That we’ve actually got to restate this basic piece of law

John Bercow has backed demands for MPs to be told details of offences they are accused of as he claimed they were being treated like terrorists.

Speaking to students at the Mile End Institute in east London, the Commons Speaker said MPs are “entitled” to be told of the allegations.

You need to be told what the charges are, to be able to face the accuser, to be able to mount a defence and all the rest of it. We sorted much of this out in the 13 th and 14 th centuries, didn’t we?

15 thoughts on “That we’ve actually got to restate this basic piece of law”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    I notice he said MPs. He did not say “people”.

    Such Star Chamber procedures are getting more and more common in the UK. More so outside the formal legal system where our Betters congregate. Universities work almost entirely by secret denunciation and being surprised by the charges at the hearing.

  2. Marxian feminism on the job.

    And of course the even worse evil of Marxian subjectivism in action. No more “reasonable man” test as to whether something is an offense. Touching her knee is equivalent to rape if the femmiflake feelz she has been raped. Assuming that you actually ever did put your hand on her knee in the first place.

  3. Seems to be an internal Conservative party decision to suspend him. The police don’t appear to be involved as yet, just more ‘allegations’. P’raps we shouldn’t be indulging in trial by media. Enjoyable as it is to see politicians and Hollywood bigshots being humiliated, nobody has yet been tried and found guilty of anything.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “No more “reasonable man” test as to whether something is an offense.”

    One thing that this kerfluffle has shown is that it ought to be a reasonable man test too. Not a reasonable gentlebeing.

    Yes, whipping your todger out and adding some special spices to the shrubbery ought to be an offense – although Louis C. K. may well have asked first. But Rolf Harris was in prison for f**k all.

    The legal process should not be hijacked by hysterical women of either sex.

  5. To de fair, Tim, this isn’t part of any wider legal process. It’s politicians being unfair to politicians. The tear I’ll be shedding will be undetectable without the aid of an electron microscope.

  6. And in the wider sense, I don’t believe there’s any obligation that accusations are shared with a suspect in the absence of formal charges. That’d rather scupper police investigations, wouldn’t it? Give the suspect chance to tamper with evidence before the police had chance to gather it.

  7. “The legal process should not be hijacked by hysterical women of either sex.2

    Hysterical women are merely the–ahem–tools SMFS. Don’t be deluded by appearances.

    The evil that is Cultural Marxism knows very well what it is about and those actions are measured and deliberate steps towards the evil ends they seek.

  8. Solid Steve 2: Squirrels of The Patriots

    as he claimed they were being treated like terrorists.

    So… police turning a blind eye until too late, sympathetic write-ups in the Guardian, and priority for social housing?

  9. Bis,

    > And in the wider sense, I don’t believe there’s any obligation that accusations are shared with a suspect in the absence of formal charges.

    Normal procedure is:
    1. Report is received
    2. Investigate
    3. Arrest
    4. Charge or drop

    Accusations aren’t shared until step 4; though you’d get a pretty good idea of what the accusation is at step 3. The problem, as Paul Gambaccini found, is that there can be a long gap between arrest and charge, during which your career may be ruined.

    With touching crimes (they’re hardly sexual assault), there’s an extra step between 1 and 2:
    1a. Suspend the suspect from their job pending the outcome of the investigation.

    The solution is not more kangaroo courts.

  10. “And in the wider sense, I don’t believe there’s any obligation that accusations are shared with a suspect in the absence of formal charges. That’d rather scupper police investigations, wouldn’t it? Give the suspect chance to tamper with evidence before the police had chance to gather it.”

    Well precisely. If I go and report that my lawnmower has been stolen and I saw my neighbour taking it and putting it in his shed, are the police supposed to immediately inform him that this allegation has been made, giving him time to get rid of the evidence?

    The problem is that the Tory party have prejudged the issue by both suspending the MP and also publicly stating what they’ve done.

  11. “With touching crimes (they’re hardly sexual assault), there’s an extra step between 1 and 2:
    1a. Suspend the suspect from their job pending the outcome of the investigation.

    The solution is not more kangaroo courts.”

    Not sure about this. There shouldn’t be a compulsion to employ someone, should there? Beyond the legal obligation to pay them under the terms of a contract of employment. “Kangaroo courts” is another way of saying freedom of association.

  12. “Don’t the police have to tell you why they are arresting you”
    Indeed. In general terms they do. Given you are arrested they then have to release you within a short period. Charging, or not, can follow a long time later. The releasing from charge can follow such a long time after the helicopter news coverage or the dismissal from work that everyone forgets about the story and you are forever branded as guilty. Justice cuts both ways but it seems to flow at the whim of state agents now which is very worrying indeed.

    And don’t get me started on the European arrest warrant.

  13. I love it when they get caught up in their mickey mouse laws. Suddenly this isn’t right where it was perfectly OK before. Scumbags.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *