Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.
I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.
The cheek of this young man to put context to serious allegations made against him is OUTRAGEOUS.
It’s called victimisation. In an employment context, hefty damages would be payable as a result.
In a political context, it should be career-ending.
Agreed. I have not followed the story in detail but any sort of retaliation against a whistleblower is utterly wrong.
Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.
I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.
Not really been following that one... is it really conspiracy rather than cock-up?
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
Yes the best way to have an open and honest review of a process is to lie by omission.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
It is not victimisation for the context of a relationship to come out when charged with career-threatening allegations about communications in that relationship. Aren't you a lawyer? Surely you know personal details like this come out all the time inside and outside of court.
But look how fast the other cities are catching up. Almost certainly London will have slipped a couple of places by next year.
You mean like Frankfurt falling nine places? Those with big jumps are San Francisco, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. Do you notice anything in common? It appears we need to prioritise a deal in financial services with the USA. Something the French and Romanians would not allow in the EU, as they had red lines in agriculture.
No, I'd be more concerned about the rises for Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai and even Toronto all of whose points rose at a far faster rate than London. It was well flagged up before Brexit that the flow of business wouldn't be to the rest of the EU but would rather be to elsewhere in the world - as is now happening.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
"Those nasty Brexiteers should have been less honest !"
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
Since you haven’t offered a counter argument, I’ll assume that you haven’t got one.
If you have one that involves a mad conspiracy theory as your ad hominem might suggest, no need to share.
He doesn't make an argument for there to be a counter argument. It is just childish name calling and insults to the Brexiteers.
And no, the fact that he has something of a bias due to his past employment and current pension is not a conspiracy theory.
As I suspected, a mad conspiracy theory enabling you to avoid addressing any of the uncomfortable points made.
You can see Brexit shrivel the IQ of otherwise moderately intelligent posters. It’s utterly malign.
That's like arguing a former conservative MP doesn't have a bias when commenting on the benefits of a conservative government. You are a delusional fanatic that has had such an emotional breakdown over Brexit you see everything in that light.
The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.
Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.
As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.
(Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)
You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
To be fair, it's one we claimed until Suez (and France fought a war to retain Algeria for nearly a decade), and those weren't colonies with which we shared a border.
One doesn't have to think that Russia had any right - merely recognise that they thought they had it. You can provoke a bully just by standing up to him...
The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.
Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.
As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.
(Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)
You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
To be fair, it's one we claimed until Suez (and France fought a war to retain Algeria for nearly a decade), and those weren't colonies with which we shared a border.
One doesn't have to think that Russia had any right - merely recognise that they thought they had it. You can provoke a bully just by standing up to him...
The claim over Suez was that Israel had invaded and we needed to separate the two sides.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
"Those nasty Brexiteers should have been less honest !"
I would have more sympathy had Bindmans not gone to great lengths to broadcast the outing (after Cummings removed the post from his blog) maximising publicity by emphasising the link to the Prime Minister. Who ever’s interests they were serving it’s difficult to see it being the whistle blowers. They have acknowledged they’ve received outside funding for their work, but won’t disclose from whom...
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
Surely Le Pen is not denying the holocaust per se -- just blaming the Germans and exonerating the French. I doubt Paisley has any considered view on the matter. That's the trouble with this guilt by association. X met Y so their beliefs must be identical.
I doubt Paisley jr has considered views on anything very much. I'd also say that denying the historical fact of one's country's complicity in the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
It is not victimisation for the context of a relationship to come out when charged with career-threatening allegations about communications in that relationship. Aren't you a lawyer? Surely you know personal details like this come out all the time inside and outside of court.
Whistleblowing is my area of expertise. When someone whistleblows, any half decent organisation has a number of very important obligations, including maintaining the whistleblower’s confidentiality (and anonymity, if asked), a thorough investigation and not to take any form of retaliation against the whistleblower for having blown the whistle. In some sectors, there are specific regulatory and legal obligations as well as the general legislation.
By outing this man, those who have done it have certainly broken the spirit of the principle of non-retaliation and may, depending on his precise employment status, have breached the law. It is serious. And, frankly, on a human level a horrible thing to have done. Coming out should be for the person concerned not for others to do.
Since you haven’t offered a counter argument, I’ll assume that you haven’t got one.
If you have one that involves a mad conspiracy theory as your ad hominem might suggest, no need to share.
He doesn't make an argument for there to be a counter argument. It is just childish name calling and insults to the Brexiteers.
And no, the fact that he has something of a bias due to his past employment and current pension is not a conspiracy theory.
As I suspected, a mad conspiracy theory enabling you to avoid addressing any of the uncomfortable points made.
You can see Brexit shrivel the IQ of otherwise moderately intelligent posters. It’s utterly malign.
That's like arguing a former conservative MP doesn't have a bias when commenting on the benefits of a conservative government. You are a delusional fanatic that has had such an emotional breakdown over Brexit you see everything in that light.
That’s your third post without addressing his arguments. Obviously it is well beyond your Brexit-decayed mind to do so.
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
You've demolished the straw man of lying to the authorities very well. But announcing that this guy is gay to the press? Hard to see why that had to be done...
Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.
I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.
Not really been following that one... is it really conspiracy rather than cock-up?
I think it’s personal. I don’t think it’s any coincidence this happened months after their long-term relationship ended, even though the CA scandal may have been the immediate trigger.
Miss Cyclefree, do you think the nature of their relationship should've been stated but behind closed doors (ie to those investigating), or not at all?
Personally, I thought Blair was a snake oil salesman from Day One. I never warmed to him.
Corbyn’s hubris will consume him eventually - the only question is whether he’ll win an election first.
I’m increasingly of the view he’ll be found out by GE2022, but a lot depends on events.
Simple question - could you ever support a Labour Government or leader or is any Conservative Party leader always superior to any Labour Party leader ?
Mr. P, as an aside, those odds haven't changed for almost a year now. I backed it at 6.5 maybe 8 months ago, perhaps more, then the odds fell slightly to 6 and have been there ever since.
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
But announcing that this guy is gay to the press?
It was his Solicitors, Bindmans, who ensured maximum coverage as few in the press had picked up the statement and given the purported threat to family members the original “broadcaster” Dom Cummings had taken it down from his blog. Why did they decide to ensure maximum coverage?
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
You've demolished the straw man of lying to the authorities very well. But announcing that this guy is gay to the press? Hard to see why that had to be done...
The guy chose to publicise his side of the story in the press, and not straight to the authorities. He was publicly claiming his ex-partner was a wrong 'un. How is the ex-partner supposed to react?
This is an incredibly difficult case, and I keep on taking one side and then the other (fnarr, fnarr). It all hinges on whether the relationship is a relevant aspect of a defence against the claims, or an unnecessary or vengeful piece of trivia.
Personally, I thought Blair was a snake oil salesman from Day One. I never warmed to him.
Corbyn’s hubris will consume him eventually - the only question is whether he’ll win an election first.
I’m increasingly of the view he’ll be found out by GE2022, but a lot depends on events.
Simple question - could you ever support a Labour Government or leader or is any Conservative Party leader always superior to any Labour Party leader ?
I would be quite surprised if CR were to answer yes; but having said that, I was very happy to see Labour win in 1997... and still thought Blair something of a snake oil salesman.
Personally, I thought Blair was a snake oil salesman from Day One. I never warmed to him.
Corbyn’s hubris will consume him eventually - the only question is whether he’ll win an election first.
I’m increasingly of the view he’ll be found out by GE2022, but a lot depends on events.
Simple question - could you ever support a Labour Government or leader or is any Conservative Party leader always superior to any Labour Party leader ?
I don’t think it’s any secret I’m a card carrying Tory, and a fairly traditional Shire Tory at that. So there’s not much Labour could ever offer me - I have different values.
The Labour leader I would be most afraid of, however, is Ed Balls. Since the EU referendum I’ve also had a greater respect and understanding for traditional Labour voters, such were my experiences during that campaign, and I like several of the regular Labour posters on here.
I would also have respected the Labour Party of the 1930s/1950s for their basic decency, bravery and patriotism, if not their undiluted socialism.
I don’t think it’s any secret I’m a card carrying Tory, and a fairly traditional Shire Tory at that. So there’s not much Labour could ever offer me - I have different values.
Genuine question: did you support the leadership of Hague/IDS/Howard? I think they did the country a huge disservice and in not providing an electable alternative to Blair, played a very big part in creating the toxic legacy of that period.
The Vote Leave toxic tiff reminds me of the Tory Mark Clarke battle bus. I think most people just roll their eyes to be honest.
Nevertheless there does seem to be a toxic shagging culture deep within the young?? Tories.
Politicians dishonest? Bears in the wood, Pope catholic as far as the majority of the public is concerned. Anyway, assuming that Leave (etc, whatever) are guilty, what’s the penalty?
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
You've demolished the straw man of lying to the authorities very well. But announcing that this guy is gay to the press? Hard to see why that had to be done...
The guy chose to publicise his side of the story in the press, and not straight to the authorities. He was publicly claiming his ex-partner was a wrong 'un. How is the ex-partner supposed to react?
This is an incredibly difficult case, and I keep on taking one side and then the other (fnarr, fnarr). It all hinges on whether the relationship is a relevant aspect of a defence against the claims, or an unnecessary or vengeful piece of trivia.
I think a simple statement denying everything would have been fine. The allegations made were about two organizations and lots of people.
You can understand why when Gove ran for the Tory leadership he was asked to give assurances he’d never hire Dominic Cummings for any role were the Govester to become PM.
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
You've demolished the straw man of lying to the authorities very well. But announcing that this guy is gay to the press? Hard to see why that had to be done...
The guy chose to publicise his side of the story in the press, and not straight to the authorities. He was publicly claiming his ex-partner was a wrong 'un. How is the ex-partner supposed to react?
This is an incredibly difficult case, and I keep on taking one side and then the other (fnarr, fnarr). It all hinges on whether the relationship is a relevant aspect of a defence against the claims, or an unnecessary or vengeful piece of trivia.
I think a simple statement denying everything would have been fine. The allegations made were about two organizations and lots of people.
Stephen Parkinson also seems to have spuriously given incorrect information about how they first met in his statement.
Mr. Eagles, I've asked you this before but the situation seems a bit different now: who's your preference to be next Con leader? Also, d'you reckon May will still be leading in 2022?
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
But announcing that this guy is gay to the press?
It was his Solicitors, Bindmans, who ensured maximum coverage as few in the press had picked up the statement and given the purported threat to family members the original “broadcaster” Dom Cummings had taken it down from his blog. Why did they decide to ensure maximum coverage?
Bizarre victim blaming. As I understand it the lawyers managed to get it taken off Cummings' blog - but then Parkinson sent his statement to a bunch more people and Downing Street sent it to a journalist. At that point the world knows.
I don’t think it’s any secret I’m a card carrying Tory, and a fairly traditional Shire Tory at that. So there’s not much Labour could ever offer me - I have different values.
Genuine question: did you support the leadership of Hague/IDS/Howard?
Mr. Eagles, I've asked you this before but the situation seems a bit different now: who's your preference to be next Con leader? Also, d'you reckon May will still be leading in 2022?
She’ll be ditched. She’s a crap campaigner, a Tory Leader can’t chicken out of debates like the cowardly May did.
My preferences are still Hunt, Mercer, and Tugendhat.
The Vote Leave toxic tiff reminds me of the Tory Mark Clarke battle bus. I think most people just roll their eyes to be honest.
Nevertheless there does seem to be a toxic shagging culture deep within the young?? Tories.
It's certainly depressing that, on both sides of the campaign, the public allowed themselves to be manipulated and misled by a bunch of camp 20 year-old know-nothing interns with pink hair. This really does highlight how government by referendum is a rotten idea.
Mr. Meeks, if justice requires the whole truth then making that sort of description would be wrong, as there's a difference between a romantic and social relationship. As I said before, the best way may well have been a private disclosure to any investigating authorities, if such happens, but the 'whistleblower' has been naive to make claims against someone with whom he had an intimate relationship without seemingly thinking that said relationship might come out.
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
You've demolished the straw man of lying to the authorities very well. But announcing that this guy is gay to the press? Hard to see why that had to be done...
The guy chose to publicise his side of the story in the press, and not straight to the authorities. He was publicly claiming his ex-partner was a wrong 'un. How is the ex-partner supposed to react?
This is an incredibly difficult case, and I keep on taking one side and then the other (fnarr, fnarr). It all hinges on whether the relationship is a relevant aspect of a defence against the claims, or an unnecessary or vengeful piece of trivia.
I think it is relevant to the context in which the advice was given and why it might have been given. Whether there was any need to make it public is more debatable but nearly all the publicity about it seems to have come from the agents for the whistleblower.
I don’t think it’s any secret I’m a card carrying Tory, and a fairly traditional Shire Tory at that. So there’s not much Labour could ever offer me - I have different values.
Genuine question: did you support the leadership of Hague/IDS/Howard?
Yes.
Do you agree that they enabled Blair? A party on Clarke/Heseltine lines would have provided a genuine opposition.
I don’t think it’s any secret I’m a card carrying Tory, and a fairly traditional Shire Tory at that. So there’s not much Labour could ever offer me - I have different values.
Genuine question: did you support the leadership of Hague/IDS/Howard?
Yes.
Do you agree that they enabled Blair? A party on Clarke/Heseltine lines would have provided a genuine opposition.
I think it is relevant to the context in which the advice was given and why it might have been given. Whether there was any need to make it public is more debatable but nearly all the publicity about it seems to have come from the agents for the whistleblower.
If you stick your head above the parapet you can't complain when it gets blown off. Twas ever thus. I'm a staunch Remainer but all this complaining about campaign spending comes across to me like sour grapes, likely to backfire with the general public. That the BBC, Guardian etc are giving airtime to this 6th Form common room spat is beyond ridiculous.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
It is not victimisation for the context of a relationship to come out when charged with career-threatening allegations about communications in that relationship. Aren't you a lawyer? Surely you know personal details like this come out all the time inside and outside of court.
Whistleblowing is my area of expertise. When someone whistleblows, any half decent organisation has a number of very important obligations, including maintaining the whistleblower’s confidentiality (and anonymity, if asked), a thorough investigation and not to take any form of retaliation against the whistleblower for having blown the whistle. In some sectors, there are specific regulatory and legal obligations as well as the general legislation.
By outing this man, those who have done it have certainly broken the spirit of the principle of non-retaliation and may, depending on his precise employment status, have breached the law. It is serious. And, frankly, on a human level a horrible thing to have done. Coming out should be for the person concerned not for others to do.
Hang on a sec, what's this 'protecting his confidentiality and anonymity' stuff? The guy had plastered himself all over the front pages. If he was a whistleblower who wanted to avoid publicity, he could have quite easily approached the Electoral Commission with his information in complete confidence. He can't have it both ways - complete freedom for him to smear anyone with massive publicity, and total confidentiality about his own position in the story.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
‘Outing’ someone? It’s 2018.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
It is not victimisation for the context of a relationship to come out when charged with career-threatening allegations about communications in that relationship. Aren't you a lawyer? Surely you know personal details like this come out all the time inside and outside of court.
Whistleblowing is my area of expertise. When someone whistleblows, any half decent organisation has a number of very important obligations, including maintaining the whistleblower’s confidentiality (and anonymity, if asked), a thorough investigation and not to take any form of retaliation against the whistleblower for having blown the whistle. In some sectors, there are specific regulatory and legal obligations as well as the general legislation.
By outing this man, those who have done it have certainly broken the spirit of the principle of non-retaliation and may, depending on his precise employment status, have breached the law. It is serious. And, frankly, on a human level a horrible thing to have done. Coming out should be for the person concerned not for others to do.
Hang on a sec, what's this 'protecting his confidentiality and anonymity' stuff? The guy had plastered himself all over the front pages. If he was a whistleblower who wanted to avoid publicity, he could have quite easily approached the Electoral Commission with his information in complete confidence. He can't have it both ways - complete freedom for him to smear anyone with massive publicity, and total confidentiality about his own position in the story.
Yes, I think this is the key point. Had the man discreetly handed over information, it would have been very wrong to provide such details publicly. But the accuser clearly decided to have a trial in the court of public opinion, in which case public opinion has a right to know the full context.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
"Those nasty Brexiteers should have been less honest !"
I would have more sympathy had Bindmans not gone to great lengths to broadcast the outing (after Cummings removed the post from his blog) maximising publicity by emphasising the link to the Prime Minister. Who ever’s interests they were serving it’s difficult to see it being the whistle blowers. They have acknowledged they’ve received outside funding for their work, but won’t disclose from whom...
The whole episode looks like an ex-lovers’ tiff that got out of hand. The only people who care about the story are the stop-Brexit crowd who think it’s a reason to abandon democracy.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
The worst part of Parkinson's statement was the dismissive way he tried to characterise Shahmir Sanni as just someone he had a fling with and was trying to mentor but 'the lines became blurred for him'.
Mr. Eagles, I've asked you this before but the situation seems a bit different now: who's your preference to be next Con leader? Also, d'you reckon May will still be leading in 2022?
She’ll be ditched. She’s a crap campaigner, a Tory Leader can’t chicken out of debates like the cowardly May did.
My preferences are still Hunt, Mercer, and Tugendhat.
Given Corbyn's strongest issue is the problems in the NHS, do you really not see the dangers of putting the face of those problems as your party leader?
The only people who care about the story are the stop-Brexit crowd who think it’s a reason to abandon democracy.
"How on earth have we come to such an extraordinary and definitive reading of the mind of the British people? That not merely do we insist that they have insisted that we leave whatever the facts we now discover or the terms our Government can negotiate, but that – even more extraordinary – the same British people would resent deeply being given an opportunity to pass judgement on these terms once they know them? "
I think it is relevant to the context in which the advice was given and why it might have been given. Whether there was any need to make it public is more debatable but nearly all the publicity about it seems to have come from the agents for the whistleblower.
If you stick your head above the parapet you can't complain when it gets blown off. Twas ever thus. I'm a staunch Remainer but all this complaining about campaign spending comes across to me like sour grapes, likely to backfire with the general public. That the BBC, Guardian etc are giving airtime to this 6th Form common room spat is beyond ridiculous.
Agree absolutely. Not only sour grapes but a classic "someone turn the machines back on" whine.
Not worthy and the energy spent should be focused on describing and then agitating for us to get a better deal.
Hang on a sec, what's this 'protecting his confidentiality and anonymity' stuff? The guy had plastered himself all over the front pages. If he was a whistleblower who wanted to avoid publicity, he could have quite easily approached the Electoral Commission with his information in complete confidence. He can't have it both ways - complete freedom for him to smear anyone with massive publicity, and total confidentiality about his own position in the story.
Precisely. And having deliberately "plastered himself all over the front pages", he'd be a bit dim not to expect The Mail or The Sun to dig up his sexuality even if Parkinson had kept quiet. In fact I wonder why May and Parkinson didn't tip off the tabloids and keep their hands clean rather than do the dirty themselves.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
‘Outing’ someone? It’s 2018.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
His family is. Luckily that's a country with no tradition of families being attacked for the (perceived) sins of individuals from those families.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
‘Outing’ someone? It’s 2018.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
Plus the amount of fuss they made afterwards made it far more likely that more people heard about it - so the complaining about the 'outing' made it a far more widespread story.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
‘Outing’ someone? It’s 2018.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
On topic, all leaders have a shelf life. Better leaders have longer shelf lives than worse leaders but both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be approaching if not past their expiry dates in 2022. Both should be planning their retirement before that date.
I think your comment may be limited to democracies. For instance, after FDR, the US Congress changed the rules to a two year limit, but both Putin and Xi Jinping seem to have organised unlimited tenures for themselves.
On topic, all leaders have a shelf life. Better leaders have longer shelf lives than worse leaders but both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be approaching if not past their expiry dates in 2022. Both should be planning their retirement before that date.
I think your comment may be limited to democracies. For instance, after FDR, the US Congress changed the rules to a two year limit...
Perhaps they will after Trump, but for now it's still two terms...
(edit - and even Putin has at least gestured towards respecting term limits.)
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
Does this mean I can get a payout like those clebs with the Sun/Mirror ?
Nah. It was buried in the T&Cs of the app I believe.
Time to update the unfair contract terms legislation.
The new data protection act should end this.
Person A may have consented, but Person B (who Person A has called, added to contacts, etc.) has not. If there were ever a case under domestic legislation that such consent would be implied, that has gone.
I suppose it might be different if Person B was also a facebook user.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
He seems to have lied about how they met using an official Downing Street statement.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
Their friendship is relevant context to his defence. Their having been lovers is not.
Even if you believe otherwise, Stephen Parkinson is not an elected politician and as such could have provided more detail in private to his employer. He did not need to go public at all. He made choices, choices that have had a direct impact on someone else's private life. This is a grave mistake.
He seems to have lied about how they met using an official Downing Street statement.
There are claims and counter-claims. I've no idea which are right and which are wrong, but if the Guardianistas want to bring a case against Stephen Parkinson in the Court of Public Opinion, they can hardly object if he responds with his side of the story.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
Their friendship is relevant context to his defence. Their having been lovers is not.
Even if you believe otherwise, Stephen Parkinson is not an elected politician and as such could have provided more detail in private to his employer. He did not need to go public at all. He made choices, choices that have had a direct impact on someone else's private life. This is a grave mistake.
Parkinson isn't the one who went public, his ex-boyfriend did. He replied with so to say 'the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth'. That's hardly unreasonable.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
Their friendship is relevant context to his defence. Their having been lovers is not.
Even if you believe otherwise, Stephen Parkinson is not an elected politician and as such could have provided more detail in private to his employer. He did not need to go public at all. He made choices, choices that have had a direct impact on someone else's private life. This is a grave mistake.
Did Stephen Parkinson know, or ought he to have known, that he was outing Shahmir Sanni?
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
And Stephen Parkinson is quite entitled to provide the context of the alleged whistleblowing, which he did without fuss (all the fuss came from the other side). He is, after all, being accused in public of a potentially career-wrecking and possibly criminal offence by his ex-boyfriend, who was the one who made the choice to go public on this whole story.
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
He seems to have lied about how they met using an official Downing Street statement.
If we all got a pound every time an official Downing Street statement contained a lie, we would all be millionaires. Nobody cares about that stuff any more, it will provoke no more than a resigned shrug from Joe Public. From the Remain side of the debate I despair that so-called intelligent people think it's a good idea to provoke petty 6th Form common room spats about campaign expenses rather than doubling down on securing a sensible soft Brexit.
Mr. Meeks, I agree entirely on the 'outing' matter (if a chap wishes to remain private, that's his business). On the other hand, I disagree with you. There's a clear difference between a friendly relationship and a romantic one.
Edited extra bit: ahem, that was grammatically clunk from the middle to last sentences. Apologies for that.
Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”.
Then he would have been accused of “cover up”......
Oh don’t talk nonsense. The fact that they were sleeping together as well as close friends is interesting rather than important. The context was spending limits for a referendum, not debauched drug-fuelled orgies.
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
‘Outing’ someone? It’s 2018.
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
How thoughtful of you to make other people's life decisions for them.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
If you have a relationship with someone then there is no duty on the other person to regard your sexuality or the relationship as a secret, either at the time or later. it might be a condition of the relationship at the time - that's a mutual matter - but it can't reasonably be held to if the relationship breaks down, particularly if its existence could be relevant to other matters.
Comments
When one person accuses another of something, and they're former bedmates, that's relevant because it informs their past history as well as, potentially, motivation for said accusations. It can't be covered up (certainly from any investigating authority).
One doesn't have to think that Russia had any right - merely recognise that they thought they had it. You can provoke a bully just by standing up to him...
Publicly outing someone is a hostile act. Stephen Parkinson would have been fully aware of its potential impact.
https://twitter.com/colydawg/status/978272239232614400
By outing this man, those who have done it have certainly broken the spirit of the principle of non-retaliation and may, depending on his precise employment status, have breached the law. It is serious. And, frankly, on a human level a horrible thing to have done. Coming out should be for the person concerned not for others to do.
Personally, I thought Blair was a snake oil salesman from Day One. I never warmed to him.
Corbyn’s hubris will consume him eventually - the only question is whether he’ll win an election first.
I’m increasingly of the view he’ll be found out by GE2022, but a lot depends on events.
But announcing that this guy is gay to the press?
Hard to see why that had to be done...
This is an incredibly difficult case, and I keep on taking one side and then the other (fnarr, fnarr). It all hinges on whether the relationship is a relevant aspect of a defence against the claims, or an unnecessary or vengeful piece of trivia.
The Labour leader I would be most afraid of, however, is Ed Balls. Since the EU referendum I’ve also had a greater respect and understanding for traditional Labour voters, such were my experiences during that campaign, and I like several of the regular Labour posters on here.
I would also have respected the Labour Party of the 1930s/1950s for their basic decency, bravery and patriotism, if not their undiluted socialism.
Nevertheless there does seem to be a toxic shagging culture deep within the young?? Tories.
Anyway, assuming that Leave (etc, whatever) are guilty, what’s the penalty?
The allegations made were about two organizations and lots of people.
Mark Zuckerberg has refused to personally answer MPs questions regarding Facebook's use of its users' data.
Instead, he will send a deputy who will make themselves available to give evidence to the culture committee.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/brexit-whistleblower-shahmir-sanni-no-10-official-outed-me-to-distract-from-claims
My preferences are still Hunt, Mercer, and Tugendhat.
Controversial....
Mr. Gin, indeed.
She’s thick as mince, and has awful political judgment.
She organised the Leadsom 4 Leader march.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/facebook-acknowledges-it-kept-records-of-calls-and-texts-from-android-users.html
Edited extra bit: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/978553404531363840
A waiter in Canada fired for "aggressive" and "rude" behaviour towards other staff says he has an excuse: he's French.
Guillaume Rey has filed a complaint with British Columbia's Human Rights Tribunal against his ex-employer and its parent company over his dismissal.
He argues his sacking is discrimination and French culture "tends to be more direct and expressive".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43507949
The best antidote to homophobia, whether internalised or in the wider world, is to be honest with oneself and with the wider world. I know we’re from different generations, but it’s very disappointing to see someone defending the notion that a young man should live a double life to appease bigots, with all the negative consequences that entails. One doesn’t have to wear a sign or tell the world, but one should never lie.
If this young man were in Pakistan, the calculation would be different, but he’s not.
Not worthy and the energy spent should be focused on describing and then agitating for us to get a better deal.
Obviously I'm a firm believer in being out. Some other people do not feel the same way. They are entitled to make their own choices on the matter.
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/905804102768226305?s=21
(edit - and even Putin has at least gestured towards respecting term limits.)
If you want to allocate blame for any distress caused by the outing, I'd suggest the lawyers who are using Shahmir Sanni for political ends might be a better target.
Person A may have consented, but Person B (who Person A has called, added to contacts, etc.) has not. If there were ever a case under domestic legislation that such consent would be implied, that has gone.
I suppose it might be different if Person B was also a facebook user.
We’re here, we’re Brexiteer...
(Needs work)
Even if you believe otherwise, Stephen Parkinson is not an elected politician and as such could have provided more detail in private to his employer. He did not need to go public at all. He made choices, choices that have had a direct impact on someone else's private life. This is a grave mistake.
How you expect to do that and not have your relationship come out is beyond me.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2018/03/27/insider-reveals-new-details-messy-han-solo-shoot-new-blaster/
Edited extra bit: ahem, that was grammatically clunk from the middle to last sentences. Apologies for that.