. In his case, therefore, that's an irrelevance.
He clearly has no regard in such a request for longer term sexual abuse victims who are waiting for their cases to be heard. However, it will be music to the ears of an establishment which refused to do anything under the instruction of MI6 about Cyril Smith and other similar MPs. Now that the celebrity cases are coming to an end it is concerned that the investigations will move to politics. Consequently, in the case of those still alive, its clear aim is that nothing will be done to hold them to account, just as in the 1980s. Yes. It could all seem pre-planned.
Evans wants a time limit on when allegations of abuse go to court even though the alleged rape was as recent as 30 March 2013 and the other cases were only as old as 2008-9. In his case, therefore, that's an irrelevance.
He clearly has no regard in such a request for longer term sexual abuse victims who are waiting for their cases to be heard. However, it will be music to the ears of an establishment which refused to do anything under the instruction of MI6 about Cyril Smith and other similar MPs. Now that the celebrity cases are coming to an end it is concerned that the investigations will move to politics. Consequently, in the case of those still alive, its clear aim is that nothing will be done to hold them to account, just as in the 1980s. Yes. It could all seem pre-planned.
It's also an irrelevance to Evans since he was found not guilty and whenever the offences took place, it surely wouldn't have affected his outcome.
You may well be right about his request for time limit having relevance to Cyril Smith's long period of abusive behaviour and the length of time since he both moved out of the public arena and then died. But Smith is not the only can of worms that remains unopened, there being several others that have had the lid jammed down by the establishment that only need prising open by the allegations now being examined about Smith and they don't all connect solely with this country. The more I think about the Evans' case, the more i think of the question I asked earlier in this thread:
What we don't know is whether those appearing for the prosecution were persuaded to change there story.
It's also an irrelevance to Evans since he was found not guilty and whenever the offences took place, it surely wouldn't have affected his outcome.
You may well be right about his request for time limit having relevance to Cyril Smith's long period of abusive behaviour and the length of time since he both moved out of the public arena and then died. But Smith is not the only can of worms that remains unopened, there being several others that have had the lid jammed down by the establishment that only need prising open by the allegations now being examined about Smith and they don't all connect solely with this country. The more I think about the Evans' case, the more i think of the question I asked earlier in this thread:
What we don't know is whether those appearing for the prosecution were persuaded to change there story.
BIB that is quite a serious allegation, why do you think that?
BIB that is quite a serious allegation, why do you think that?
I think such things, whilst not necessarily being a probability, are always a possibility. Cover-ups, distortions and persuasion frequently manifest themselves when politicians have been remiss, whatever the party; there are countless examples and if you've read the Mail's revelations about the Cyril Smith case, you should have no doubts about the lengths to which politicians, the police and others will go.
I think such things, whilst not necessarily being a probability, are always a possibility. Cover-ups, distortions and persuasion frequently manifest themselves when politicians have been remiss, whatever the party; there are countless examples and if you've read the Mail's revelations about the Cyril Smith case, you should have no doubts about the lengths to which politicians, the police and others will go.
I think to align Nigel Evans with the Cyril Smith revelations is unfair. Nigel Evans has been on trial and cleared of all charges, Cyril Smith will never be charged now which is unfortunate.
It's also an irrelevance to Evans since he was found not guilty and whenever the offences took place, it surely wouldn't have affected his outcome.
You may well be right about his request for time limit having relevance to Cyril Smith's long period of abusive behaviour and the length of time since he both moved out of the public arena and then died. But Smith is not the only can of worms that remains unopened, there being several others that have had the lid jammed down by the establishment that only need prising open by the allegations now being examined about Smith and they don't all connect solely with this country. The more I think about the Evans' case, the more i think of the question I asked earlier in this thread:
What we don't know is whether those appearing for the prosecution were persuaded to change there story.
Yes. Thank you. That's a very good post. You are right. There is the matter of Elm Guest House and no doubt many others but actually the time limit request has potential implications on court cases concerning sex abuse on adults too. Women, for example, who might need decades before being able emotionally to try to take a rapist to court.
While I accept some of the arguments against the prosecution service including from men who have been wrongly accused - for example I could listen willingly to arguments suggesting there should be anonymity unless and until prosecuted - I do think that statements from some are so clearly all about their own undeniably difficult position that several people might wonder if it is indicative of their character generally. Yes such statements are made in moments of being highly distraught and understandably so. Nevertheless it could be felt that they convey an outlook which is not the most considerate of others' feelings at all times. The other people are "always wrong".
Plus reports of the reactions of such individuals can paint a different picture to the consistently mild personality painted in court. According to the Mail in the latest interview, Evans "lets fly", words are "stabbed not spoken", he thunders", he displays a "burning rage" and finally he has "a menacing calm". In the context, none of that is surprising or necessarily to be condemned and the Mail is, of course, always the Mail. But the words don't suggest a "little wallflower", the phrase used by Evans of an accuser ironically to describe his perceived pretend persona.
This is not to question the verdict or to suggest support for any of his accusers. Currently, their motives are less than clear. At least one was described as very politically ambitious not that it is easy to see how court action would have led directly to professional reward. So on your final point, would it be fair to say that what we also don't know is if the accusers were encouraged to go to court in a way that even Wollaston and Bercow could not have known?
One clearly had a lot of direct access to MPs in Parliament for at least four years and may well have known that an approach to Wollaston of all people would lead to action. His friend who alleged the most serious offence appears to have dismissed his encounter with Evans only to have had his mind changed very suddenly. Why would he come round to believing that all the difficult drama was worth his while if not having been persuaded by someone?
Plus while Evans may have lacked partisan friends - he is neither on the left or the right of the Conservative party - he didn't have any obvious political enemies so, notwithstanding some upset on same sex marriage, vendetta seems unlikely. It could suggest there was another agenda with him being used as the fall guy with ulterior motive.
Yes. Thank you. That's a very good post. You are right. There is the matter of Elm Guest House and no doubt many others but actually the time limit request also has potential implications on court cases concerning abuse to adults too. Women, for example, who might need decades before being able emotionally to try to take a rapist to court.
Many, many others and not only in mainland Britain.
Many would take it to the grave with them, thinking that to reveal it would harm their marriage; men may also feel similarly copmromised.
While I accept some of the arguments against the prosecution service including from men who have been wrongly accused - for example I could listen willingly to arguments suggesting there should be anonymity unless and until prosecuted - I do think that statements from some are so clearly all about their own undeniably difficult position that several people might wonder if it is indicative of their character generally. Yes such statements are made in moments of being highly distraught and understandably so. Nevertheless it could be felt that they convey an outlook which is not the most considerate of others' feelings at all times. The other people are "all wrong".
I could also accept the anonymity aspect though it would often be difficult to maintain secrecy in the case of prominent people and some might even want to be martyrs to a cause.
Plus reports of the reactions of such individuals can paint a different picture to the consistently mild personality painted in court. According to the Mail in the latest interview, Evans "let fly", words were "stabbed not spoken", he thunders", displays a "burning rage" and finally has "a menacing calm". In the context, none of that is surprising or necessarily to be condemned and the Mail is, of course the Mail. But what the words aren't any more "the little wallflower" than the accuser which Evans describes as what the accuser is pretending to be.
This is not to question the verdict or to suggest any support for his accusers. Currently, their motives are less than clear and, of course, at least one was described as very politically ambitious not that it is easy to see how court action would have led directly to professional reward. So on your final point, would it be fair to say that what we also don't know is whether the accusers were encouraged to go to court in a way that even Woolaston and Bercow could not have been aware? One clearly had a lot of direct access to MPs in Parliament for at least four years and may well have known that an approach to Woolaston of all people would lead to action. His friend who alleged the most serious offence appears to have dismissed his encounter with Evans only to have had his mind changed very suddenly in a way to think all the difficult drama worth his while.
I read somewhere that two other guys who made allegations agasinst Evans are very disappointed with the verdict and whilst that may not be an indication of Evans' guilt, it's a worrying aspect of the case. I have doubts about your suggestion of an ulterior motive for making a case against Evans though it's possible they may have been looking for a fight against the establishment or to expose Evans as a serial sex pest, which appears to have been the case. If the latter, they have not only succeeded in that Evans has lost his job but also that climbing back may be extremely difficult; equally, they have released into the public domain, the danger of people in high office thinking they can do what they want and get away with it.
I have some sympathy with the legal authorities in that it's extremely difficult to win a case when a judge dismisses a charge and a prime witness changes their story.
I think to align Nigel Evans with the Cyril Smith revelations is unfair. Nigel Evans has been on trial and cleared of all charges, Cyril Smith will never be charged now which is unfortunate.
The comparison was to try to show that whilst the Evans case may well be squeaky clean, corruption and concealment in such cases is far from a rarity. I doubt your objections would be as strong had Evans been a Labour member or, worse still, the man from UKIP.
Many, many others and not only in mainland Britain.
Many would take it to the grave with them, thinking that to reveal it would harm their marriage; men may also feel similarly copmromised.
Which is very sad and depressing. Some who have been harmed in that way need to have a feeling that a good part of life is on their side. If it isn't to be partners, family and friends and it isn't in the sphere of counselling or religion, then in a vague sort of way it can be a sense of stability and decency in the state. That, I think, is why it is essential that the difficulties aren't replicated in an unjust way in Government and the law. The inner upset can be made far worse by it. But that isn't always fully understood as it should be by those who have positions of responsibility.
[
I could also accept the anonymity aspect though it would often be difficult to maintain secrecy in the case of prominent people and some might even want to be martyrs to a cause.
[
I read somewhere that two other guys who made allegations agasinst Evans are very disappointed with the verdict and whilst that may not be an indication of Evans' guilt, it's a worrying aspect of the case. I have doubts about your suggestion of an ulterior motive for making a case against Evans though it's possible they may have been looking for a fight against the establishment or to expose Evans as a serial sex pest, which appears to have been the case. If the latter, they have not only succeeded in that Evans has lost his job but also that climbing back may be extremely difficult; equally, they have released into the public domain, the danger of people in high office thinking they can do what they want and get away with it.
There might be more from the accusers in the media in time.
I hope you are right about there being no other motive. As I have said before, Theresa May should receive public support if she reports on the post Savile progress in a non-partisan way even if it means past or current politicians were involved. She has the personal capability to do it but will be required to have anything of significance agreed.
I thought Harman was interesting today because she is considered by many of us to have been a problem but at least she condemned the culture in Parliament. She did it in her typical "man issue" way but it needed a comment from her and I believe she is not in favour of time limits so on that we can agree. Tentative credit where it's due!
On evidence, there are some cases in which it isn't sound and a small few might be looking to gain money rather than being truly a victim. That brings the system into disrepute but my feeling is that it needs fine tuning rather than radical reform. Temporary anonymity, ie until any prosecution, for the accused would address concerns about damage to reputation and seems a far better way to go than requiring an extremely high level of likelihood.
[I have some sympathy with the legal authorities in that it's extremely difficult to win a case when a judge dismisses a charge and a prime witness changes their story.
Plus while Evans may have lacked partisan friends - he is neither on the left or the right of the Conservative party - he didn't have any obvious political enemies so, notwithstanding some upset on same sex marriage, vendetta seems unlikely. It could suggest there was another agenda with him being used as the fall guy with ulterior motive.
There's no evidence to suggest any of that whatsoever. However, the aquittals in the Evans, Le Vell and Roach cases perhaps indicates that the Crown Prosecution Service is not giving due weight to the likelihood of a successful prosecution criterion and thus we have had three rather large and spectacular wastes of public money all in row. That aspect needs to be looked at without delay.
As for Evans, his licentious and unsolicited approaches to young male party and parliamentary workers was both ill-advised and unprofessional.
Comments
LOL promoted yourself to moderator now ?
I did not say I did not or would not debate it. I said I did not want to debate it with you for the reasons given in post #199
Thats not my post, it is someone agreeing with my post.
Its not me saying this should have not gone to trial, its what is being reported, that the evidence was flimsy and some witnesses were backing down from what they said.
But never mind this man has lost his career and also a lot of money, why worry.
He was found not guilty of all charges.
I read English quite well.......
Totally surreal. You are now denying that posts of yours that I directly reply to are not yours.
I give up
and..................
No I am not, I take a different view to you and you seem to find that offensive. Why do you think it should be left to a judge to throw a case out, it is the job of the CPS to see if there is enough evidence to prosecute.
Yes you are.
That is not what I said. Under your logic the Judge should not have the power to dismiss charges or cases as the CPS would get their decision right in every instance. Well if that was the case we can dispense with jury trials just ask the CPS as according to you they are always right
No not really but how would a judge know to throw a case out untill he has heard all of the witnessess, the CPS have all the evidence in front of them..The judge in this case did dismiss a couple of charges but I doubt he would have thrown the case completely out until he heard all the evidence. I question whether this should have gone to trial and if the CPS were doing their job properly, you have to admit they have not got a good record on these abuse cases, its only 5% so far, I hope in the long run it does not stop the genuine victims coming forward.
If he was found not guilty of all charges, why would his constituents be worried about his behaviour. Or are you saying that you still believe he's guilty?
You may read English quite well, but it seems you ignore what you read.
A Judge did throw out a case just last week without hearing all the evidence. It was the Deana Uppal libel case .......................
Not according to the Guardian:
"At first, the alleged rape victim told no one what happened........He was not to know that around the same time his friend – the other key complainant – made what he described as an "off-the-cuff remark" to Wollaston about his own encounter with Evans.
.......A month later, in April 2013, the alleged sexual assault victim confided in more detail to Wollaston in a one-on-one meeting, and she decided to set up an urgent meeting with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow. Shortly before the meeting with Bercow, Wollaston's phone rang. It was the alleged rape victim who, for the first time, gave her his account of what happened when he had slept at Evans's cottage.
.............Wollaston, a GP with 20 years' experience including a spell working as a police forensic examiner where she dealt with victims of sexual and domestic violence, told Bercow about both complaints against Evans at a meeting in the Speaker's office, where Bercow's secretary and the alleged sexual assault victim were also present.
KEY PARAGRAPH:
Bercow said it was for the young man to decide whether he should take the matter to police. A meeting with the alleged rape victim was scheduled for the following week but, following legal advice from the Speaker's counsel Michael Carpenter, Bercow's secretary informed Wollaston that the Speaker "cannot handle this".
..........Wollaston, frustrated by the response from Bercow's office, took the matter into her own hands and passed a police telephone number to both men, telling them they had a duty to come forward and ensure Evans was apprehended before any other young men were assaulted."
To those who say the evidence was flimsy, and the CPS was all wrong, my questions are why do you think that one of the men alleged incidents involving Evans four years earlier to Fabricant, McLoughlin, Corby and others in the party and particularly why he then did so entirely out out of the blue to the Wollaston in 2013, an MP who had specialist experience in such areas, immediately followed by a more serious allegation by one of his friends?
So, that is, why specifically the initial contact with MPs, why the delay of four years, why then contact with an MP who was known to have specialist experience in such areas and why the amazing coincidence that the second occurred at the time his friend was alleging something more serious? What was in it for them and from whom?
Contrary to what is suggested in the post by flagpole, I have no more opposition to the Conservative Party than I do to any other party. Before the Maria Miller affair, I slightly preferred them to Lib Dem and Labour. And a particularly good local green Conservative has received my vote on occasions as one of the three votes I have for the Council.
Evans wants a time limit on when allegations of abuse go to court even though the alleged rape was as recent as 30 March 2013 and the other cases were only as old as 2008-9. In his case, therefore, that's an irrelevance.
He clearly has no regard in such a request for longer term sexual abuse victims who are waiting for their cases to be heard. However, it will be music to the ears of an establishment which refused to do anything under the instruction of MI6 about Cyril Smith and other similar MPs. Now that the celebrity cases are coming to an end it is concerned that the investigations will move to politics. Consequently, in the case of those still alive, its clear aim is that nothing will be done to hold them to account, just as in the 1980s. Yes. It could all seem pre-planned.
It's also an irrelevance to Evans since he was found not guilty and whenever the offences took place, it surely wouldn't have affected his outcome.
You may well be right about his request for time limit having relevance to Cyril Smith's long period of abusive behaviour and the length of time since he both moved out of the public arena and then died. But Smith is not the only can of worms that remains unopened, there being several others that have had the lid jammed down by the establishment that only need prising open by the allegations now being examined about Smith and they don't all connect solely with this country. The more I think about the Evans' case, the more i think of the question I asked earlier in this thread:
What we don't know is whether those appearing for the prosecution were persuaded to change there story.
BIB that is quite a serious allegation, why do you think that?
I think such things, whilst not necessarily being a probability, are always a possibility. Cover-ups, distortions and persuasion frequently manifest themselves when politicians have been remiss, whatever the party; there are countless examples and if you've read the Mail's revelations about the Cyril Smith case, you should have no doubts about the lengths to which politicians, the police and others will go.
I think to align Nigel Evans with the Cyril Smith revelations is unfair. Nigel Evans has been on trial and cleared of all charges, Cyril Smith will never be charged now which is unfortunate.
Yes. Thank you. That's a very good post. You are right. There is the matter of Elm Guest House and no doubt many others but actually the time limit request has potential implications on court cases concerning sex abuse on adults too. Women, for example, who might need decades before being able emotionally to try to take a rapist to court.
While I accept some of the arguments against the prosecution service including from men who have been wrongly accused - for example I could listen willingly to arguments suggesting there should be anonymity unless and until prosecuted - I do think that statements from some are so clearly all about their own undeniably difficult position that several people might wonder if it is indicative of their character generally. Yes such statements are made in moments of being highly distraught and understandably so. Nevertheless it could be felt that they convey an outlook which is not the most considerate of others' feelings at all times. The other people are "always wrong".
Plus reports of the reactions of such individuals can paint a different picture to the consistently mild personality painted in court. According to the Mail in the latest interview, Evans "lets fly", words are "stabbed not spoken", he thunders", he displays a "burning rage" and finally he has "a menacing calm". In the context, none of that is surprising or necessarily to be condemned and the Mail is, of course, always the Mail. But the words don't suggest a "little wallflower", the phrase used by Evans of an accuser ironically to describe his perceived pretend persona.
This is not to question the verdict or to suggest support for any of his accusers. Currently, their motives are less than clear. At least one was described as very politically ambitious not that it is easy to see how court action would have led directly to professional reward. So on your final point, would it be fair to say that what we also don't know is if the accusers were encouraged to go to court in a way that even Wollaston and Bercow could not have known?
One clearly had a lot of direct access to MPs in Parliament for at least four years and may well have known that an approach to Wollaston of all people would lead to action. His friend who alleged the most serious offence appears to have dismissed his encounter with Evans only to have had his mind changed very suddenly. Why would he come round to believing that all the difficult drama was worth his while if not having been persuaded by someone?
The comparison was to try to show that whilst the Evans case may well be squeaky clean, corruption and concealment in such cases is far from a rarity. I doubt your objections would be as strong had Evans been a Labour member or, worse still, the man from UKIP.
Which is very sad and depressing. Some who have been harmed in that way need to have a feeling that a good part of life is on their side. If it isn't to be partners, family and friends and it isn't in the sphere of counselling or religion, then in a vague sort of way it can be a sense of stability and decency in the state. That, I think, is why it is essential that the difficulties aren't replicated in an unjust way in Government and the law. The inner upset can be made far worse by it. But that isn't always fully understood as it should be by those who have positions of responsibility.
I agree.
There might be more from the accusers in the media in time.
I hope you are right about there being no other motive. As I have said before, Theresa May should receive public support if she reports on the post Savile progress in a non-partisan way even if it means past or current politicians were involved. She has the personal capability to do it but will be required to have anything of significance agreed.
I thought Harman was interesting today because she is considered by many of us to have been a problem but at least she condemned the culture in Parliament. She did it in her typical "man issue" way but it needed a comment from her and I believe she is not in favour of time limits so on that we can agree. Tentative credit where it's due!
On evidence, there are some cases in which it isn't sound and a small few might be looking to gain money rather than being truly a victim. That brings the system into disrepute but my feeling is that it needs fine tuning rather than radical reform. Temporary anonymity, ie until any prosecution, for the accused would address concerns about damage to reputation and seems a far better way to go than requiring an extremely high level of likelihood.
Yes. Again agree.
There's no evidence to suggest any of that whatsoever. However, the aquittals in the Evans, Le Vell and Roach cases perhaps indicates that the Crown Prosecution Service is not giving due weight to the likelihood of a successful prosecution criterion and thus we have had three rather large and spectacular wastes of public money all in row. That aspect needs to be looked at without delay.
As for Evans, his licentious and unsolicited approaches to young male party and parliamentary workers was both ill-advised and unprofessional.