Huh. Bloody good speech, actually. I’m not at all convinced he deserves this.

Just another stupid, woman hating male conservative.

Pathetic. They really scrape the bottom of the barrel when they find these pieces of shit to stand for elections.

Has the Nazi tory on Tewkesbury council resigned yet?

They could have at least made an effort to make it look like the speech was written by him rather than handed down with an ultimatum.

tim f

have you any evidence for your statement that his speech was not his own?

I agree with Chaise – a good speech,

I fear Tim F and Sally are acting tribally, without looking to evidence at all.

But if a journalist had possibly mis-reported a labour figure – Sally would have attacked, as she often does, the ‘right wing media’.

But here, she makes no criticism of the MSM.

Double standards me thinks – when there seems, from the evidence of the speech above – that the journalist did seem to fail in their duty to report accurately someone’s views, that they have explicitly called to find out.

Who was the journalist?
If Aitken is not telling the whole story about that 2nd call from the journalist, I guess we will soon hear their own view from the journalist

“the journalist did seem to fail in their duty to report accurately someone’s views, that they have explicitly called to find out.”

As I recall, the article cited when this story first broke quoted “a source” saying something like “Is he saying she deserved it? That’s appalling”. Of course, he didn’t say she deserved it – someone invented that then condemned him for it all in the same breath. And the tone of the article suggested strongly that it supported this side of the story.

My reckoning of the event, and it could very well be wrong, is that he raised a perfectly sensible issue but was thoughtless enough to do it in the context of a specific alleged crime, so it sounded as if he was casting aspersions on the woman’s story for no reason. I don’t think it was deliberate, and I certainly don’t think it warrants him losing his job. A clarification and apology would have done.

Is the next Convenor of the Justice Committee going to share Aitken’s considered, official view that “The courts must react, and everyone is entitled to their protection. That is especially true in the case of many prostitutes”? If not, it could be prostitutes who end up paying the price for this tribal victory. Yes, Aitken’s comments as reported were worrying, but it doesn’t seem implausible that they were made (as he says) in the context of a ‘background conversation’ in which he was just trying to get straight on the circumstances of the case he was being asked to comment on.

I agree with Chaise too. It is a very good statement.

@ 2: I can see no evidence in the statement of the “woman hating” you mention. Quite the reverse, in fact. OTOH, I do see a lot of hatred in your post: “stupid”, “woman hating”, “male”, “pathetic”, “pieces of shit”, “Nazi”. You need help, Sally.

If you want to know exactly what was said, here’s the transcript
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/02/rape-street-lane-aitken

It’s pretty clear that he didn’t believe that the woman had been abducted from the street and raped – it “just couldn’t happen” that she could be dragged a significant distance in public. He also thought she had questions to answer about what she was doing in the area and asked whether she’d gone there willingly as it’s where prostitutes take their clients.

Chaise @1: spot the weaseling: “any hurt they feel” – would it have broken his back to have been a tad clearer and said “the hurt they feel”?

@ 9

Oh, come on. While I’m revising my opinion on this story having read the transcript @8, I really think it’s a bit of a leap to blame him for saying “any” instead of “the” in that context. I don’t think he’s trying to claim their pain is hypothetical or debatable. It’s just a stock phrase, like “any offence caused”.

@ 8 Catkins

“If you want to know exactly what was said, here’s the transcript”

Thanks – after reading that his position seems a lot less defensible. He only seems interested in the story because of the possibility that the woman is lying.

@10 Chaise – fair enough. I may be over-sensitive to conditional apologies (you know, the passive-aggressive “I’m sorry if…” type), and may have read too much into the “any”.

@ 12

That’s understandable. We’ve all got pissed off at an “I’m sorry if…” (or, even, worse, an “I’m sorry but…”).

I have to say – I’m not convinced he deserves the abuse he’s getting.

At no stage does he suggest anyone – prostitute or not – deserved to be raped.

in fact he states

“there is a disturbing pattern and while the offences may not be related it is absolutely essential that unaccompanied women take the greatest care when walking in these areas. I have little doubt that the police will eventually get a result but it is a disturbing situation none the less.”

He at no point suggests the victim deserves this – The transcript reads like he wants to know more, but like he’s not quite comfortable talking about such things. (and fair enough to that).

1 – is it prostitutes who are being targetted by these gangs
2 – Where it happened (related to issue 1) and there is then a lot of confusion between two similar sounding streets.
3 – Whether it is the same as a previous gang or not.

In reality he should never have taken the call and fobbed the hack. Then he could have had his staff research it for him and prepare the usual statement.

Sadly he seemed to actually take interest in what happened – and so has ended up in a lot of trouble.

The guy is a tory, so I won’t mourn his loss. But having read the transcript – it looks like a stitch up.