Labour MP Kerry McCarthy has made allegations to the Guardian newspaper and another outlet about fellow Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins, who was suspended last week after ‘Labour activist’ Ava Etemadzadeh accused him of inappropriate behaviour. These are expected to be published early this evening.
A week ago the SKWAWKBOX was the first to publish Hopkins’ formal response to Ms Etemadzadeh’s claims and his evidence shed a new light on the situation. However due process needs to be observed and those claims investigated properly.
The allegations are said to concern letters dating from the early 1990s by Hopkins to McCarthy that were described to this blog as ‘charming and old-fashioned’.
Mr Hopkins is in evident distress that a new set of allegations has been made. The SKWAWKBOX has already obtained a copy of his formal response:
Last week deeply upsetting allegations were published and broadcast about me. They appeared in the press before any allegations had been put to me by the Labour Party. Unsurprisingly, I, my wife and my family have been living under tremendous stress and pressure. The media camped outside my house and I had to leave my home with my wife to get away from the extraordinary intrusion into my family life.
Since then I have been again been put under further pressure by two press organisations claiming to have received complaints about me from my parliamentary colleague, Kerry McCarthy MP. This has caused me immense personal hurt and utter dismay.
I have known Kerry McCarthy MP personally and professionally since about 1993. She was Chair of my Constituency Labour Party. She sat on a joint local Labour Party Agency Committee with me. We both stood as selection candidates for Luton North in 1995. She became a MP in 2005 and has been a member of the Shadow Cabinet. She is a person of substantial standing on the national stage and I counted her as a friend.
If it is true that my Parliamentary colleague and long time friend has made a complaint about me via the press, then I am deeply saddened by this. I cannot understand why a Parliamentarian of such experience and standing, who is also such a long term friend, would not have told me that she was unhappy with any aspect of our friendship rather than going straight to the national press. At a minimum I would have expected a Parliamentary colleague to raise any complaint through normal channels, allowing me due process and a fair chance to defend myself, if necessary.
If Kerry McCarthy MP raises a complaint with the Labour Party in the normal and fair way, I will of course fully cooperate with any investigation. However I do ask, on my behalf and on behalf of all other individuals and their families dealing with allegations, that these matters are dealt with by proper due process and not by unfair, humiliating one-sided trial by media. I am a 76 year old man and the stress this has caused me and my family is unbearable. All I ask for is proper due process and not to be convicted and vilified by the press before the details of the allegations are even investigated and put to me properly if they need to be.
Readers will draw their own conclusions as evidence comes to light.
However, given the terrible human cost of ‘trial by media’ on Welsh Labour Assembly Member Carl Sargeant and his family, the SKWAWKBOX hopes the mainstream media will exercise some restraint and allow due process to take place without the circus they have indulged in so far – especially as there appears to be no implication of any physical contact, duress or bullying.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
#METOO seems to be taking on many different connotations depending on annunciation and inflection
There are no crimes in the world which warrant the current persecution through these Media Trials instead of following the legitimate procedures – only if not done satisfactorily should another way be looked at imho.
Kerry McCarthy is a well known bliarite isn’t she?
Wiki notes:
In May 2009 McCarthy repaid £402 for a second bed claimed in expenses for her one bedroom flat. She stated the claim had been made in error.[23][24]
In October 2010 McCarthy admitted a charge of electoral fraud, accepting a police caution for revealing on Twitter the number of postal votes cast per party in her constituency at the 2010 election, and apologised for this action.[9][25][26][27]
In May 2012 McCarthy branded a fellow train passenger a “lager drinking oaf” and suggested he should “have been killed before he could breed” in comments made to over 13,000 followers on Twitter.[28]
Oh! So what she says cannot possibly be true, eh?
Having read the article in the Independent the whole story seems to be based on an un-attributable leak. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kelvin-hopkins-sexual-harassment-labour-mp-femal-woman-backbencher-activist-allegations-a8048341.html
Why are certain members of the Labour party hell-bent on undermining the party’s disciplinary processes. How is anyone, let alone victims, supposed to have any confidence if the whole process is has leaky as a sieve. Whoever is doing the ‘leaking’ needs to be outed..
This supposes that Labour Party disciplinary processes are worth the paper they are written on. One only had to look at the string of statements made by a Labour MP on the Carl Sargent situation that ended with meekly compliant “they followed the procedures”. That simply isn’t good enough., is it?
I find it difficult to understand why you should conflate the two in this way, plus if you read my comment further down you will see that as it has now emerged that Kerry McCarthy herself is the one indulging in trial by media which in light of the recent tragic events involving Carl is a deeply irresponsible thing to do. Kerry reported this to the chief whip last Friday and to Corbyn’s office on Monday, she should have left it at that and let the inquiry take its course.
I am unable to determine in the sentence structure above what you regard as being irresponsible. I am assuming but is trial by media, which I totally agree with.
My apologies for not making myself clearer. However your assumption was correct so one way or another I obviosly got my message across.
My original point still stands. “Only following procedure” is up there with being compelled to obey a bad law, or subservience to authority without question. None of these are correct if there are moral, humanitarian, or ethical reasons to disobey, or any procedure is outdated or not for for purpose. That is, if you think that following procedures to be the primary exemplar, you must have confidence that the procedures are fit for purpose. As someone who has written a lot of procedures in my time, I see many that were not thought through, nor based on realistic risk assessments, or simply assumed that circumstances, especially those involving human beings, didn’t just drop through the conditions covered. We all see the legacy of the Stephen Lawrence murder, where things were “done by the book” but the book allowed a too-wide discretion. Similar in the Assange case, where vital emails have been deleted “following procedures”. All I’m doing is sounding a word of caution. Sometimes not following procedures – eg whistleblowers who have exhausted other procedures – are morally correct.
Your general theme may be correct but for reasons best known to yourself you do attempt to conflate a lot of very disparate areas. This unfortunately gives the impression that you’ve got a bit of a bee in your bonnet rather than a well thought out argument
It does rather beg the question though, who is the arbiter of what is a good or bad procedure.
The LP have been warned for over a year now that their method of auto-suspending and auto-expelling members without informing them of details of the accusations will have serious effects on mental health and well-being of the accused. Many of us have had personal experience of this when we were “purged”and disenfranchised during the leadership election. Those responsible in the NEC must be investigated and held to account.
Having read the article in the Guardian it appears that the one indulging in trial by media is Kerry McCarthy herself. Taking into account very recent events does she really consider this to be a responsible thing to do.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/labour-mp-accuses-kelvin-hopkins-of-inappropriate-behaviour
Reblogged this on Hercules space.
Reblogged this on Jaffer's blog.
Has Kerry McCarthy never been capable of writing back to Kelvin Hopkins and telling him she finds his comments sexist & demeaning & will he kindly desist from such behaviour, because she is uncomfortable with it? And of course lodging a copy with solicitors.
Or reporting/threatening to report it to the Whips’ Office if it happened again?
Strange she should suddenly decide enough is enough 2 or 3 years after the last such occurrence, especially as she must have known of the original Etematzedah complaint that the whips censured Hopkins for.
Having spoken to several of my female friends they are mystified why anyone would save these notes (the eldest for over 20yrs). They obviously didn’t cause her that much distress because otherwise she’d have done something about it long, long ago.
Why on earth didn’t she just make it clear that his attentions were unwelcome. As far as I can see there wasn’t a power differential between the two of them.
There are photographs of the actual notes plus a fuller acount from Kerry here if you’re curious.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/10/suspended-labour-mp-reveals-second-allegation-has-made-against/
They’re very pristine those notes aren’t they … considering they’re 20 years old. Maybe she’s been keeping them in a poly pocket or something.
Precisely-any women I know would have said right at the start that they felt uncomfortable with it, however well-meaning it might have been. They would have doubtless said so in different ways or by different means, but if they felt in the least bit uncomfortable about it, they would not continue to put up with it.
I would also say that neither men or women are congenitally likely to become MP’s in the first place if they are shrinking violets by nature-how else would you fight a perceived or actual injustice on behalf of any constituent if you meekly accept any status quo or agenda in your own private life?
The paragraph I find particularly telling in the Telegraph article is
“Kerry McCarthy said she had been reassured and encouraged by the response she received after raising it with chief whip Nick Brown last Friday and party leader Jeremy Corbyn’s office on Monday.”
Which begs the question of why on earth did she think it was a good idea to go to the press instead of letting the investigation run its course. If she was unhappy at the conclusions then by all means go to the press at that stage. To do so now I think is recklessly irresponsible. We have seen the tragic results that trial by media can contribute towards just a few days ago.
Yes, exactly, as if she couldn’t have just written back to him at the outset if she really DID feel uncomfortable about it and told him she’s not interested. But not only doesn’t she at any point do that, but she also has lunch with him a second time if I’ve read the Telegraph article correctly. Why do they all – Bex Baily, Ava whatsit and this woman – come across as poor, helpless females…….
eg ‘She found his behaviour “upsetting” but did not report it in the past because she did not feel she had anywhere to turn.’
But she thought she’d save all these “upsetting” notes anyway. Yeah, sure, of course.
I don’t suppose there are very many people tuning in to this thread now, but I’ll ask anyway: Does anyone know how many of these notes he sent her. The Telegraph article only mentions four or five, and yet the headline to the article states:
Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins ‘inflicted decades of unwanted attention on MP Kerry McCarthy’
And the strange thing is that they put inverted commas round a section of the headline implying of course that this is something she herself has said, and yet nowhere in the article do they mention it and clarify that she said it.
Given that the first note was sent in the mid-nineties, it can only be TWO decades of course, and if – as the headline implies – he had sent her dozens of notes, then there is no question whatsoever that they would have mentioned the exact number at some point, which leads me to suspect there was only the five that they mention, but have, in true Tory black propaganda fashion, totally distorted the story so as to give the impression that he sent her dozens and dozens of notes over a period of twenty years or so.
And at another point they do something really really weird, and just plonk a one-line quote in the middle of two paragraphs, neither of which have any relation to the quote. Here’s that whole section:
However, she spoke out to support Ms Etemadzadeh, whose complaints to Nick Brown, the chief whip, with fresh information following an initial complaint over dealings with the MP in 2014 and 2015 led to his suspension last week.
“I don’t believe that I am the only one,” she added.
The Bristol East MP said that in 1994, when she was chairwoman of Luton North constituency Labour Party (CLP) and he chaired Luton South CLP, he invited her out for lunch, ostensibly to discuss political issues.
At the end of the quote it says ‘she added’, and yet there was nothing prior to that, that it had been added to. One can only conclude that they wanted to put it in somewhere so as to make it look like Kelvin has done such things repeatedly, but they couldn’t figure out where to place it in the article, and in the end, THAT was the best spot they could think of.
And in the article it says the following:
She told the Telegraph: “I couldn’t leave Ava to fight this alone when elements of my story are so similar.”
Ah, so she did it – ie went public with it – to back up Eva’s story. The joke of it is of course that both she, and The Telegraph, will have seen Kelvin’s response which, in effect, demolishes Eva’s story completely, but THAT is of no consequence of course, as they have an agenda – a mission – to accomplish, and that is to not only reduce Labour’s lead in the opnion polls as far as possible, but to have them trailing the Tory Party by a very big margin.
Anyway, as for the reason she gives for having lunch with Kelvin a second time, this is the best she/they could come up with:
Ms McCarthy said she went to another lunch with Mr Hopkins because she found it awkward to say no.
One poster above – ie Ron – said the following:
In May 2012 McCarthy branded a fellow train passenger a “lager drinking oaf” and suggested he should “have been killed before he could breed” in comments made to over 13,000 followers on Twitter…..
She certainly doesn’t come across as a shrinking violet, and yet “had no one she could turn to”, and “found it awkward to say no”. And you hardly need to be a solicitor to see through all the inconsistencies in Ava ? story (once you’ve read Kelvin’s account of it all), but THAT is what she is, and yet we’re expected to believe that she didn’t. And THAT tells you all you need to know.
And I haven’t come across an explanation for this photo of her that Kelvin sent her. Was it a photo that Kelvin took of her? If you check out the article in The Telegraph you’ll see that there’s a note that he sent her along with the photo which says “Hope you like it”, which would seem to indicate that he himself took the picture at some point or other.
There’ a couple of other things, but I’m gonna leave them until next time.
After all that, I forgot to leave a link! (says yahoo in the link, but it is the Telegraph article):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kerry-mccarthy-claims-suspended-mp-170735081.html
BINGO!!! This is from a Guardian article:
‘The Guardian has a total of five cards or notes sent by Hopkins to McCarthy over the years.’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/labour-mp-accuses-kelvin-hopkins-of-inappropriate-behaviour
I’ve been checking through the daily newspapers etc to see which of them have published Kelvin’s response to the accusations made by Ava Etemadzadeh, Someone on Sqwawkbox mentioned that The Metro had published it, and they had, in full, on the 3rd of November. I just checked them out on wikipedia, and here’s a couple of bits from it:
‘Metro is a free newspaper published in tabloid format in the United Kingdom by DMG Media (part of Daily Mail and General Trust). It is distributed from Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) on many public-transport services and stations in cities and towns across the United Kingdom.
In October 2016 circulation was increased to nearly 1.5 million and in June 2017 it became the biggest weekday newspaper by daily circulation, overtaking The Sun for the first time with a circulation of 1,479,775’ (and is read by more than 3.5 million people).
Anyway, during the past couple of days I’ve checked the Mail, Express, Sun, Guardian and Independent (and Telegraph of course), and not a dickybird, which one would expect of the four right-wing Tory propaganda rags, but I would have hoped for better from the Guardian and Indy.
I checked out the Sky News website a bit earlier, and they do in fact quote three paragraphs from Kelvin’s response, including what she said in the email she sent him just a few hours after he supposedly rubbed his crotch against her. And it’s the first time any of the articles I’ve read mentions that Kelvin’s response was “issued through his solicitors”.
And just prior to coming on to Sqwawkbox I checked out the London Evening Standard, and surprise suprise, they quote it in full (more-or-less).
The big question though is did the Metro and Standard have it in the actual hard-copy newspapers (as opposed to just on their websites). I wouldn’t put any money on it.
Just this minute came across this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41861485/ava-etemadzadeh-on-her-claims-about-labour-mp-kelvin-hopkins
And now I’ve just come across the following, which beggars belief. The part regarding Kelvin, that is. If you’ve listened to what she says in the above video clip, then you’ll be amazed to now read that it was in a text that Kelvin sent her! I mean WT….! But THAT’S nothing compared to what comes shortly after. It mentions the statement – his response – issued by his solicitors, quotes a few lines, and then merely says:
‘He said she replied to the message.’
It really is as if whoever wrote it – or edited it afterwards – did it so as to play with Kelvin’s emotions (should he happen to read it). Raise his hopes for a few seconds, and then bring him right down again, back in to the shock and disbelief and distress and devastation.
And NOW of course, he’s had his already blown mind blown again. And it’s all an endless source of amusement to the sadistic psychopaths who did it to him.
:
Just checked the Daily Mirror, and they published Kelvin’s response in full:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-suspends-mp-kelvin-hopkins-11458062
But was it in the actual newspaper? Can anyone confirm whether it was?
Just this minute checked the Manchester Evening News, and they just include one line from one of the texts she sent Kelvin right at the very end of the article:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ivan-lewis-mp-groping-claim-13857605
The Scottish newspaper The Herald published it in full:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15640737.Kevin_Hopkins__statement_in_full/
The Scotsman includes key parts of Kelvin’s statement:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/kelvin-hopkins-categorically-denies-inappropriate-conduct-allegations-1-4604208
Not a dickybird in the Daily Record
The following article in The Scotsman lists when Kelvin sent Kerry McCarthy notes/cards and when, and it amounts to six. Six over a period of twenty years. My, my, how on Earth did she endure it for such a long time:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/i-suffered-years-of-unwanted-attention-from-kelvin-hopkins-says-labour-mp-1-4610414
Just checked out the Socialist Worker, and there doesn’t appear to be anything about the statement KH made regarding Ava E’s allegations. I must say I’m amazed that they haven’t published it in full.
And I just came across the following. Yeah, so KH rubbed his crotch against her – which she found “revolting” – and sometime later he invites her to the House of Commons and she goes. Well, I mean you would, wouldn’t you. Anyway, it’s a four minute clip from Channel 4 News, and it’s Michael Crick interviewing Ava E, and of course it makes perfect sense to Crick that she should accept an invitation to meet up with the the guy that rubbed his crotch against her, so there’s no need to ask her why she accepted the invitation and went. No, of course not:
http://www.trump.ma/post/UVZPUGN2WVFRbVE=/labour-mp-kelvin-hopkins-suspended-for-inappropriate-behaviour/
Deeply saddened by all that is happening at the moment which seems to be driven by the press who are blood thirsty without thought of the consequences.
As i’ve stated, the right wing of the labour party will stop at nothing to ‘get’ Corbyn – this just casts more doubt on the regeneration of labour and also highlights the rotten core of right wing labour MPs.
– right wing labour oxymoron
It was reported yesterday that at least one of Ms McCarthy’s reasons for coming forward is to offer support to the young lady who has been “rubbished” (for want of a better word) on forums such as this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/labour-mp-accuses-kelvin-hopkins-of-inappropriate-behaviour
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/
Graham, when has either woman involved in the accusations against Kelvin Hopkins been ‘rubbished’ on the SKWAWKBOX? Be specific.
You’ll note that I said “..forums such as this…”
A selection of comments follows.
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48904
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48906
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48911
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48912
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-49086
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48913
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48917
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48924
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48926
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48942
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48944
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48945“
“Moderation” siding again.
2nd post.
You’ll note that I said “..forums such as this…”
A selection of comments follows.
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48904″
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48906”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48911”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48912”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-49086”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48913”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48917”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48924”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48926”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48942”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48944”
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/#comment-48945“
Your long, long list is rather irrelevant because ‘Skwawkbox’ was obviously referring to editorial content whereas all your long list refers to is readers comments.
Comments that these two ladies made a conscious decision to invite when they went for the trial by media option.
If you disagree with what individuals have posted then you should challenge those individuals by using the facilities provided by this discussion forum. Trying to imply that ‘Skwawkbox’ is responsible for these
comments is obviously nonsense, isn’t it?
It’s is quite simple really. If both of these women had waited until the enquiry had reached its conclusion before going to the press, instead of indulging in trial by media, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
Both of these women have intentionally put their accusations up for public scrutiny, they really shouldn’t be surprised when the public do exactly what the pair of them have invited them to do.
Again a double post to get around the “moderation” message.
It was reported yesterday
“https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/labour-mp-accuses-kelvin-hopkins-of-inappropriate-behaviour”
that at least one of Ms McCarthy’s reasons for coming forward is to offer support to the young lady who has been “rubbished” (for want of a better word) on forums such as this.
“https://skwawkbox.org/2017/11/03/excl-kelvin-hopkins-formal-statement/”
But none of what you say explains why she decided to go running to the press, does it?
Given the public “rubbishing” of Ms Etemadzadeh perhaps the idea is to fight fire with fire, but I would agree with, and also suggest additions to, Skwawkbox’s words in the final paragraph above:
“However, given the terrible human cost of ‘trial by media’ on Welsh Labour Assembly Member Carl Sargeant and his family, the SKWAWKBOX hopes the mainstream [online and social] media will exercise some restraint and allow, [in the interests of both accused, whether Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, SNP, Conservative or any other party, and accusers] due process to take place without the circus they have indulged in so far….”
Both of these women have intentionally put their accusations up for public scrutiny, no one shouldn be surprised when the public do exactly what the pair of them have invited everyone to do. It was their choice to attempt to manipulate the media in order to gain advantage in the trial by media game that they had decided to indulge in,
oh dear the greedie ones are worried they chucking mud to rid themselves of true labour people
Look out for Tom Watson and nubile young female staffer, told to ‘keep quiet or it will damage Labour”.
I am all in favour of due process, and loathe this latest ‘guilty before proven innocent’ trial by media. If McCarthy is convinced she was wronged, then going through official channels and setting out her case, is the right way to go. Hopkins may or may not be guilty, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until compelling evidence is brought forward to remove that doubt.
@SteveH
I posted “…the young lady who has been “rubbished” (for want of a better word) on forums such as this….”
There was no suggestion that the “rubbishing” was in the editorial content, nor that Skwawkbox was responsible for it. Indeed you yourself use the word “forum” to refer to the discussion element of this site.
Skwawkbox asked for specifics of the “rubbishing” – I have provided them.
But the substantive point is that the lady has in fact been “rubbished” on this website.
If you feel so strongly about it then address the individual poster’s comments, otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
It is worth bearing in mind that if these two ladies hadn’t decided to indulge in trial by media.before the conclusion of the enquiry then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Lady makes public allegation against film producer – “brave, courageous……”
Lady makes public allegation against politician – “I believe Kevin(sic), she has some nerve, trying to destroy a man’s reputation. Just looking for attentsion(sic). I hope she does not gain anything from this.” (Comment 48944 above)
Funny old world.
Why are you continuing to waste your time addressing me on these issues.
“If you feel so strongly about it then address the individual poster’s comments, otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.”
You actually involved yourself in what was a question to me from Skwawkbox and a reply from me to him. But I’ll post anything further as a general comment, and not a reply to you.
Graham: I was wondering if you challenged any of the posts which you cited and, if not, why not.
Anyway, in The Guardian article you linked to it says the follwing:
McCarthy, 52, said the questioning of Etemadzadeh’s claims and motives in the media had prompted her to come forward.
I assume that you have obviously seen the statement made by Kelvin Hopkins in response to Ava Etemadzadeh’s allegations, so can I ask you if it makes sense to you that just a few hours after Kelvin (supposedly) rubbed his crotch against her – which she found “revolting” – she sent him a text in which tells him he’s “a star” etc, and finishes by giving him a “x”.
And this of course is just one example of the inconsistencies and contradictions and disparities in her version of events. So are you saying it’s wrong of people to question her claims, and that they have no justification for doing so. If what she says in her texts (to him) are totally at odds with what she claims he did (or said), then YOU have no problem with that whatsoever. Is that right?
Anyone who has read Kelvin Hopkins’ response and, as such, what Ava Etemadzadeh says in her texts, will of course know that what she says in her texts is totally at odds with what she now claims happened, and I have no doubt whatsoever that Kerry McCarthy would have seen his statement within hours of it being released by his solicitors on the 3rd of November. Are we really supposed to believe that Ms McCarthy didn’t see the inconsistencies and contradictions between what she claims happened and what she said in her texts? Of course she did, and THAT tells you everything you need to know about HER..
Let me put it this way: If Ava Etemadzadeh’s claims are fabrications – which they are of course – and Kerry McCarthy knows that to be the case, then to say – as she does – that one of the reasons she came forward was because Ava Etemadzadeh’s claims and motives were being questioned in the media is, of course, a falsehood, because any honest person would have been saying that Ms Etemadzadeh claims are implausible in the light of what she said in her texts.
Agreed?
You ask whether I challenged any of the “rubbishing” posts.
To be blunt – life is too short. There were many of them and to take your position as typical the young lady must be dishonest based solely on what Mr Hopkins has released. I can’t debate that because I don’t have all the evidence and don’t know where the truth lies.
I just have this old fashioned view that neither Mr Hopkins nor the ladies are guilty of anything until something (in this case an inquiry) shows them to be so.
Allegations have been made, a defence has been filed and a finding will eventually be made.To cast either side as “sex pest” or “liar” respectively seems premature.
Graham: You didn’t respond to a question I put to you, so here it is again:
I assume that you have obviously seen the statement made by Kelvin Hopkins in response to Ava Etemadzadeh’s allegations, so can I ask you if it makes sense to you that just a few hours after Kelvin (supposedly) rubbed his crotch against her – which she found “revolting” – she sent him a text in which tells him he’s “a star” etc, and finishes by giving him a “x”.
And here’s another:
Does it sound plausible that a woman who had a man rub his crotch against her – which she found revolting – then accept an invitation from that person to meet them at the House of Commons, and spend two hours with them and have lunch with them there?
Or to be more precise regarding the visit to the HofC to quote from Kelvin’s statement.
” When I had visited Essex University I had made an invite to the students to visit the House of Commons. I often take groups and individuals on tours of the Palace of Westminster and often dine with my guests in the House. Arrangements were made for a group of about 8 students to come to Westminster early in 2015. I believe the group trip was cancelled but Ava still wanted to visit and came to Westminster on 2 February 2015″
Or you could actually do something useful and challenge the individual comments you profess to be so concerned about.
I find it extraordinary that, unless I missed it, no-one has remarked upon the fact that this accuser’s surname is McCarthy…
Perhaps because it’s irrelevant?
@Allan Howard / @Steve H
I really can’t say much more. I have not seen all the evidence and am not prepared to judge either Mr Hopkins or Ms Etemadzadeh (or Ms MCarthy). I understand that a Labour party enquiry is under way and will no doubt publish its conclusions in due course.
Graham: What more “evidence” do you need. And isn’t it odd – to say the least – that Ava E didn’t mention the crotch rubbing when she reported KH for (supposedly) asking her personal questions and saying he’d have liked to take her to his office etc when she met him at the HoC. I mean don’t you think that’s extremely odd…. Oh sorry, I was forgetting that you’re waiting for more evidence. But I can’t help wondering if she (and her minders) realised that if she mentioned THAT, someone might just ask her the glaringly obvious question – ie “So why on Earth did you go to the HoC to spend time with the man who had previously rubbed his crotch against you?”.
And how do you answer a question like that!? Tricky one, eh. Best to avoid such an awkward question, hmm?
Your mind is obviously made up. I’ll wait for the investigation to complete.
It’s interesting you should say that Graham. It’s odd isn’t it that Ava E should contact KH about twenty months after her visit to the HoC – where, she claims, he asked her things about her personal life etc – and ask him for advice about finding work? Just about everything she’s done from the outset is inexplicable. (Ah, but I keep forgetting, you’re gonna wait until the investigation concludes – they publish them then do they? – so just ignore the rest of this post)
I mean first of all he holds her tight and rubs his crotch against her, and then she goes to the HoC and he asks her personal stuff and says how he’d have liked to get her in his office alone, and then she contacts him and asks him for advice. And what makes the last of these even MORE inexplicable, if that’s possible, is that after the visit to the HoC, she reported what happened to whoever in the LP, and HE was reprimanded by Rosy Winterton. Talking of which, it is odd when you think about it that KH WAS reprimanded at all. It implies that although he still had her texts, he didn’t utilise them – and especially the one she sent him shortly after leaving the HoC – to support his denial that none of what she alledged happened HAPPENED. And one can only imagine that if he HAD, they would have then contacted Ava E to ask her to explain herself.
I don’t recall what the timeline was – ie how long it was after her visit to the HoC that she reported him to whoever at the LP – but it wasn’t THAT long afterwards – ie just a matter of weeks, at the most. And the crazy thing about her reporting it shortly afterwards is that she knew of course that she had sent him that text just after leaving the HoC AND that he would almost definitely still have it. The point being of course that just about everyone on the planet above the age of about nine would agree that it’s inconceivable that someone who had the experience she claimed she had, could then send, and WOULD then send, that person the text that she sent him.
But she reported him/it anyway. And then he DIDN’T reveal the text to prove his innocence (and that she fabricated all of it), which is also inexplicable. I can’t think of any reason offhand why he wouldn’t, but one thing is for certain (and this was all prior to the crotch allegation seeing the light of day of course), he knew he had been set up. And by NOT revealing the text, he left Ava E and her minders thinking that he didn’t have it any more, but not absolutely sure of course, and maybe that’s why they came up with the ruse of her contacting him for advice, hoping that he might throw it at her, demanding angrily why she did such a thing. But it didn’t turn out like that, and he cooly phoned her and gave her some advice. And you can be 150% certain that he recorded it…….!
Anyway, the plot thickens (and my brain hurts!)
Hasta
The following is from the Daily Telegraph article – ie “Telegraph investigation” – on November 2nd:
Ms Etemadzadeh told the Telegraph that she met Mr Hopkins in 2013. The following year, she invited him to speak at a Labour event at Essex University, where she was Chair of the university’s Labour society.
She alleges that after the event, when she was 24,he hugged her very tightly and rubbed his crotch against her.
“He hugged me to say goodbye, held me too tight and rubbed his crotch on me, which I found revolting, she said.
Following the event, Ms Etemadzadeh, who has a long standing interest in politics and was meeting the MP to discuss the General Election, exchanged several text messages with the MP.
At the beginning of February 2015, the activist accepted an invitation from Mr Hopkins to visit him in Parliament and alleged that he asked questions about her personal life, including whether she had a boyfriend.
So KH holds her tightly and rubs his crotch against her and she then exchanges several text messages with him and then accepts an invitation to visit him in Parliament, and The Telegraph doesn’t think to ask her WHY she exchanged several text messages with him (after he did such a “revolting” thing to her), and doesn’t think to ask WHY she accepted an invitation to visit him in Parliament (after he did such a “revolting” thing to her). Yes, of course, you wouldn’t would you.
And neither did John Pienaar – the BBC’s deputy political editor – when he interviewed her, and neither did Michael Crick when he interviewed her for Channel 4 News.
One might expect such a totally distorted and dishonest presentation of the story from The Telegraph (and the Mail and Express and Sun), but for Pienaar and Crick to do so is not only outrageous, but proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are black propagandists for the Establishment.
It’s interesting to note that in The Telegraph version of events it says:
Ava Etemadzadeh, who is now 27, said that she informed the whips office at the time of the incident and that a regional representative contacted the Leader’s office last year to raise concerns about the allegations.
They conveniently don’t point out that “the incident”, so-called, happened in February of 2015, and they conveniently omit to mention WHEN it was exactly this “regional representative” contacted the Leader’s office, but if it was “last year” – which is what they say – then even if it was in the January of last year, then THAT’S eleven months after SHE informed the whips office.
The point is of course that the whole thing is a black propaganda op cooked up by the Establishment’s dirty tricks department, and the sole objective of it all is to smear and undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the LP. The point is of course that in February of 2015 Jeremy Corbyn was NOT the leader of the LP, and didn’t become leader until the September, and so they had a “regional representative” contact the Leader’s office a year or so AFTER Ava E reported it to the whips office just so that they could drag Jeremy Corbyn in to it all, when the fact of the matter is that none of it happened – not that it DID of course – on his watch.
And at one point in the interview with Pienaar, she says how she wanted to remain anonymous when she reported it to the whips office because she didn’t want her name all over the media (hmm!), and then says at another point how she tweeted Jeremy Corbyn about Kelvin Hopkins. In other words – assuming that it’s true anyway – she DIDN’T tweet Ed Miliband who was the leader of the LP at the time, but waited until AFTER Jeremy Corbyn became leader before she tweeted him.
And can I just pose this question to anyone who may still be following this thread: What is worse……. someone doing what SHE claims KH did, or someone concocting it all – ie making false and fabricated allegations against an innocent person?
I find it really nauseating and revolting and repulsive – and I mean that quite literally – to listen to someone lying through their teeth (and John Pienarr playing along with her) as she does in the interview with Pienarr, and she DOES quite literaly revolt me when I hear her voice, but I’ve forced myself to listen to some of it, and in contrast to The Telegraph article, which says she reported “the incident” to the whips office “at the time”, in the interview with Pienarr she says she reported it a “few months” later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQHigawnrM4
It’s ALL complete and utter hogwash of course, as is/was the butt-grabbing story about Clive Lewis, AND so is/was the rape allegation made by Bex Bailey. There was no rape, and THAT is precisely why she has never reported the matter to the police, and never will, and we will never learn the identity of this alledged rapist because they don’t exist, and we will never learn the identity of the party official who (supposedly) told her it would be “damaging” to take it any further because it never happened, and THEY don’t exist either!
And much of the British media is complicit in all this falsehood.
In the BBC interview she says she tweeted Jeremy Corbyn to tell him about the incident. She is challenged if she meant a DM or private message she says No she sent an ordinary message via twitter. So where is this tweet?