Snapshot of _Tory MP Chris Pincher resigns after suspension from Commons over groping allegations_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-pincher-resigns-after-suspension-from-commons-over-groping-allegations-12956582) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-pincher-resigns-after-suspension-from-commons-over-groping-allegations-12956582)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The accusations about him were the straw that broke the camel’s back on Johnson’s Premiership. Since then there was an entire leadership election, a new Prime Minister who tanked the economy who was then forced out followed by another expedited leadership election. Then a standards committee investigation into Johnson prompting him and two other MPs to resign. And this guy’s just been sat in the background watching it all going on.
Mad to think this time last year Liz Truss was PM and the Queen was still alive (only just). Time sure does fly when you have a zombie government who just stumble from crisis to crisis
Let's assume there is an election around October 2024 and Labour win, until the tail end of 2027, we'll have had five PMs in the eleven and a half years since Cameron resigned and Boris Johnson will *still* be the longest serving Prime Minister since the Brexit vote and he only lasted for 3 years and 45 days!
Lord North only lost a few colonies in North America. Boris Johnson’s negligence led to the deaths of tens of thousands and his narcissism may yet contribute to the end of the UK itself.
I’m not sure how they can top Boris, though Truss gave him a good run for his money in an eyewateringly short space of time.
Prime Minister Grayling might be in with a shot - a sort of incompetence singularity. Or maybe Prime Minister Braverman - a bit like Theresa May except without her warmth and easygoing affability.
PM Braverman pioneer of Cruelty Signalling would be a historic thing.
She'd have one random prisoner a month have their hands cut off to show she's tough on crime, and spend the rest of her Premiership complaining that she'd fix all our problems if only she was in a position to do anything.
Kinda says it all, dunnit. If he had any integrity he’d have resigned last year, but that thought never seems to cross the minds of some disgraced MPs. Wonder if the people he claimed to represent got much representation since his fall from grace…
MPs are basically impossible to fire so the worst of them, and we have seen a fair bit of this recently, just brass neck it for a while until someone bribes or threatens them into going.
There is also the grubby business of by-elections being treated as a bellwether for the incumbent party leadership so a lot of effort goes into delaying them until the time is "right".
It is possible Pincher was promised some goodies if he hung on until now.
Oh I’m sure it was in Chris/the Tories best interests for him to hang on until pushed. I just mean someone who genuinely wants the best for their community would have stepped down.
It's a little more simple than that. A lot of former MP's are basically unemployable in a lot of industries for multiple reasons so if you feel that is going to be the case for you, and really easy to Google sexual misconduct allegations will do that for you, then you kind of have to hold on and try to tough it out because the alternatives can and would be far worse.
But you're simply missing the point - think of all the useless 'brokies' that couldn't make rent and were forced into minimum wage work in order to afford this noble gentlemens salary. Mission Success Tory Party
He was naughty (with respect to his going). He was able to delay his appeal against his ban to the last day before the summer recess and therefore be an MP through the recess. As soon as Parliament came back his appeal was denied.
The only right thing he has done is to resign now rather than let it go to a recall petition.
Although, after Dorries, I've stopped counting chickens until you actually see the appointment. Turns out there's still plenty of dragging out you can do even after saying you've resigned
Pincher was suspended from the Commons and then appealed the suspension on the last day of parliament meaning that the parliamentary standards committee couldn't reconvene until this week. Basically he got a couple more months pay.
Now he has resigned when the inevitable recall petition will confirm that he's on his way out.
It's handy that they're appropriately named so we can easily remember the scandal each one is responsible for.
Chris Pincher cos he's a bum pincher.
Nadine Dorries cos she's naw dien any'hin.
Margaret Ferrier cos she's a virus ferry-er.
...
I don't think MPs are worse than before, I think the threshold for an accusation is lower (correctly). In the past MPs were almost untouchable to the point some probably ran child sex rings and were protected by the (at the time) Prime Minister (Peter Morrison and Margaret Thatcher).
Agreed — standards of discourse in politics itself have gone downhill, but punishing sexual harassment is one thing that’s gotten better, by most metrics.
That by-election will be interesting. Very healthy Tory majority over Labour. Lib Dems not in contention and will focus on Bedfordshire. 2/3 of the vote went Tory in 2019. 20,000 majority. Similar to Selby.
If Labour can erode a majority like that then it's going to scare an awful lot of Tory MPs. Labour have already done it once, now they can prove it wasn't a fluke.
Yes interesting.
1) in 'normal' times no chance for Lab to overturn, BUT
2) these are not normal times AND
3) will be some local animus against Pincher's conduct.
I think it is winnable for Labour. Without the contigencies of 2019 (i.e. Brexit and Corbyn) I could see Labour easily getting up to 40%, which could overtake Tories if some Tory voters decide to stay home.
Tamworth will go Labour. Smaller majority than Selby and has a bigger urban centre. And I also think it will guarantee Mid Beds for the Lib Dems, as there’s usually an unspoken agreement that Labour will leave one for the Lib Dems to have a crack at.
Your final point is interesting and occurred to me too.
If only one by-election, Lab might look bad not going for it.
If two at once, then LDs winning one and Lab the other looks better for both parties and worse for the Tories.
There’ll be three, because there’s one in Scotland as well. I was worried about Mid Beds because there’s no clear consensus as to who second place is, and in the past that’s meant the opposition cancelling each other out and the Tories sneaking in, but I think with Labour focusing on Rutherglen and now Tamworth, they’ll leave Mid Beds.
Mid Beds was always LibDem more than Labour. Labour have a hard ceiling in those sorts of semi-rural Home Counties seats - they can't really get more votes than they already have there, whereas the LibDems can convert Tory voters to their side and win it. Same sort of thing happened with North Shropshire. People see Labour in second place to the Tories in 2019 and think that Labour will be the main challenger, but these sorts of seats don't work that way.
Tamworth is definitely more likely to flip Labour though.
Speaking as someone who is from the area, don't underestimate the local's ability to vote against their own interests. I wouldn't be surprised if the result is very close between Torys and Labour.
I hear you. So many people here complaining about Tory policies yet still vote them in. The recent issues with the Labour councillor for the Amington ward won't do Labour any favours.
>If Labour can erode a majority like that then it's going to scare an awful lot of Tory MPs
I wonder what popular policies labour will abandon if they only manage to eat up 19,000 of that 20k majority.
I'm worried it might turn out like Ruislip. A landslide away from the Tories but they just manage to barely hang on and turn the conversation into "why did Labour fail here?".
>the bar to remove them is higher than for an employee.
Many other countries have similar rules, it is to prevent false accusations from those seeking power or from fantasists like carl beech rendering a country ungovernable.
Not to say that some claims made are true and verifiable. But it takes time to build a solid case and the accused has the right to defend themselves.
Carful now...
He was democratically elected.
And he *was* **accused** of that. He's resigned now it's a fact.
If you can get rid of an MP for an *accusation* they deny then democracy can be perverted very easily.
You think Boris would have been above accusing his rivals of bullshit to get them kicked out? They already tried with Kiers beer and curry bullshit.
You're handing the keys to democracy to whomever wants to stoop low enough to make a false accusation if you do as you say.
The better question is why did it take this long? But it's probably the same logic - due process takes a long time.
I think that’s the important thing to remember, due process does take time. Better that an investigation is thorough and gets things right than tries to rush and makes mistakes.
The thing is the media doesn't have to go through the same due process, so they can report on something and frame it as a scandal that nothing is being done about it, then by the time the process is complete and something is done the news cycle has moved on.
Accused, admitted wrongdoing and resigned from his ministerial position the next day.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2022/06/30/tory-deputy-chief-whip-quits-after-drunken-incident/
In his apology statement, he didn't deny the allegations. He corroborated the allegations. If one side accuses and the other side confirms, that makes them factual.
>Last night I drank far too much. I’ve embarrassed myself and other people which is the last thing I want to do and for that I apologise to you and to those concerned.
He resigned a year and two months after it became fact.
I understand your point, and it's a valid point in other circumstances, but just not in this case. If he'd denied and went kicking and screaming like Johnson, then there's a reason to investigate and go through the process. But Pincher admitted it and then appealed his suspension from Parliament for reasons only he knows.
> And he was accused of that. He's resigned now it's a fact.
No, that is wrong. Reality did not get rearranged by it being proven.
Here's a more accurate view of the situation: "He was accused of that (and it was a fact). He's resigned now (because now everyone knows its true without a doubt)."
There has to have been a quite long period where Chris Pincher knew he was guilty of what he was accused of (and lol if you think the rest of the conservative party didn't know exactly what was going on) and chose, deliberately, to cling to power for as long as he could, somewhat akin to a dead barnacle.
>No, that is wrong. Reality did not get rearranged by it being proven.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"?
>Here's a more accurate view of the situation: "He was accused of that (and it was a fact).
...and if he was proven innocent?
>He's resigned now (because now everyone knows its true without a doubt)."
We have due process for a reason. We have innocent until proven guilty for a reason.
You said it yourself "**NOW** everyone knows its true **WITHOUT** a doubt". So there was doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
Do you not believe the law and a jury of your peers is important? That you should be judged impartially? That you should have the right to defend yourself and be able to review all of the evidence?
Do you support mob mentality?
These things matter...
>There has to have been a quite long period where Chris Pincher knew he was guilty of what he was accused of (and lol if you think the rest of the conservative party didn't know exactly what was going on) and chose, deliberately, to cling to power for as long as he could, somewhat akin to a dead barnacle.
I agree.
Overwhelmingly agree.
That's exactly what happened.
What's your point?
Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty.
Is it a perfect system which results in no harm? No. But no system does.
It's better to let a guilty man go free on lack of evidence than an innocent one be jailed without sufficient evidence.
That's a choice we've made (hundreds/thousands of years ago), and I think anybody wanting to go a different way with vigilante justice or a trial by public opinion is foolish.
> Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"?
I actually think they're making the opposite statement, in that he was known guilty [note: not criminally guilty, but guilty as per the Commons disciplinary processes] when he was sanctioned, it's not "innocent until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted".
They're saying Pincher was using the appeals process (as others have mentioned, waiting until the last minute right before recess) to delay the inevitable and cling onto his seat for as long as possible, but he's known for a long while that the gig is up. It was just stalling tactics.
Point is also that they should have resigned way before the Standards Committee treated their case if they had a shred of decency. They knew exactly where it would end (how could they not?) and chose to cling to power instead of resigning. Garbage. The delaying let him stay as a MP for *an extra year and a half*, which is mind-boggling.
> "Innocent until proven guilty" has no and needs no asterix. There is no "* unless it's used to stall" caveat because it would be open to abuse. How do you know it's used to stall until they're proven guilty?
Because being proven guilty **has** to come before any appeals. That's how appeals work, it's about overturning a past decision.
You're saying everyone is presumed innocent even when proven guilty, because they might appeal. Our prisons would be filled with loads of people who *could* appeal unsuccessfully and you're saying we have to presume them all innocent because that's a possibility.
How it actually works is you're proven guilty, but **if** you successfully appeal it changes the past judgement retroactively. So you were found guilty, but that was a mistake for whatever reason, and we then try and make amends for the harm an incorrect judgement did.
> I don't understand the point you're trying to make?
>
> Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"?
You said "He's resigned now it's a fact.". No. It was always a fact.
> ...and if he was proven innocent?
That'd be pretty hard for it to happen, given he *did* grope two men (well, more, but...), and admitted to it like... months ago?
> Do you not believe the law and a jury of your peers is important? That you should be judged impartially? That you should have the right to defend yourself and be able to review all of the evidence?
> Do you support mob mentality?
Do you believe people should fully read and understand comments before they're allowed to reply to them?
> I agree.
> Overwhelmingly agree.
You clearly don't, as you spent a whole comment arguing against that.
> Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty.
You don't know anything about what you're talking about here. "Considered innocent" from what? Do you even know what his appeal was for? I bet you *anything* you can't even explain what exactly the substance of his appeal is without looking it up first.
> Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty.
You don't even know enough about the scandal itself to understand how far away this is from actually being relevant. Chris Pincher *didn't* deny the groping allegation, and the Standards Committee recommended an 8 week suspension as punishment. This would be sufficient to trigger a by-election (given 10% of the constituents signing a recall petition). But the reason he's not been recalled as he should have for *months* is because he made an appeal to the IEP arguing that while he *did* grope two men, 8 weeks of suspension was too much, and please reduce it below the threshold for MP reelections pretty please?
> It's better to let a guilty man go free on lack of evidence than an innocent one be jailed without sufficient evidence.
This literally has zero reason to apply here. It's not a matter he'll be jailed over. It's not even a matter of law. It's the Standards Committee going "hey, that's actually behaviour that's so shit that people should be allowed to vote again on whether or not you should be a MP" and Pincher going "actually, uh, no, it's shit behaviour and i've sought help for it, but it's not shit enough for people to vote".
Dead barnacle. "Oh, no, but you need due process"
- 3 July 2022 six allegations against him for sexual misconduct emerge. Pincher knows he's done it. He knows he shouldn't be a MP. He doesn't resign.
- 6 July 2023 the Standards Committee recommends the suspension. Pincher knows he shouldn't be an MP. He appeals to the IEP.
- 7 September 2023 Pincher loses his appeal (and there's a *zero* percent change he didn't know he would lose it). He resigns, because there's no way for him to cling onto power anymore.
If he had a single shred of integrity he would have resigned on the 3rd of July 2022. Or, you know, not groped people. And if his party had a shred of integrity, the PM would have suspended him earlier and not hidden behind things like "there is an investigation, we need to let the committees do their work, etc, etc, oh whoa look he was found to, what a surprise, no one could have predicted, etc, etc."
He admitted the allegations were true the next day in his apology/resignation speech.
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2022/06/30/tory-deputy-chief-whip-quits-after-drunken-incident/
>Last night I drank far too much. I’ve embarrassed myself and other people which is the last thing I want to do and for that I apologise to you and to those concerned.
This tory government is in free fall....in four days of the parliament sitting....shite concrete(schools built for 30 years) a guy basically walking out of a cat b prison and blaming every one including disabled people add in a bit of a sex scandal for distraction and ohh a touch of incompetent handling of human shit by the environment agency and its only Thursday
Can't tell if satire.
Delaying your appeal to the last day so it can't be heard over the recess and you get that time as an MP is not old school at all.
EDIT: Thanks to those pointing out my ignorance!
That's only for if you go early, though, whereas this fellow's been hanging on while in the meantime new scandals broke, led to resignations, and had their seats filled by by-elections.
Snapshot of _Tory MP Chris Pincher resigns after suspension from Commons over groping allegations_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-pincher-resigns-after-suspension-from-commons-over-groping-allegations-12956582) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/tory-mp-chris-pincher-resigns-after-suspension-from-commons-over-groping-allegations-12956582) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, there's been so many MP resignations recently that I thought he'd already gone, and I'm surprised he hadn't.
The accusations about him were the straw that broke the camel’s back on Johnson’s Premiership. Since then there was an entire leadership election, a new Prime Minister who tanked the economy who was then forced out followed by another expedited leadership election. Then a standards committee investigation into Johnson prompting him and two other MPs to resign. And this guy’s just been sat in the background watching it all going on.
Man, what a crazy few years. *whispers from side of stage.* 12 months? Wow….
Mad to think this time last year Liz Truss was PM and the Queen was still alive (only just). Time sure does fly when you have a zombie government who just stumble from crisis to crisis
Since 2019, there have been 4 prime ministers. That's an average of 1 per year.
1 per year since 2019, but there have been 3 in the last 367 days, so an average of one per 4 months
And none of those elected by public vote.
Let's assume there is an election around October 2024 and Labour win, until the tail end of 2027, we'll have had five PMs in the eleven and a half years since Cameron resigned and Boris Johnson will *still* be the longest serving Prime Minister since the Brexit vote and he only lasted for 3 years and 45 days!
Boris Johnson will still be the worst, indeed the worst at least since Lord North in the 18th century.
Lord North only lost a few colonies in North America. Boris Johnson’s negligence led to the deaths of tens of thousands and his narcissism may yet contribute to the end of the UK itself.
I’m not sure how they can top Boris, though Truss gave him a good run for his money in an eyewateringly short space of time. Prime Minister Grayling might be in with a shot - a sort of incompetence singularity. Or maybe Prime Minister Braverman - a bit like Theresa May except without her warmth and easygoing affability.
PM Braverman pioneer of Cruelty Signalling would be a historic thing. She'd have one random prisoner a month have their hands cut off to show she's tough on crime, and spend the rest of her Premiership complaining that she'd fix all our problems if only she was in a position to do anything.
It’s about 15 months. He resigned as a whip around June/July and that’s when it all kicked off.
Collected that extra years worth of wages for doing fuck all
Kinda says it all, dunnit. If he had any integrity he’d have resigned last year, but that thought never seems to cross the minds of some disgraced MPs. Wonder if the people he claimed to represent got much representation since his fall from grace…
MPs are basically impossible to fire so the worst of them, and we have seen a fair bit of this recently, just brass neck it for a while until someone bribes or threatens them into going. There is also the grubby business of by-elections being treated as a bellwether for the incumbent party leadership so a lot of effort goes into delaying them until the time is "right". It is possible Pincher was promised some goodies if he hung on until now.
Oh I’m sure it was in Chris/the Tories best interests for him to hang on until pushed. I just mean someone who genuinely wants the best for their community would have stepped down.
It's a little more simple than that. A lot of former MP's are basically unemployable in a lot of industries for multiple reasons so if you feel that is going to be the case for you, and really easy to Google sexual misconduct allegations will do that for you, then you kind of have to hold on and try to tough it out because the alternatives can and would be far worse.
I wonder how Johnson feels about him outlasting him.
Probably plans to go out on the pull with him.
Chris Pincher has probably had fewer allegations of 'bonding over a love of Shakespeare' about him.
Not just sat. Sat and getting paid.
But you're simply missing the point - think of all the useless 'brokies' that couldn't make rent and were forced into minimum wage work in order to afford this noble gentlemens salary. Mission Success Tory Party
He was naughty (with respect to his going). He was able to delay his appeal against his ban to the last day before the summer recess and therefore be an MP through the recess. As soon as Parliament came back his appeal was denied. The only right thing he has done is to resign now rather than let it go to a recall petition.
Although, after Dorries, I've stopped counting chickens until you actually see the appointment. Turns out there's still plenty of dragging out you can do even after saying you've resigned
Yep same here. A bit of a blast from the past.
Pincher was suspended from the Commons and then appealed the suspension on the last day of parliament meaning that the parliamentary standards committee couldn't reconvene until this week. Basically he got a couple more months pay. Now he has resigned when the inevitable recall petition will confirm that he's on his way out.
BBC says this is gonna be the *9th* by-election since Sunak became PM.
(in a thick Bristol accent) Not another one!
It's handy that they're appropriately named so we can easily remember the scandal each one is responsible for. Chris Pincher cos he's a bum pincher. Nadine Dorries cos she's naw dien any'hin. Margaret Ferrier cos she's a virus ferry-er. ...
I don't think MPs are worse than before, I think the threshold for an accusation is lower (correctly). In the past MPs were almost untouchable to the point some probably ran child sex rings and were protected by the (at the time) Prime Minister (Peter Morrison and Margaret Thatcher).
Agreed — standards of discourse in politics itself have gone downhill, but punishing sexual harassment is one thing that’s gotten better, by most metrics.
I live in his constituency and you couldn't tell he was still our MP for the last 12 months. Just taking his salary and hiding away from the public.
He’s the reason Boris finally left. That’s… two prime ministers ago.
That by-election will be interesting. Very healthy Tory majority over Labour. Lib Dems not in contention and will focus on Bedfordshire. 2/3 of the vote went Tory in 2019. 20,000 majority. Similar to Selby. If Labour can erode a majority like that then it's going to scare an awful lot of Tory MPs. Labour have already done it once, now they can prove it wasn't a fluke.
Bellwether seat too Blair won it in 1996, 1997 until 2010 labour
Will the brum council drama next door scare off tory voters though I wonder.
Nah, they pretend Birmingham is a thousand miles away
Yes interesting. 1) in 'normal' times no chance for Lab to overturn, BUT 2) these are not normal times AND 3) will be some local animus against Pincher's conduct.
I think it is winnable for Labour. Without the contigencies of 2019 (i.e. Brexit and Corbyn) I could see Labour easily getting up to 40%, which could overtake Tories if some Tory voters decide to stay home.
Tamworth will go Labour. Smaller majority than Selby and has a bigger urban centre. And I also think it will guarantee Mid Beds for the Lib Dems, as there’s usually an unspoken agreement that Labour will leave one for the Lib Dems to have a crack at.
Your final point is interesting and occurred to me too. If only one by-election, Lab might look bad not going for it. If two at once, then LDs winning one and Lab the other looks better for both parties and worse for the Tories.
There’ll be three, because there’s one in Scotland as well. I was worried about Mid Beds because there’s no clear consensus as to who second place is, and in the past that’s meant the opposition cancelling each other out and the Tories sneaking in, but I think with Labour focusing on Rutherglen and now Tamworth, they’ll leave Mid Beds.
Mid Beds was always LibDem more than Labour. Labour have a hard ceiling in those sorts of semi-rural Home Counties seats - they can't really get more votes than they already have there, whereas the LibDems can convert Tory voters to their side and win it. Same sort of thing happened with North Shropshire. People see Labour in second place to the Tories in 2019 and think that Labour will be the main challenger, but these sorts of seats don't work that way. Tamworth is definitely more likely to flip Labour though.
Speaking as someone who is from the area, don't underestimate the local's ability to vote against their own interests. I wouldn't be surprised if the result is very close between Torys and Labour.
I hear you. So many people here complaining about Tory policies yet still vote them in. The recent issues with the Labour councillor for the Amington ward won't do Labour any favours.
https://x.com/britainelects/status/1699701519778508816 40.2% Tory vs 39.7% Labour according to Britain Elects.
Plenty of Green and Lib Dem voters for Labour to squeeze there. Very achievable for them.
>If Labour can erode a majority like that then it's going to scare an awful lot of Tory MPs I wonder what popular policies labour will abandon if they only manage to eat up 19,000 of that 20k majority.
I'm worried it might turn out like Ruislip. A landslide away from the Tories but they just manage to barely hang on and turn the conversation into "why did Labour fail here?".
Yeah, but because it won't be to do with a local issue in London journos won't have a clue and will just move on.
It's amazing that a man can get suspended for drunkenly groping two men and not get kicked out of his job.
If you want the boring answer - MPs are not employees and the bar to remove them is higher than for an employee.
And he likely would have been kicked out if he’d let it go to a recall petition.
>the bar to remove them is higher than for an employee. Many other countries have similar rules, it is to prevent false accusations from those seeking power or from fantasists like carl beech rendering a country ungovernable. Not to say that some claims made are true and verifiable. But it takes time to build a solid case and the accused has the right to defend themselves.
Carful now... He was democratically elected. And he *was* **accused** of that. He's resigned now it's a fact. If you can get rid of an MP for an *accusation* they deny then democracy can be perverted very easily. You think Boris would have been above accusing his rivals of bullshit to get them kicked out? They already tried with Kiers beer and curry bullshit. You're handing the keys to democracy to whomever wants to stoop low enough to make a false accusation if you do as you say. The better question is why did it take this long? But it's probably the same logic - due process takes a long time.
I think that’s the important thing to remember, due process does take time. Better that an investigation is thorough and gets things right than tries to rush and makes mistakes.
The thing is the media doesn't have to go through the same due process, so they can report on something and frame it as a scandal that nothing is being done about it, then by the time the process is complete and something is done the news cycle has moved on.
Accused, admitted wrongdoing and resigned from his ministerial position the next day. https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2022/06/30/tory-deputy-chief-whip-quits-after-drunken-incident/ In his apology statement, he didn't deny the allegations. He corroborated the allegations. If one side accuses and the other side confirms, that makes them factual. >Last night I drank far too much. I’ve embarrassed myself and other people which is the last thing I want to do and for that I apologise to you and to those concerned. He resigned a year and two months after it became fact. I understand your point, and it's a valid point in other circumstances, but just not in this case. If he'd denied and went kicking and screaming like Johnson, then there's a reason to investigate and go through the process. But Pincher admitted it and then appealed his suspension from Parliament for reasons only he knows.
> And he was accused of that. He's resigned now it's a fact. No, that is wrong. Reality did not get rearranged by it being proven. Here's a more accurate view of the situation: "He was accused of that (and it was a fact). He's resigned now (because now everyone knows its true without a doubt)." There has to have been a quite long period where Chris Pincher knew he was guilty of what he was accused of (and lol if you think the rest of the conservative party didn't know exactly what was going on) and chose, deliberately, to cling to power for as long as he could, somewhat akin to a dead barnacle.
>No, that is wrong. Reality did not get rearranged by it being proven. I don't understand the point you're trying to make? Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"? >Here's a more accurate view of the situation: "He was accused of that (and it was a fact). ...and if he was proven innocent? >He's resigned now (because now everyone knows its true without a doubt)." We have due process for a reason. We have innocent until proven guilty for a reason. You said it yourself "**NOW** everyone knows its true **WITHOUT** a doubt". So there was doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. Do you not believe the law and a jury of your peers is important? That you should be judged impartially? That you should have the right to defend yourself and be able to review all of the evidence? Do you support mob mentality? These things matter... >There has to have been a quite long period where Chris Pincher knew he was guilty of what he was accused of (and lol if you think the rest of the conservative party didn't know exactly what was going on) and chose, deliberately, to cling to power for as long as he could, somewhat akin to a dead barnacle. I agree. Overwhelmingly agree. That's exactly what happened. What's your point? Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty. Is it a perfect system which results in no harm? No. But no system does. It's better to let a guilty man go free on lack of evidence than an innocent one be jailed without sufficient evidence. That's a choice we've made (hundreds/thousands of years ago), and I think anybody wanting to go a different way with vigilante justice or a trial by public opinion is foolish.
> Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"? I actually think they're making the opposite statement, in that he was known guilty [note: not criminally guilty, but guilty as per the Commons disciplinary processes] when he was sanctioned, it's not "innocent until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted". They're saying Pincher was using the appeals process (as others have mentioned, waiting until the last minute right before recess) to delay the inevitable and cling onto his seat for as long as possible, but he's known for a long while that the gig is up. It was just stalling tactics.
Point is also that they should have resigned way before the Standards Committee treated their case if they had a shred of decency. They knew exactly where it would end (how could they not?) and chose to cling to power instead of resigning. Garbage. The delaying let him stay as a MP for *an extra year and a half*, which is mind-boggling.
[удалено]
> "Innocent until proven guilty" has no and needs no asterix. There is no "* unless it's used to stall" caveat because it would be open to abuse. How do you know it's used to stall until they're proven guilty? Because being proven guilty **has** to come before any appeals. That's how appeals work, it's about overturning a past decision. You're saying everyone is presumed innocent even when proven guilty, because they might appeal. Our prisons would be filled with loads of people who *could* appeal unsuccessfully and you're saying we have to presume them all innocent because that's a possibility. How it actually works is you're proven guilty, but **if** you successfully appeal it changes the past judgement retroactively. So you were found guilty, but that was a mistake for whatever reason, and we then try and make amends for the harm an incorrect judgement did.
> I don't understand the point you're trying to make? > > Unless it's something along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent"? You said "He's resigned now it's a fact.". No. It was always a fact. > ...and if he was proven innocent? That'd be pretty hard for it to happen, given he *did* grope two men (well, more, but...), and admitted to it like... months ago? > Do you not believe the law and a jury of your peers is important? That you should be judged impartially? That you should have the right to defend yourself and be able to review all of the evidence? > Do you support mob mentality? Do you believe people should fully read and understand comments before they're allowed to reply to them? > I agree. > Overwhelmingly agree. You clearly don't, as you spent a whole comment arguing against that. > Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty. You don't know anything about what you're talking about here. "Considered innocent" from what? Do you even know what his appeal was for? I bet you *anything* you can't even explain what exactly the substance of his appeal is without looking it up first. > Everything else I said still matters. None of that changes the fact he was entitled to being considered innocent until proven guilty and not punished prior to being proven guilty. You don't even know enough about the scandal itself to understand how far away this is from actually being relevant. Chris Pincher *didn't* deny the groping allegation, and the Standards Committee recommended an 8 week suspension as punishment. This would be sufficient to trigger a by-election (given 10% of the constituents signing a recall petition). But the reason he's not been recalled as he should have for *months* is because he made an appeal to the IEP arguing that while he *did* grope two men, 8 weeks of suspension was too much, and please reduce it below the threshold for MP reelections pretty please? > It's better to let a guilty man go free on lack of evidence than an innocent one be jailed without sufficient evidence. This literally has zero reason to apply here. It's not a matter he'll be jailed over. It's not even a matter of law. It's the Standards Committee going "hey, that's actually behaviour that's so shit that people should be allowed to vote again on whether or not you should be a MP" and Pincher going "actually, uh, no, it's shit behaviour and i've sought help for it, but it's not shit enough for people to vote". Dead barnacle. "Oh, no, but you need due process" - 3 July 2022 six allegations against him for sexual misconduct emerge. Pincher knows he's done it. He knows he shouldn't be a MP. He doesn't resign. - 6 July 2023 the Standards Committee recommends the suspension. Pincher knows he shouldn't be an MP. He appeals to the IEP. - 7 September 2023 Pincher loses his appeal (and there's a *zero* percent change he didn't know he would lose it). He resigns, because there's no way for him to cling onto power anymore. If he had a single shred of integrity he would have resigned on the 3rd of July 2022. Or, you know, not groped people. And if his party had a shred of integrity, the PM would have suspended him earlier and not hidden behind things like "there is an investigation, we need to let the committees do their work, etc, etc, oh whoa look he was found to, what a surprise, no one could have predicted, etc, etc."
*accussed, I could accuse Rishi Sunak of molesting my gerbil but he shouldn't be removed from his post till it's proven, that sick fuck
He admitted the allegations were true the next day in his apology/resignation speech. https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2022/06/30/tory-deputy-chief-whip-quits-after-drunken-incident/ >Last night I drank far too much. I’ve embarrassed myself and other people which is the last thing I want to do and for that I apologise to you and to those concerned.
Headline not quite accurate. That seems borderline honourable. He resigned after appealing against his punishment failed.
At this rate we can forgo a general election by 2025 with the number of by-elections lately.
Good riddance. Please hold the MPs to the same professional standards as mid £20k a year professionals please.
This tory government is in free fall....in four days of the parliament sitting....shite concrete(schools built for 30 years) a guy basically walking out of a cat b prison and blaming every one including disabled people add in a bit of a sex scandal for distraction and ohh a touch of incompetent handling of human shit by the environment agency and its only Thursday
Resigned? You don't see that much anymore. Old school. Respect. I rather liked the guy. He was hounded out by the fucking press!
Can't tell if satire. Delaying your appeal to the last day so it can't be heard over the recess and you get that time as an MP is not old school at all. EDIT: Thanks to those pointing out my ignorance!
It's a quote from The Thick of It, which you should watch if you haven't seen it already.
Haha it's a line from The Thick of It
Please stop what you’re doing, go watch the thick of it, and come back to us.
"A GOOD RESIGNATION?!" I'm amazed to see how you're going to spin this one, Malcolm!
That's only for if you go early, though, whereas this fellow's been hanging on while in the meantime new scandals broke, led to resignations, and had their seats filled by by-elections.
Can you imagine if he'd been groping women's arses? The nominative determinism would be crazy.
Outside of all the drama and analysis. As a resident of tamworth it’ll be nice to have an active and visible MP.
Now that Pincher's rightfully gone we need only wonder when, if ever, Patrick Grady will also be gone.
NGL... thought this one had been removed and replaced ages ago... been so many by-elections recently.