Westminster and sexual harassment

Maryeliza54 I am not convinced that Theresa May cares about the issue, other than that she could really do without this when her government is so shaky. She was Minister for Women and Equalities (along with being Home Secretary) for a few years, not so long ago, but I don't recall her tackling this issue then.
In normal work places confidentiality for the accused is the rule. People will inevitably really want to know why the head teacher has been suspended but they will have to put up with not knowing the details before, during or after the disciplinary hearing. Unless it becomes a matter for the courts. Westminster is not a normal workplace and MPs are not "employees". (Their staff are employed by their MPs so they should in theory be covered by good employment practices...) the PM does not employ the MPs and neither does their political party. They can be sacked from their party (and or have the Whip suspended) but the only way they can be got rid of as MPs is by a process called "Recall" , which triggers a by-election. I seem to remember that previously this could be done if enough constituents signed a special petition. A new act was brought in just a few years ago which lays out specific conditions in which the Speaker can trigger a "Recall". www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25
It could also be argued, very convincingly, that if an MP is accused of poor behaviour we all have a right to know.

I know, the issue of working late into the evening, in such an unreal environment combined with cheap alcohol and a drinking culture feels like a recipe for disaster to me.

Close the bars, have a code of conduct like other places of work do and expect those we vote in to represent us to behave professionally at work. If the work includes evening dinners and alcohol, it's still work and who these days thinks drinking at work is the right thing to do?

And the drinks are subsidised

I do believe all the bars in H o P should be closed down forthwith. I can't think of any other public institutions where alcohol is available for staff during work hours. (Law Courts, Hospitals, Schools, Railways, Council offices, Bank HQ.?)

Tory whips have decided to tackle the problem of drunken MPs and have given them minders to keep them on the straight and narrow. Apparently the scheme was set up to ensure they didn’t miss voting on Brexit and have expanded it to look out for sexual harassment too.
This is in the Times this morning!
Wonder if the cost of this will come off the money earmarked for child care. What are we paying these idiots for?

GG, that's brilliant! (The One Show comment, I mean).

I am not prepared to "lighten up" either. It is a serious issue.
Woman have finally had enough following that film directors behaviour.
Power in numbers and the woman are no longer shutting up.

"The nation has been agog as it has slowly dawned that taking several hundred, unreconstructed ex-public schoolboys and putting them in a building with seven bars, a hundred miles away from their partners, is a recipe for trouble."

The Now Show today.

It really is a power game.

On "Any Questions" at lunch time there were a number of politicians who were more or less acknowledging that this behaviour has been known about in Westminster for years.
The heavy drinkers and gropers etc.
It is probably a standard part of the gossip . As I am sure happens in other closed workplaces.
Now it is coming out.
Woman are no longer prepared to put up with this and the warnings threats that if you tell it might "harm your career." aka be bullied.

Maybe she did and he said ‘Calm down dear’

So back years ago when standards were so very different (2013) a female deputy speaker roundly told off a backbench MP who let’s not mince words tried to act as a pimp for a friend of his with a young researcher. I expect it was all the young researchers fault for being pretty. When are some of you on here going to wake up and realise there is some real rottenness in Westminster which is really serious even if it isn’t rape. I do have to ask though why the deputy speaker did not go straight to DC.

There was a letter in The Herald the other day from a man who said that it would be a pity if friendly gestures such as a pat on the arm, or a friendly hand on the waist or a pat on the hair should become unacceptable. If he thinks that a hand on the waist is a friendly gesture, I feel that some education is in order!

On a holiday recently there was a man who felt that it was his duty to help the women off the bus, but not the men, of course. That didn't last long, as we all managed (politely) to make it clear that we didn't require that sort of help, thank you very much. He was one of the kind which we can all recognise as someone you do not want to stand next to. Now that's all very well on holiday, when everybody is on equal terms, but if he had been in a position of power over us, it would have been much more difficult to get across to him that we did not want to be touched when getting off a bus. Not a big deal perhaps, but nobody should have to put up with unwelcome touching, in Parliament or anywhere else.

Thankyou wilmaKnickersfit. Maryeliza54 if that is what I meant that is what I would have said!.

vonnie men are making accusations, as shown by the allegations involving Kevin Spacey (and Corey Feldman, Tyler Grasham and Andy Dick). Not all of the allegations about MPs involve women either.

The damn bursting is a good analogy - a whole load of debris is swirling around and it will be a while before we can see clearly what the debris actually consists of.

I can see what you are saying Cindersdad and, of course, anyone is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly though, it is the very fact that people have been prepared to hush these things up that is causing what is happening now. The parties seem to have put themselves first, as did churches and all that did was protect the already powerful.

I very much agree with Primrose on this one that sadly this flood of complaints was always going to happen once the damn burst. But the damn should not have been there in the first place. It is going to take some clearing up though.

Yes Primrose and Parliament across the parties has been on notice for years about this sort of behaviour not being acceptable (whatever MF says). They have refused to do anything about it in any meaningful sense and some now have the audacity to be feeling the injured party now that the tide has turned. Can't you see that Cindersdad? They had their chance and they blew it. Do you honestly think that if some women hadn't gone public that anything would have changed? There is not one shred of evidence that that would have been the case. I very much welcome the code that TM has just published. One quote from it ' harassment is any unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct ...a single incident can amount as harassment'. (And if you're not sure whether the conduct is unwanted or not, then don't.)

As I said on one thread or another recently, I really believe she cares about this issue now - can you imagine if BJ or MG had been PM and this had happened? They would have been giggling in the locker room about it all.

cindersdad I agree with you in principle, however, this is against a backdrop of women complaining of rape and being told to keep quiet about it, of promoting people once they have been disciplined for harassment.
Because this has been happening to multiple women over many years, I think there's no other way.

As has been said over and over again this is about power. How often I wonder does a junior colleague attempt to do anything as "trivial or "playful" as "touching up" a senior colleague? I wonder also when it is nearer home ie a younger member of family at work is a victim, or an older member of family carries on like this at work how we would feel? I wouldn't be happy about DH touching up anyone in the workplace or out of it come to that.

"Iam64" I'm not saying always keep it quiet but do not go public until there has been a chance for the facts to become better known. There is definitely something wrong in the corridors of power but those accused should not be named quite so early on and on flimsy evidence.

What is needed is a trusted means of raising issues.

What is the point of your post vonnie - men don't complain so women shouldn't? Or men obviously enjoyed it so women must have as well? I think there's probably a very serious reason why men in that sort of situation don't complain.

So Cindersdad there is an allegation of sexual assault against your local GP or your dc's teacher - you do realise don't you that in those circumstances the accused would be suspended on full pay until the court verdict? Or do you think that is wrong as well? The general tone of your post is frankly minimising and misogynistic. MF in case you missed it has resigned accepting he has behaved unacceptably - and no-one believes that all those occasions were decades ago. He also has an amazing view of standards 15 years ago as being very different to today - no MF what's different today is that you can't get away with it anymore. I hold no brief for AL and was very critical at the time for her comment of 'being a mother' but I fail to see how that utter crassness should be brought into this. And who should 'keep quiet until there is proof' ? The pesky women? Oh yes excuse us for existing and making life so difficult for men who just can't work out how to behave. FFS

wonder why no men are complaining. I have seen men being sexually harassed, suggestive comments and touching by women at work.

The notion that 'they should keep it quiet until there is proof' just won't wash.
How many murderers, rapists, burglars etc insist they've done nothing wrong and have trials lasting days only for the evidence to be seen to be overwhelming.
As for 'lightening up' - ironic because that contributed to sexual harassment being seen as amusing.