Tory MP Arrested For Rape

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
Mark Pritchard MP (Wrekin) has been arrested and bailed following an incident in central London.

There does not appear to be any connection to any of the historic cases currently under investigation.
 
Why are the Metropolitan Police writing to his employers about an as of yet unproven allegation?

Wednesday's Parliamentary Hansard record contains a reference to a letter from the Metropolitan Police to Speaker John Bercow, "relating to the arrest of Mark Pritchard, Member for The Wrekin".

The Met said a 48-year-old man had been arrested following an allegation of rape in central London.

The letter, from Met police officer Sandra Looby to Mr Bercow said: "I write to inform you that on December 2 Mark Pritchard MP was arrested at 6.14pm at Holborn Police Station in London by Metropolitan Police Service officers.
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
Probably because they are required to in these circumstances. The HoC may well have to take disciplinary procedures against Mr Pritchard too (suspension until the investigation is complete etc).
 
Probably because they are required to in these circumstances. The HoC may well have to take disciplinary procedures against Mr Pritchard too (suspension until the investigation is complete etc).

Not sure they did with Nigel Evans? He voluntarily stepped down and gave back the party whip to continue sitting as an independent.
 
Innocent till proven guilty gone out of fashion?

Wordsmith
Where's his presumed innocence being questioned? If a soldier was arrested for rape I'm sure his CO would be notified. The police have notified the speaker, it's not their fault the matter's been published in Hansard.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Where's his presumed innocence being questioned? If a soldier was arrested for rape I'm sure his CO would be notified. The police have notified the speaker, it's not their fault the matter's been published in Hansard.

My comment was aimed at Mr-Fingerz saying the HoC might suspend him pending the trial.

Wordsmith
 
Where's his presumed innocence being questioned? If a soldier was arrested for rape I'm sure his CO would be notified. The police have notified the speaker, it's not their fault the matter's been published in Hansard.

Why should any employer be told? Would a serviceman arrested outside of a military environment by civilian police have his CO told?
 
Lawmakers should be set higher standards than those who have to obey their legislation, so any arrest of an MP- and hell, the House must be full of crooks- should not be covered up in any way.

It's a price they should pay for the privilege of being MPs. There are certainly plenty of perks.
 
Lawmakers should be set higher standards than those who have to obey their legislation, so any arrest of an MP- and hell, the House must be full of crooks- should not be covered up in any way.

It's a price they should pay for the privilege of being MPs. There are certainly plenty of perks.

But again he has not been on trial in a court of law so is presumed innocent. Any actions by third parties prejudicial to that presumption of innocence, ie. publishing his name, informing his bosses, suspending him at work, is wrong in my opinion.
 
Why should any employer be told? Would a serviceman arrested outside of a military environment by civilian police have his CO told?

Believe me mate they do report servicemen through their CoC, something about "Notifiable Occupations"....

Fûcking drunken pinching of bicycles, I'd have gotten away with it if I hadn't rode straight into the side of a panda car.....
 
Last edited:

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Why should any employer be told? Would a serviceman arrested outside of a military environment by civilian police have his CO told?
Well it would save the army starting their AWOL procedures to hunt him down. I have vague recollection of a SIGSIX or something signal to go out after six days to start wheels turning. But I was a good boy, it was a long time ago and I cannot remember.
 
But again he has not been on trial in a court of law so is presumed innocent. Any actions by third parties prejudicial to that presumption of innocence, ie. publishing his name, informing his bosses, suspending him at work, is wrong in my opinion.

A price to be paid by those in the public eye in an open society.

If this was not disclosed and someone then leaked it to one of the rabid tabloids, the damage would be far greater.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
Why should any employer be told? Would a serviceman arrested outside of a military environment by civilian police have his CO told?


I kniow plenty of lads who've been handed over by civ plod to camp.
Gives them the opportunity to be charged twice.
What ever they got lifted for and section 69 or what ever conduct unbecoming was.
 
A price to be paid by those in the public eye in an open society.

If this was not disclosed and someone then leaked it to one of the rabid tabloids, the damage would be far greater.

But we do not and should not expect those in the public eye to surrender their human rights - the right to a fair trial for example.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
I kniow plenty of lads who've been handed over by civ plod to camp.
Gives them the opportunity to be charged twice.
What ever they got lifted for and section 69 or what ever conduct unbecoming was.
Section 69A. The legend that was JC, when he became RSM, told his NCOs that 69A was a lazy way of applying QRs and they weren't to use it, but to do some groundwork instead.
 
Why should any employer be told? Would a serviceman arrested outside of a military environment by civilian police have his CO told?
There are certain occupations where disclosure of arrest for a serious offence is permitted. If say, the police arrest a paediatric nurse for physically assaulting her own child, it's clearly in the public interest that her employer is aware. A serving soldier arrested for rape, who may have a position of authority over others, would come into the same category. That's the main reason police will disclose such information to employers. In the case of an MP, however, I think that after recent dealings with Andrew Mitchell and the guy who's office the Met searched a couple of years ago, they (the Met) will want Parliament (ie the Speaker) to understand as soon as possible what the circumstances of any contact is, before gobshites like David Davis pile in to castigate them for harrassing parliamentarians.
 
The police are meant to always inform the Speaker when an MP has been arrested. I can't off the top of my head, go into the exact reasoning, but it is to do with parliamentary privilege and having a means of preventing governments from having bothersome MPs arrested to get them out of the way; this dates back to various legislation from the 18th Century, itself inspired by the Civil War period and there's some link to before then, too (Ferrers case rings a bell).
 
My comment was aimed at Mr-Fingerz saying the HoC might suspend him pending the trial.

Wordsmith

A suspension, particularly on full pay, isn't a punishment, it's an administrative action.
 

Latest Threads

Top