Judicial Double standards when it’s two men?

From BBC Scotland last night:

An appeal has been dismissed after a former Labour MP’s claim that he was groped by a Conservative politician in a House of Commons bar was rejected. Paul Sweeney accused then-Tory MP Ross Thomson of trying to fondle him and force his hand down his trousers in 2018. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards cleared Mr Thomson in October last year after an inquiry. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had said witness statements did not support Mr Sweeney’s version of events. While she said that Mr Thomson had invaded his accuser’s personal space by leaning on him and repeatedly putting his arm around him, she concluded that this did not amount to being sexually inappropriate.

Tory MP Ross Thompson quits after being accused of groping Labour's Paul  Sweeney
Sweeney and Thomson

Had Mr Sweeney been a woman and Mr Thomson been a senior SNP politician, would that have been sexually inappropriate even harassment?

In the Scottish Parliament Sexual Harassment and Sexist Behaviour Survey report of February 2018, the most reported forms of unwanted physical contact experienced were the invasion of personal space with touching of shoulders, back and other parts.

From the UN Women Watch definition, sexual harassment is described as including unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching. hugging, kissing, patting, or stroking.

I fail to see the difference other than that the victim here was a man. Is the judge (she) suggesting Sweeney should have been more of a man and punched Thomson?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is untitled-137.png

10 thoughts on “Judicial Double standards when it’s two men?

  1. Brit Nats getting “friendly” with strong booze involved?

    This is what they want for Scotland. England getting us woozy on “promises”, leaning on us, holding us tight, putting its hands all over us and touching our “parts”.
    “Hands down our trousers”? Oh, its worse than that. They want to strip us naked and exploit us repeatedly. Dirty old geezer!


  2. Another whitewash. Drunken boorish behaviour. He has a reputation for it. He was cleared just as they clear all unionists rep. To try and favour. To try and avoid any scandal. Cover up. He probably cannot remember conveniently playing the victim.


  3. Me thinks Sweeney levelled the wrong charge against Thomson
    In fact 2 separate charges should been made
    1.inebriated and incapable
    2.Offensive and indecent behavior
    Then it becomes quite simply that Thomson
    Cannot possibly argue or defend both charges
    It then becomes either 1 or the other he wriggles out of
    But with the risk guilty of both
    It is not a matter of what you level the charge at
    But one of making sure one at least one takes him down
    Also if found not guilty then the those that pass judgement, stand the risk of making a fool of themselves
    All akin to a double barrelled shot gun if the 1st misses then you fire the 2nd one


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.