Tag Archives: Charlie

#CharlieElphicke sex assault sentence exposes the privilege of the ruling class

Charlie Elphicke: his sentence is not proportionate to the anguish he has caused his victims.

Charlie Elphicke is not the alleged “Tory rapist” who’s currently still a member of Parliament although barred from participating in debates.

That matter has yet to be concluded.

But his two-year sentence for sexually assaulting two women reveals several damning truths about the UK’s justice system and how it cushions convictions against the privileged few.

Here’s the story:

Ex-Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been jailed for two years for sexually assaulting two women.
Elphicke, 49, the former MP for Dover, was convicted of groping the women in similar situations, nine years apart.
He denied the charges, but was found guilty of one count of sexual assault in 2007 and two further counts in 2016, after a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
The judge told Elphicke he was a “sexual predator who used your success and respectability as a cover”.
Within minutes of his jailing, Elphicke confirmed he would appeal against his conviction, arguing he had not had a “fair trial”.

That’s the official view. Now let’s hand over to people on Twitter who know far more about this subject than I do. Firstly:

He’s not the #ToryRapist, as stated at the top of this article. But the Conservative whips knew about him.

He is described in the so-called “dodgy dossier” of Conservative MPs with unsavoury sexual histories as: “Charlie Elphicke: inappropriate with female researchers.”

That’s an interesting euphemism to describe a man who had already committed sex crimes against two such researchers by the time the dossier became public knowledge in 2017.

This information should have been enough to put everybody in the Tory whips’ office at the time – along with then-prime minister Theresa May – right in the dock with Elphicke as accessories.

But that didn’t happen because they are above the law.

Yes: he used his success and respectability as a cover – exactly the same success and respectability that keeps his former Parliamentary colleagues from being investigated.

Elphicke himself was given a two-year custodial sentence, meaning he’ll serve 12 months unless he disgraces himself in prison somehow.

And to what kind of prison is he being sent – while he appeals against that sentence?

Contrast that with the life sentence that he handed down to the women he sexually assaulted. Their statements make horrific reading:

You can click on the images for the statements but let’s save you the bother.

According to Prosecutor Eloise Marshall QC, the first victim had a “significantly increased sense of caution” when coming into contact with men, including taxi drivers and butchers.

“The logical part of my brain is telling me to be polite to them but the emotional side is making me stressed.”

[This went] even to the extent that when the (police) officers came to take an account from her, she found it difficult to be alone with them.

She says she avoided being alone with men in general.

The second victim said in her impact statement, “I still remember how he made me feel, I still know those feelings of fear and helplessness.

“I do believe as a result of what happened, it changed how I perceived myself.

“Because of his acts, he stole a large part of my self-worth and self-esteem.

“My inner scars will always be there.”

There is one small element of poetic justice in this story, though: Elphicke voted to restrict the provision of legal aid, and then fell foul of the new restrictions.

At the time, he probably expected the change to affect only poor people, who need legal aid to have access to the justice system; without it, they can’t challenge the privileged few.

He didn’t realise that he was giving away his house as well.

Not to mention his liberty.

But then, it wouldn’t have happened if he could have kept his hands to himself.

Source: Charlie Elphicke: Ex-MP jailed for sex assaults on women – BBC News

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Tories knew about Elphicke’s sex crimes before he was charged – and did nothing. Why weren’t they arrested as accessories?

Charlie Elphicke: guilty of sex crimes. What about those in the Tory whips office who knew and are therefore accessories? What about Theresa May, the PM of the day, who also knew?

Former Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been found guilty of three counts of sexual assault this week, after being charged nearly three years ago.

But did you know that the Conservative Party’s Parliamentary whips had been well aware of his crimes before he was charged?

Their so-called “dirty dossier” of MPs (during the 2017-19 Parliament) who were known for their inappropriate behaviour included this line: “Charlie Elphicke: inappropriate with female researchers.”

Indeed.

We now learn that in 2007 he kissed and groped a woman at his home, while his wife was away for the night. He went on to chase her around the house, chanting, “I’m a naughty Tory.”

That woman was not identified as a researcher but in 2016 he tried to kiss and then groped a Parliamentary worker, afterwards allegedly saying, “I’m so naughty sometimes.” A month later he ran a hand up her thigh.

That he will be sentenced for his sexual assaults next month will come as scant comfort to the women he assaulted – or to the unknown number of other women (and men) who remain subject to sexual attack by predators who justify it by saying they’re “a naughty Tory”.

The copy of the Tory sexual offenders’ dossier available to me is nearly three years old. It became public knowledge in October 2017; Elphicke was charged in early November.

Who knows how many of the new intake of Tory MPs have joined those who kept their seats in the December 2019 election (Elphicke did not) on that list?

The simple fact is that a crime is a crime, even if committed by a member of Parliament, but these creeps seem to think they are above the law.

Knowing about a crime but hiding the evidence makes a person an accessory to the crime – equally guilty.

So why have the police not arrested those who occupied the Conservative whips’ office in October 2017 – and then-prime minister Theresa May, who was also aware of the list – as accessories to Elphicke’s sex crimes?

Source: Charlie Elphicke: Former Tory MP found guilty of three counts of sexual assault – Mirror Online

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

As ‘re-admit Chris Williamson’ demands swell, Labour’s leaders sit on their thumbs

Jennie Formby: She acts fast when there’s an opportunity to look tough, but when those decisions turn out to be wrong, she’s nowhere to be found.

When less than 200 MPs, peers and staff wrote to demand Chris Williamson’s re-suspension after his Labour membership was restored following an investigation into false allegations of anti-Semitism, general secretary Jennie Formby acted at once. Now more than 6,000 party members have demanded that this decision be reversed, and she has done nothing at all. Why?

To put this in proportionate terms, more than 30 times the number of Labour members who had Mr Williamson re-suspended have said the decision should be reversed. Labour is supposedly a democratic party and the will of the majority should prevail. But Ms Formby has done nothing.

The figures come from a LabourList weekly survey, which also revealed that an even larger majority of respondents believe that Labour’s disciplinary process – which sends serious cases to the “quasi-judicial” National Constitutional Committee – is subject to political interference and should be scrapped in favour of an independent process. The treatment of many cases – in which mere accusation was taken as an assumption of guilt – led to the NCC being dubbed the “National Kangaroo Court” by many, including This Writer.

And this is not the only development. The Labour Party of Northern Ireland has published a statement on Mr Williamson’s suspension, along with a motion that may be taken as a model for other Labour constituency parties.

The statement quotes in full the words said by the MP which have been selectively quoted by his critics, and also quotes analysis of anti-Semitism in the party that shows it is a negligible issue with only 0.05 per cent of members being said to have engaged in any activity that could even be claimed to have been anti-Semitic. This compares with a national average of around five per cent (which in itself is a shocking figure).

It continues: “All anti-semitism should be considered a scourge and a problem that needs addressing. However, it is a fair comment to say that the Labour Party does not have any form of particular problem with anti-semitism . It is also fair to say that Labour Party members are not to blame for the narrative that suggests that there is a particular problem with anti-semitism in the party.

“It logically follows that members of the Labour Party should not feel that they should be apologetic about something that has been shown to be false.

“It does not diminish the scourge of anti-semitism to state these things. Members are entitled to feel proud of the Labour Party’s history of anti-racism and support for minority communities and for all of those facing discrimination and oppression. They are entitled to encourage others to join the party and to support it on the basis of its anti-racist and wholly inclusive credentials.

“Any member is entitled to say that those who are agreeing and apologising for the Labour Party having a particular problem with anti-semitism, is a concession to falsehoods and distortions. In a climate where such falsehoods and distortions proliferate, members are entitled to challenge the narrative. They are entitled to scrutinise complaints. They are entitled to adopt an inquisitorial approach to allegations. Every member who is accused is entitled to the absolutely fundamental principle of justice; that they are considered innocent until it is established otherwise.

“Most of all, every member is entitled to be subject to the democratically determined rules and procedures governing the Party and to demand that those rules and procedures be upheld and not be subject to the arbitrariness of public opinion and pressure.”

In my own case, I was treated as though I were guilty from the moment I was falsely accused. Chris Williamson has had the same treatment. So have many others.

And those who endorse the falsehoods and distortions are still being given the oxygen of publicity by mass-media news organisations. Only last week, Labour Lord Falconer appeared on the BBC’s #PoliticsLive to deplore Mr Williamson’s perfectly reasonable comments as anti-Semitic and to damn him further by association with (among others) Jackie Walker, who had been accused of saying that Jews were chief financiers of the slave trade – except, of course, we know that she didn’t say that. The other person in the video is Tosh McDonald, a friend and supporter of Mr Williamson.

I reckon Charlie Falconer knew that what he was saying wasn’t true. Ms Walker would have made it perfectly clear in her defence and I made it perfectly clear in mine (two of the charges against me related to my support for her). He referred to notes, so he should have had that information. And now, of course, the BBC has confirmed the falsehood of the claim.

Yet Lord Charlie Falconer has faced no censure whatsoever for his words. When will his party membership be suspended? When will his misbehaviour be investigated? When will questions be asked about his motivations?

I reckon we all know the answer to that: Never.

Labour’s general secretary, Jennie Formby, was bombarded with tweets demanding action to reinstate falsely-purged party members including myself, Ms Walker and Mr Williamson after the BBC’s admission. To my knowledge, she has not responded in any way at all. She is running away from her party’s mistakes prejudice.

Perhaps she’ll respond if a party member – or several of them – makes an official complaint.

Who’ll give it a go?

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

DWP lies about Universal Credit again: Poster boy ‘Charlie’ is an ACTOR

Here’s Charlie. According to Amber Rudd, he’s a Universal Credit success story who has now embarked on a “training career”.

And… here’s Charlie. According to The Canary, based on research by Universal Credit Sufferer writer Alex Tiffin, he’s a TV extra who has appeared on programmes including First Dates.

Yes, we’re discussing the same person.

Here’s what Mr Tiffin found:

Gosh – a Universal Credit claimant who’s been able to travel extensively and enjoy other recreational activities (without being harassed by the DWP)? It seems too good to be true!

One wonders if the DWP got him from the same acting agency as the so-called Vicar of Brexit?

But the DWP said it was true…

… and then the DWP deleted the advert from its website, perhaps after reading the details of Charlie’s recent life in the Canary article.

Still unanswered are the questions asked in that piece,  which were:

  • Why it got a media professional to take part in its video.
  • Why it got someone who has seemingly not been in extended periods of financial difficulty.
  • Why it thought Watson was representative of Universal Credit.
  • Why it failed to inform viewers of his background.

It’s like some kind of reverse IQ test – are people stupid enough to believe the DWP’s lies yet?

Remember Zac and Sarah?

‘Zac’ – he doesn’t exist either and his story has also been faked by the DWP.

‘Sarah’ – she doesn’t exist and her story is a fake.

Fictional people, played by actors.

They were part of a publicity initiative by the DWP under Iain Duncan Smith in 2015, which I discussed in this article at the time.

It seems the DWP has not learned its lesson – or its leaders think we have poor memories.

Perhaps it is hoping that our intelligence is failing us.

Well, it isn’t and we don’t.

Amber Rudd is trying to brazen it out – all she has done so far is remove the offending advert from the DWP’s website.

But she has tried to deceive the people of the UK – as Iain Duncan Smith tried in 2015. We deserve an apology –  or better still, a resignation. She’ll be familiar with the process.