Comment
'ABUSE OF TRUST'
Keeping the MP held for ‘rape’ anonymous is mockery of our Parliamentary process – we deserve to know, says Piers Morgan
I START tonight with the sensational news that a serving Conservative Member of the British Parliament has been arrested under suspicion of rape, sexual assault, indecent assault, abuse of a position of trust and misconduct in public office.
It’s hard to imagine more serious allegations about an elected official - not least because his alleged victim is also a male politician 20 years his junior, who was a teenager when they first met.
3
It’s also overwhelmingly in the public interest that he be identified.
But absurdly, he remains anonymous.
Until 2016, the Speaker of the House of Commons was obliged to tell Parliament if an MP was arrested.
But the rules changed because it was decided that previous arrangements were incompatible with a person’s right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
So although his name’s been plastered all over the internet, all I am legally allowed to tell you is that he’s a man in his fifties.
Such is the feeding frenzy about who it is, some MPs have even made shameful jokes about showing up in Parliament just to prove it’s not them.
You think this is funny, Mr Fabricant?
Most read in News TV
I doubt the British people share your amusement, especially as this arrest follows a series of other shocking recent sex scandals inside the Palace of Westminster.
Incredibly the arrested MP is still able to go to Parliament if he wants to, and attend his constituency office.
I believe in due process, and innocent until proof of guilt.
But I also strongly believe people who voted for this man deserve to know what’s happened.
Naming him could also encourage other possible witnesses or victims to come forward which has happened in many previous similar cases.
Boris Johnson says he was ‘shocked to learn of these allegations.’
We all are, Prime Minister.
It makes a mockery of our Parliamentary process that he remains anonymous.
The Police and the Conservative Party should name him without further delay.
LIBERAL BLINKERS
Being a liberal used to mean believing in free speech, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions.
But today’s woke version of liberals seem hellbent on behaving like the fascists they profess to hate.
Don’t take my word for it. The world’s richest man Elon Musk, one of the most famous free speech advocates in the world right now, says he can no longer vote for the Democrats.
Musk later took to Twitter, the platform he’s trying to buy to help restore free speech, to say the Democrats have become “the party of division and hate” and that he now expects “political attacks on him to escalate.”
He was right, and tweeted again today: ‘judging by the relentless hatestream from the far left, this tweet was spot on..’
Musk is spot on.
The very people who claim to be the good guys - often with ironic “BeKind” hashtags on their profiles - are the same people leading the vicious opinion purge.
They just don’t accept that people with different views have any right to say them.
They use abuse, mob rule and bullying to silence and shame their opponents, or hound them out of their jobs.
That’s not liberalism - it’s authoritarianism.
Defending free speech has been sacrificed at the woke altar of defending an increasingly ridiculous and often imaginary group of gender minorities and other people who look and sound like THEM.
Ask a regular voter on the doorstep what his pronouns are - he’ll ask you if you’re feeling alright. Mine are me, myself and I, by the way.
Sadly, liberals have shifted their focus from factories to faculties. Issues-based is now plant-based. Partisan is artisan.
The Democratic Party should be the natural home of a genius innovator who believes passionately in ideas and in free speech. The fact it’s not is another symptom of what Musk rightly calls the woke virus.
COP OUT
So, how do you solve a problem like a soaring cost of living crisis that has millions of people struggling to feed their families and pay their bills?
There’s proper sound management of the economy, for starters, increased financial assistance for the neediest, even food banks for the most desperate people.
Or, apparently, urging them to play SuperMarket Sweep.
In a stunning interview, the new British police Watchdog Andy Cooke seems to be suggesting exactly that.
He told The Guardian, of course, that a spike in crime is inevitable as the cost of living surges, adding:
“I certainly fully support police officers using their discretion…And the shoplifting one’s a good example, isn’t it?”
No, it isn’t.
3
3
An economic crisis doesn’t mean we should start means-testing crime.
It doesn’t take a detective to work out what’s going to happen next.
Kit Malthouse, the policing minister, hastily took to the airwaves to contradict him.
“The broad rule is that justice should be blind and I hope and believe that is the principle that sits behind not just the police but the operation of the courts as well. I have to challenge this connection between poverty and crime.”
So let me get this straight. We have one of the most senior cops in the country saying poverty leads to crime and therefore police should go soft on shoplifters nicking food.
And then we have the government minister responsible for policing, denying that poverty leads to crime and instructing police officers to enforce the law even on the starving.
Well guess what? They’re both wrong.
If you want to know what happens when you go soft on shoplifting, take a look at California, where state law holds that shoplifting below $950 is now de facto legal.
It inevitably led to a spike in thefts, smash and grabs, organised looting, and even the sight of robbers bringing calculators in stores to make sure they stay under the limit.
And let’s remember: many retailers are small businesses, also struggling survive. Why on earth are the police suggesting they should pick up the bill for hungry families?
The cost of living crisis is a serious issue raising serious questions of our leaders.
A free-for-all amnesty on shoplifting and descent into lawlessness is clearly not the answer.
A BLAND GESTURE
Now, quiz round. See if you can guess what all of these things have in common.
You got it. They’re all public gestures made in support of causes.
And yes, they’re all causes you’ll be vilified for not publicly supporting.
Whether it’s sports stars kneeling to protest racism, clapping to support health workers or putting the Ukrainian flag in your profile, they should all be all a matter of choice.
And just because you don’t do the gesture, it doesn’t mean you’re a hateful uncaring bigot.
Footballer Idrissa Gueye refused to play for his French club PSG last weekend because he didn’t want to wear a rainbow-flecked shirt in support of LGBT rights.
Two Senegalese players in the English Premier League have since publicly supported him - to a barrage of criticism online.
But footballers shouldn’t be compelled to wear symbols about any political or social issues if they don’t want to.
Nobody should.
I was abused for not posting a black square on Instagram during the blackout for Black Lives Matter day.
It’s not that I didn’t support the cause, it’s that I didn’t think would make one iota of a difference and had no desire to signal my virtue before going back to posing photos of myself on the beach.
READ MORE SUN STORIES
Read More on The Sun
If you did, good for you.
But you can’t force me to do things like that, and we shouldn’t be forcing footballers to either.
Topics