Former Conservative MP raped his wife, family court finds

I cant say how much I admire her, she has been incredibly brave. There is nothing I want to say about him.

Thank you to that judge.

Why is his involvement in politics relevant? Are you suggesting that Conservative MPs rape their wives and MPs from others parties do not? Could you prove that?

Man abuses wife, is, sadly hardly news these days. It will only be news when it is a rare event. It doesn't make any difference whether he is a Minister of state, a minister of religion or a navvy.

I am sure you are not trying to make a rather unpleasant political point of dubious validity.

Agreed M0nica.
It’s a dreadful crime whoever commits it, and I don’t blame his wife for wanting it to be made public. If you search rape, linked with any political party you will find accusations about MPs. I don’t feel the need to announce their political affiliation when commenting on the crime.

Iam64 was not making any political point for goodness sake. She was merely identifying him.

yes, it was reported like that in all the newspapers, probably so that we will know who they are talking about, and the reasons why he had to stand down, the depraved messages to women constituents.
otherwise we would not know that it is the same person, as his name is very common, and so unfortunately is the behaviour.
unfair to accuse the OP of anything.

But would the OP have started a thread about this specific marital abuser if he hadn't once been a Conservative MP but a bus driver or accountant?

M0nica

But would the OP have started a thread about this specific marital abuser if he hadn't once been a Conservative MP but a bus driver or accountant?

Oh dear

Headlines on bbc site “Ex-Tory minister found to have raped wife”

It then goes on to outline the issue.

Griffiths identified because it is of public interest.

Here we go again!! Yes I agree Monica . What this man has done is despicable but his politics is irrelevant.

Gwyneth

Here we go again!! Yes I agree Monica . What this man has done is despicable but his politics is irrelevant.

You are perfectly entitled to hold that view, but the high court disagrees and has judged that it is in the public interest that there should be full disclosure.

I agree.

Thank you whitewave that’s very gracious of you.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to the job of his wife before they start making accusations about why this was posted.
Iam64 has consistently discussed Male violence against women on this forum, informed by her work in the real world in this area. If posters don't understand that they really havent been paying attention.

Whitewave I am not arguing against what happened in court or the judges decision. I am questioning why the OP felt it necessary to start a thread on GN about this case and word it in the way she did.

It is not a hidden case. It is on all the media and in the newspapers, she did not pick one element of it that concerned her because it told too much/too little. She just produced a summary of what was well inthe public eye. It read as if she picked itup because he was a Conservative MP.

I am no conservative supporter. I would have posted the same reaction had he beenin the Labour party.

Because she's a feminist and posts frequently on Male violence against women, his wife is a conservative mp.

Sorry Iam64 I know you can speak for yourself.

the OP didn't read like that to me.
it is taking a headline from the news and commenting on it.
had it been an unknown bus driver or accountant, it is unlikely that any of us would know of it, as family court proceedings are not reported, or at least not in a way that identifies the parties.
this one was only reported because the press sought special permission to do so, and part of that reason was that he is/was a public person.
and had form for anti-women behaviour.
so maybe it serves as a warning to other women who may come across him.

Gwyneth

Here we go again!! Yes I agree Monica . What this man has done is despicable but his politics is irrelevant.

Of course butOP was NOT. Making a political point just as I said identifying the man, as per other headlines.

Very unfair attack on Iam64.

Quite frankly the criticism seems like unnecessary point scoring and an irrelevance.

A former Tory MP raped his wife. He belonged to a political party that promotes (or did) family values. Who voted on domestic violence.

A persons employment is part of their identity, particularly if their employment puts them into a relative position of power.

Are some posters seriously suggesting I used the media headlines, or started this discussion because I’m no fan of the current Conservative government?

I was hoping for a discussion on the significant issues raised by this case. It’s rare for a Family Court Judgement to be made public, that’s news worthy.

The Family Court Found on the balance of probability that Mr G Perpetrated rape/coercive control/physical abuse against his wife over a long period His status as an MP is relevant because of the power and influence MP’s hold. His behaviour towards two female constituents is already in the public domaine, he denied that as well. It’s, irrelevant which party he represents.
Is no one going to suggest it’s worth discussing the balance of probability v beyond reasonable doubt?

I must admit that I am unclear of the legal implications of the family courts decision. Why is he not in prison? Does it now go to criminal proceedings. I have found the reporting a bit unclear or I may be being a bit dense.

His wife didn’t make a report to the Police. If she had, the criminal case would have to be concluded before the Family Court concluded with Findings.
It’s not unusual for allegations of domestic abuse, including sexual abuse not to be prosecuted. Successful prosecution of rape is frighteningly rare.

Headline is raped his wife. Followed by balance of probability ,

so, he probably raped his wife ?

Because she's a feminist and posts frequently on Male violence against women, his wife is a conservative mp.
I am being pedantic here, but it matters.

The interpretation of the sentence is that the former Mrs. Griffiths is a Conservative MP because she is a feminist and posts frequently on male violence.
I don't think that was the intended meaning.