Hesther Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Didn't the police do that more than a month ago? If they did, it couldn't have got much coverage, unlike the Tom Watson affair, but then, that's not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 If they did, it couldn't have got much coverage, unlike the Tom Watson affair, but then, that's not surprising. Pay more attention in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 If they did, it couldn't have got much coverage, unlike the Tom Watson affair, but then, that's not surprising. It seemed to get pretty wide coverage in the papers and on TV, but it wasn't the police that were hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege or putting names into the public domain that didn't need to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It seemed to get pretty wide coverage in the papers and on TV, but it wasn't the police that were hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege or putting names into the public domain that didn't need to be there. If it wasn't for MPs naming names using Parliamentary privilege (Geoffrey Dickens was the first back in the 1980s) this scandal would never have come to light at all. Tom Watson didn't name anyone who wasn't already under suspicion. Several actors and well known personalities were named in the media before any court case. Why should politicians be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 It seemed to get pretty wide coverage in the papers and on TV, but it wasn't the police that were hiding behind Parliamentary Privilege or putting names into the public domain that didn't need to be there. i believe that the police cant use parliamentary privilege to name "names" but they have other avenues to name "names to the public domain that do need to be there. ask yourself why if the police held this so called evidence that brittain was innocent for over a year before his death that they didn't tell him/his family straight away ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 If it wasn't for MPs naming names using Parliamentary privilege (Geoffrey Dickens was the first back in the 1980s) this scandal would never have come to light at all. Tom Watson didn't name anyone who wasn't already under suspicion. Several actors and well known personalities were named in the media before any court case. Why should politicians be any different? If the media or an individual accuses someone they may be required to justify their claim if they are sued. This helps to prevent unsubstantiated and unfounded claims. When someone hides behind parliamentary privilege there is no such safeguard, and importantly no recourse for the accused to clear their name. As the accuser is not subjected to normal legal scrutiny, then I believe Parliament itself should severely censure those members who misuse their privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 . As the accuser is not subjected to normal legal scrutiny, then I believe Parliament itself should severely censure those members who misuse their privilege. they have they have asked him to write a letter to his widow/family saying sorry there we go job done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 i believe that the police cant use parliamentary privilege to name "names" but they have other avenues to name "names to the public domain that do need to be there. ask yourself why if the police held this so called evidence that brittain was innocent for over a year before his death that they didn't tell him/his family straight away ? I have no idea why the police didn't tell Brittan and his family they were not going to proceed on the rape charge. But he had a range of other charges against him that had not been dismissed and were still being investigated. They will now probably never come to trial as he's no longer with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I have no idea why the police didn't tell Brittan and his family they were not going to proceed on the rape charge. But he had a range of other charges against him that had not been dismissed and were still being investigated. They will now probably never come to trial as he's no longer with us.if that's the case then the police were right not to tell him in the year before his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I have no idea why the police didn't tell Brittan and his family they were not going to proceed on the rape charge. But he had a range of other charges against him that had not been dismissed and were still being investigated. They will now probably never come to trial as he's no longer with us. Because he's dead, you can't be sued for slander either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now