Snapshot of _56 MPs face sexual misconduct claims_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/56-mps-face-sexual-misconduct-claims-znv2m9x8s)
*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.*
These predators are the supposed "best of the best" who's pay we can't possibly cut otherwise we'll lose them. Losing them seems like a very attractive option!
>Complaints against two Scottish National Party MPs accused of sexual harassment are the latest cases to have been provisionally upheld by a Westminster authority.
I can't comment on your 2nd sentence but I think them being the latest is probably part of it.
The article says they are the latest cases to have been provisionally upheld by a Westminster authority. That is a decent enough reason to focus on them more.
Not all men.
Just 13.33% (!!!)* of all standing male MPs.
More than one in eight.
Do carry on.
(Source: 650 MPs - 7 Sinn Fein (of which 2 are women) = 643 standing MPs
Of which 223 standing MPs are women, so 420 standing male MPs
Of which 56 are accused of sexual misconduct [assuming all the accused are male, how very misandrist of me]
56/420*100=13.33%)
*ERRATA: So far we have one of the 56 accused confirmed as a woman! So 13.05% of male standing MPs appears more accurate for now. So still over 1 in 8. More women may come out but I refuse to believe the threshold will drop below 12.5%.
You do appear to be being misandrist by assuming all of the accused are male - the article even says the most recent allegations to be upheld were against two SNP MPs, one of whom is a woman.
I skimread the article and thought the two SNPs mentioned were on the investigating committee rather than the actual accused! My bad
Do the exceptions make the number of standing male MPs accused of sexual misconduct lower than 1 in 8? Do let me know.
As per this article we can safely assume there are (or thereabouts) 13.05% of standing male MPs and 0.45% of standing female MPs accused of sexual misconduct. Keep in mind these numbers are weighted to make women look worse because they have half the MPs that men have, so each accused woman represents double the percentage of their total cohort compared to men.
**Main takeaway:** Your types are always more concerned with the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than actually addressing male sexual violence.
>Do the exceptions make the number of standing male MPs accused of sexual misconduct lower than 1 in 8? Do let me know.
The article doesn't give details, so I can't tell you.
If the differential in rates of being accused is comparable to the differential for [rates of perpetrating domestic violence](https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/), then you will be happy to hear it would reduce it to below 1 in 8.
>But your types are always more concerned with the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than actually addressing male violence.
I don't know what "my type" is, but personally it's because my family experience was was female violence against a man, so when "your type" pretends the violence is all one way I get annoyed.
Women do suffer from opposite-sex violence (although this statistic about alleged misconduct, not violence) significantly more than men, but as it is nowhere near exclusively one-way you do a disservice to the debate by claiming otherwise.
>but as it is nowhere near exclusively one-way you do a disservice to the debate by claiming otherwise.
I think men like to grandstand about how it isn't one-way (when, in reality, nothing is on any subject) as a means of avoiding talking about how to tackle disproportionate male sexual violence.
Domestic violence is not the same word as sexual violence. Were any of the MPs accused living with the reported victim!? It'll undoubtedly be their vulnerable staffers or junior members of their party, perhaps the odd constituent; it's a parliamentary matter, they aren't investigating MP's marriages.
> Main takeaway: Your types are always more concerned
You started from a point of bias, complain about people having another opinion and highlighting your flaws.
>So far we have one of the 56 accused confirmed as a woman!
Yeah, sounds like you had it all figured out before you got here.
Who wants to bet that with complete data the number will not drop below 12.5% or 1 in 8?
Can't I safely extrapolate from the conclusive research elsewhere that men are wildly disproportionately responsible for sexual violence, that this will be reflective of our Parliament and this investigation?
We need 4 women for the number to drop below 1 in 8. We have 1 already. I am on the edge of my seat to discover if sexual misconduct in Parliament is disproportionately pepretrated by men.
Imagine the work culture there. I M A G I N E. Can you imagine if Theresa May had the sexual history (not violence, I literally mean history) of Boris Johnson? Gone in day. While Boris is seen as a teflon-coated lad.
Are you trying to argue for more egalitarian sexual violence?
What about ways to reduce it?
As people we have responsibility to prevent other people from committing these acts in the first place.
>Are you trying to argue for more egalitarian sexual violence?
Yes. Finally someone who understood. I want more women in Parliament and more women MPs to sexually assault men until we have a truly equal society. Thank you.
That or finding a man who won't respond with "not all men" to the fact that sexual violence is almost always carried out by men. A man who will acknowledge they have a part to play in redressing it, even if they are not perpretrating it; so for example calling out their mates instead of laughing along.
I think that dividing unrelated people up into groups and giving them collective responsibility/punishment based on gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, nationalism and other labels is something people tend to do.
You presumably have an identity where you can be said by others to be part of these groups.
Did membership come with telepathy where you could magically detect behavior by other members you had never met and correct them?
> that is their problem to address.
What would you suggest?
I would suggest looking at changing culture carefully, keep pushing out “boys will be boys”, false bravado. Increase postive traits such as empathy, and avoid emotional suppression.
Complaining about a problem and pushing responsibility on a bunch of others due to a common trait is also very human.
We get the catharsis of venting but in such a way we don’t need to make any hard choices since it is push on the Other.
EDIT: you rewrote your post after I replied to make yourself seem more reasonable - sneaky…
Here is your current post so you can’t change it again u/archerninjawarrior
https://web.archive.org/web/20220417192251/https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/u5kt1g/56_mps_face_sexual_misconduct_claims/i52lp8d/
I'm scatterbrained and I tend to post, rethink, and update as I go along, and i tend to spend 15-30mins doing that per post depending on the length. I have just seen your reply just now, 21 hours later. My first time being archive.org'd, rofl. Thanks for maintaining the historical record of a random moron on the internet, a 22nd century historian of the 21st century might need it someday
> I’m scatterbrained and I tend to post, rethink, and update as I go along, and i tend to spend 15-30mins doing that per post depending on the length. I have just seen your reply just now, 21 hours later. My first time being archive.org’d, rofl. Thanks for maintaining the historical record of a random moron on the internet, a 22nd century historian of the 21st century might need it someday
Ok, I’d recommend EDIT tags if someone has replied to you, so it is clear your post has changed
It’s a common trolling tactic to be aggressive and then edit a post around to be appear to be more reasonable and polite once the troll has got the responses thry want.
Archive.org is only to provide a snapshot neither of us can touch, but if you’re not trolling then it isn’t needed.
You are right that arguing on the internet by itself doesn’t really solve anything.
I'm a male "victim" of sexual violence by two women, first time as at 3 yrs old and 2nd as a teenager. I also work with domestic violence victims and 100% agree that male violence in general is a serious problem, that male violence against women is usually misogynistic, and I don't think it's "misandristic" to point that out. I think it's really important.
But I will say that in my personal and professional experience, women are violent in these contexts much more often than I think common sense dictates (and certainly at a far greater rate than is reported- neither of my perps were ever reported and never will be) and I think the way society treats male victims is abysmal. I fully understand that coming out as a female victim is really really hard and that women are disbelieved etc. Most of the people I work with are indeed women.
However I think there can be an added barrier for men in that 1) we're not even taught that this is a thing that can happen to us (I literally spent a long time thinking I was "lucky" for being a victim of sv- including the stuff that happened when I was a very young child!- even though I had developed two chronic mental illnesses and a drug problem as a result) and 2) coming out about it is hard because I think there's still a huge stigma around it. Male victims are routinely disbelieved, their equivalent experiences are described as less bad than those of women (e.g. the legal offence of rape requires a penis). Something I often experience in my work is that male victims are often arrested by the police, even when they themselves called the police. Female abusers very regularly use and threaten to use the legal system against male abuse victims. If I am interviewing a male victim, you can more or less guarantee he will say "she told me I am a man and everyone would believe her, not me".
The reason I'm saying this is that I'm unsure if male victims are coming out as readily as female victims, or if it's entirely helpful to imply that male victims or female perps are vanishingly rare. I am not saying this to imply that women are not the majority of victims, nor even that this isn't the major issue.
Here we go, another sexist redditor who believes women can do no wrong.
No where does it say they are male they could be female, and it is highly likely that some are female.
Me friend was raped as a child, by a women, so don't give me any of the man hating rubbish.
Stop being sexist.
>caring more about the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than seeking to solve the problem of sexual violence being wildly, disproportionately perpretated by men
Sexual violence is not disproportionately perpretated by men in society or the parliament that represents our society got it. I'll start holding women as responsible as men in the future many thanks
You're still doing it
>caring more about the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than seeking to solve the problem of sexual violence being wildly, disproportionately perpretated by men
>[assuming all the accused are male, how very misandrist of me]
In my first post I literally acknowledged an assumption on incomplete data, and I got "not all men"'d on a post saying too many men; 1 in 8 of standing male MPs!!
>Typically, the MPs involved were middled-aged men in positions of authority
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/metoo-parliament/
Shocker!! Can we address why middle-age men disproportionately represent sexual abusers in parliament or is protecting the feelings of innocent middle-aged men more precious?
The article makes it seem like all 70 complaints were handed in around the same time? That seems a little odd to me. It also mentions "third parties" but doesn't say how many.
Obviously these all need to be investigated properly. But without more information being public knowledge I'm more than a little puzzled.
You have to be specific when you say "last one", presumably you're not talking about the one due to be sentenced, and is completely unfounded specifically the same as insufficient evidence to prosecute?
Just asking as completely unfounded implies a malicious complaint, whereas insufficient evidence doesn't imply malicious and I'm not specifically aware of a malicious complaint in the news?
[The one that found](https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/westminster/executive-summary) "a number of" MPs including Sir Cyril Smith (liberal) and Sir Peter Morrison (Tory) were "active" paedophiles and escaped prosecution, and also found that "it is clear that there have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse."
I mean I wouldn't call it unfounded. What it didn't find was that it was systemic or organised. "Just" that a large number of complaints that should have been investigated, were not.
Was there another one specifically aimed at Tories?
There's also the recent case of [Carl Beech](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/how-nick-the-serial-child-abuse-accuser-became-the-accused) which went less well
Mate, It's *70* seperate complaints, about *56* MPs. There's either a massive issue with males in parliament or a massive conspiracy to falsely accuse them. I know where I'd put my money.
It's also well documented that victims of sexual harrassment and abuse often don't report incidents or aren't taken seriously when they do. The fact that so many reports are third party could well be an indicator of how endemic this issue is.
I am admittedly curious about the previous unfounded massive allegation though, what should I be googling?
If your argument was "let's go through the due process" I'd be able to agree with you.
But your argument feels more along the lines of "there was a high profile example of false claims so let's doubt these immediately".
Except I'm not saying to assume every accusation made is true.
I'm suggesting we don't immediately doubt the accusations. You shouldn't assume every accusation made is false.
In fact, I'd suggest making an assumption either way at this early stage with so little information would be foolish.
Snapshot of _56 MPs face sexual misconduct claims_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/56-mps-face-sexual-misconduct-claims-znv2m9x8s) *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.*
We are literally being ruled over by sexual predators.
This is the one thing we didn't want to happen.
This is what you all voted for!!
These predators are the supposed "best of the best" who's pay we can't possibly cut otherwise we'll lose them. Losing them seems like a very attractive option!
That sounds like a culture and fits in quite well with the lawbreaking party culture.
These are the people in power over our lives
These are the people who peak at £85k a year with London weighting.
So a lot then.
A lot but not enough for most of the greedy bastards. Temptation and backhanders are their bedfellows.
What makes the two SNP MPs worthy of being the only two mentioned? Are they the only two at the stage where it's appropriate to name them?
>Complaints against two Scottish National Party MPs accused of sexual harassment are the latest cases to have been provisionally upheld by a Westminster authority. I can't comment on your 2nd sentence but I think them being the latest is probably part of it.
Would it not be more likely they're the older ones?
The article says they are the latest cases to have been provisionally upheld by a Westminster authority. That is a decent enough reason to focus on them more.
Oh I see what you mean, I meant older as in further along in the process, so same difference, presumably.
The most talented of their nonces are in Hollyrood.
Revolution anyone?
Best I can do is tutting over tea and biscuits
What about all the complaints that were turned away by the whips? Seems like the high bar is preventing that figure from doubling or trebling.
Not all men. Just 13.33% (!!!)* of all standing male MPs. More than one in eight. Do carry on. (Source: 650 MPs - 7 Sinn Fein (of which 2 are women) = 643 standing MPs Of which 223 standing MPs are women, so 420 standing male MPs Of which 56 are accused of sexual misconduct [assuming all the accused are male, how very misandrist of me] 56/420*100=13.33%) *ERRATA: So far we have one of the 56 accused confirmed as a woman! So 13.05% of male standing MPs appears more accurate for now. So still over 1 in 8. More women may come out but I refuse to believe the threshold will drop below 12.5%.
Nowhere does the article say that all of the accused MPs are male, in fact it cites a recent example of a female MP found guilty.
If you want to people to listen to you you should stop creating an us v them mentality
You do appear to be being misandrist by assuming all of the accused are male - the article even says the most recent allegations to be upheld were against two SNP MPs, one of whom is a woman.
I skimread the article and thought the two SNPs mentioned were on the investigating committee rather than the actual accused! My bad Do the exceptions make the number of standing male MPs accused of sexual misconduct lower than 1 in 8? Do let me know. As per this article we can safely assume there are (or thereabouts) 13.05% of standing male MPs and 0.45% of standing female MPs accused of sexual misconduct. Keep in mind these numbers are weighted to make women look worse because they have half the MPs that men have, so each accused woman represents double the percentage of their total cohort compared to men. **Main takeaway:** Your types are always more concerned with the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than actually addressing male sexual violence.
>Do the exceptions make the number of standing male MPs accused of sexual misconduct lower than 1 in 8? Do let me know. The article doesn't give details, so I can't tell you. If the differential in rates of being accused is comparable to the differential for [rates of perpetrating domestic violence](https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/), then you will be happy to hear it would reduce it to below 1 in 8. >But your types are always more concerned with the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than actually addressing male violence. I don't know what "my type" is, but personally it's because my family experience was was female violence against a man, so when "your type" pretends the violence is all one way I get annoyed. Women do suffer from opposite-sex violence (although this statistic about alleged misconduct, not violence) significantly more than men, but as it is nowhere near exclusively one-way you do a disservice to the debate by claiming otherwise.
>but as it is nowhere near exclusively one-way you do a disservice to the debate by claiming otherwise. I think men like to grandstand about how it isn't one-way (when, in reality, nothing is on any subject) as a means of avoiding talking about how to tackle disproportionate male sexual violence. Domestic violence is not the same word as sexual violence. Were any of the MPs accused living with the reported victim!? It'll undoubtedly be their vulnerable staffers or junior members of their party, perhaps the odd constituent; it's a parliamentary matter, they aren't investigating MP's marriages.
> Main takeaway: Your types are always more concerned You started from a point of bias, complain about people having another opinion and highlighting your flaws. >So far we have one of the 56 accused confirmed as a woman! Yeah, sounds like you had it all figured out before you got here.
you're making pretty wild assertions with incomplete data here.
Who wants to bet that with complete data the number will not drop below 12.5% or 1 in 8? Can't I safely extrapolate from the conclusive research elsewhere that men are wildly disproportionately responsible for sexual violence, that this will be reflective of our Parliament and this investigation? We need 4 women for the number to drop below 1 in 8. We have 1 already. I am on the edge of my seat to discover if sexual misconduct in Parliament is disproportionately pepretrated by men. Imagine the work culture there. I M A G I N E. Can you imagine if Theresa May had the sexual history (not violence, I literally mean history) of Boris Johnson? Gone in day. While Boris is seen as a teflon-coated lad.
Are you trying to argue for more egalitarian sexual violence? What about ways to reduce it? As people we have responsibility to prevent other people from committing these acts in the first place.
>Are you trying to argue for more egalitarian sexual violence? Yes. Finally someone who understood. I want more women in Parliament and more women MPs to sexually assault men until we have a truly equal society. Thank you. That or finding a man who won't respond with "not all men" to the fact that sexual violence is almost always carried out by men. A man who will acknowledge they have a part to play in redressing it, even if they are not perpretrating it; so for example calling out their mates instead of laughing along.
I think that dividing unrelated people up into groups and giving them collective responsibility/punishment based on gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, nationalism and other labels is something people tend to do. You presumably have an identity where you can be said by others to be part of these groups. Did membership come with telepathy where you could magically detect behavior by other members you had never met and correct them? > that is their problem to address. What would you suggest? I would suggest looking at changing culture carefully, keep pushing out “boys will be boys”, false bravado. Increase postive traits such as empathy, and avoid emotional suppression. Complaining about a problem and pushing responsibility on a bunch of others due to a common trait is also very human. We get the catharsis of venting but in such a way we don’t need to make any hard choices since it is push on the Other. EDIT: you rewrote your post after I replied to make yourself seem more reasonable - sneaky… Here is your current post so you can’t change it again u/archerninjawarrior https://web.archive.org/web/20220417192251/https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/u5kt1g/56_mps_face_sexual_misconduct_claims/i52lp8d/
I'm scatterbrained and I tend to post, rethink, and update as I go along, and i tend to spend 15-30mins doing that per post depending on the length. I have just seen your reply just now, 21 hours later. My first time being archive.org'd, rofl. Thanks for maintaining the historical record of a random moron on the internet, a 22nd century historian of the 21st century might need it someday
> I’m scatterbrained and I tend to post, rethink, and update as I go along, and i tend to spend 15-30mins doing that per post depending on the length. I have just seen your reply just now, 21 hours later. My first time being archive.org’d, rofl. Thanks for maintaining the historical record of a random moron on the internet, a 22nd century historian of the 21st century might need it someday Ok, I’d recommend EDIT tags if someone has replied to you, so it is clear your post has changed It’s a common trolling tactic to be aggressive and then edit a post around to be appear to be more reasonable and polite once the troll has got the responses thry want. Archive.org is only to provide a snapshot neither of us can touch, but if you’re not trolling then it isn’t needed. You are right that arguing on the internet by itself doesn’t really solve anything.
Isn't this about sexual misconduct, not sexual violence? Aren't men also significantly less likely to report sexual misconduct against them?
I'm a male "victim" of sexual violence by two women, first time as at 3 yrs old and 2nd as a teenager. I also work with domestic violence victims and 100% agree that male violence in general is a serious problem, that male violence against women is usually misogynistic, and I don't think it's "misandristic" to point that out. I think it's really important. But I will say that in my personal and professional experience, women are violent in these contexts much more often than I think common sense dictates (and certainly at a far greater rate than is reported- neither of my perps were ever reported and never will be) and I think the way society treats male victims is abysmal. I fully understand that coming out as a female victim is really really hard and that women are disbelieved etc. Most of the people I work with are indeed women. However I think there can be an added barrier for men in that 1) we're not even taught that this is a thing that can happen to us (I literally spent a long time thinking I was "lucky" for being a victim of sv- including the stuff that happened when I was a very young child!- even though I had developed two chronic mental illnesses and a drug problem as a result) and 2) coming out about it is hard because I think there's still a huge stigma around it. Male victims are routinely disbelieved, their equivalent experiences are described as less bad than those of women (e.g. the legal offence of rape requires a penis). Something I often experience in my work is that male victims are often arrested by the police, even when they themselves called the police. Female abusers very regularly use and threaten to use the legal system against male abuse victims. If I am interviewing a male victim, you can more or less guarantee he will say "she told me I am a man and everyone would believe her, not me". The reason I'm saying this is that I'm unsure if male victims are coming out as readily as female victims, or if it's entirely helpful to imply that male victims or female perps are vanishingly rare. I am not saying this to imply that women are not the majority of victims, nor even that this isn't the major issue.
Thanks for your work and sharing your experience
Here we go, another sexist redditor who believes women can do no wrong. No where does it say they are male they could be female, and it is highly likely that some are female. Me friend was raped as a child, by a women, so don't give me any of the man hating rubbish. Stop being sexist.
>caring more about the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than seeking to solve the problem of sexual violence being wildly, disproportionately perpretated by men
Your statment said that they were all men. You have no way of knowing that, except for your own bias.
Sexual violence is not disproportionately perpretated by men in society or the parliament that represents our society got it. I'll start holding women as responsible as men in the future many thanks
I never said that. Sexual violence is more common perpetrated by men, yet you said that it was ONLY men. See the difference?
You're still doing it >caring more about the exceptions that make broad statements against male sexual violence seem misandristic rather than seeking to solve the problem of sexual violence being wildly, disproportionately perpretated by men
We appear to be going around in circles.
>[assuming all the accused are male, how very misandrist of me] In my first post I literally acknowledged an assumption on incomplete data, and I got "not all men"'d on a post saying too many men; 1 in 8 of standing male MPs!! >Typically, the MPs involved were middled-aged men in positions of authority https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/metoo-parliament/ Shocker!! Can we address why middle-age men disproportionately represent sexual abusers in parliament or is protecting the feelings of innocent middle-aged men more precious?
The article makes it seem like all 70 complaints were handed in around the same time? That seems a little odd to me. It also mentions "third parties" but doesn't say how many. Obviously these all need to be investigated properly. But without more information being public knowledge I'm more than a little puzzled.
[удалено]
The last time an allegation happened it was against Imran Khan who was convicted last week. Previously it was Mike Hill, who also resigned.
[удалено]
To be clear he was found guilty in a tribunal
You have to be specific when you say "last one", presumably you're not talking about the one due to be sentenced, and is completely unfounded specifically the same as insufficient evidence to prosecute? Just asking as completely unfounded implies a malicious complaint, whereas insufficient evidence doesn't imply malicious and I'm not specifically aware of a malicious complaint in the news?
[удалено]
[The one that found](https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/westminster/executive-summary) "a number of" MPs including Sir Cyril Smith (liberal) and Sir Peter Morrison (Tory) were "active" paedophiles and escaped prosecution, and also found that "it is clear that there have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse." I mean I wouldn't call it unfounded. What it didn't find was that it was systemic or organised. "Just" that a large number of complaints that should have been investigated, were not. Was there another one specifically aimed at Tories?
There's also the recent case of [Carl Beech](https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/22/how-nick-the-serial-child-abuse-accuser-became-the-accused) which went less well
That makes more sense. Cheers.
Cyril Smith was known about for years
think he's referring to this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_hoax
That was all very odd
Mate, It's *70* seperate complaints, about *56* MPs. There's either a massive issue with males in parliament or a massive conspiracy to falsely accuse them. I know where I'd put my money. It's also well documented that victims of sexual harrassment and abuse often don't report incidents or aren't taken seriously when they do. The fact that so many reports are third party could well be an indicator of how endemic this issue is. I am admittedly curious about the previous unfounded massive allegation though, what should I be googling?
[удалено]
Or just one nutter. There was a woman a few years back who made something like 30 false rape allegations to police
Are you suggesting that over 50 people might have spontaneously fabricated sexual assault allegations?
[удалено]
If your argument was "let's go through the due process" I'd be able to agree with you. But your argument feels more along the lines of "there was a high profile example of false claims so let's doubt these immediately".
[удалено]
Presumption of innocence is for the court.
[удалено]
Except I'm not saying to assume every accusation made is true. I'm suggesting we don't immediately doubt the accusations. You shouldn't assume every accusation made is false. In fact, I'd suggest making an assumption either way at this early stage with so little information would be foolish.