Tory MP arrested for raping two men

[YorkshireRed]

2 minutes ago, sir roger said:

An old mate of my dads trained him when he was a kid and allowed out of Walton prison on say release to box as an amateur. Said he had talent but was completely fruit of the loom.

 

I also vaguely remember him boxing John L Gardner for the British title.

He did indeed. 
 

The clip shared earlier is from a documentary about him that first aired in the mid 1980’s (I think, could be wrong about that). Apparently there may, at some point, be a film about him. 

 

Paul Sykes was very much a local celebrity and in a small City like Wakefield you’d see him around, if he wasn’t in Prison.

 

Clearly he had issues and these combined with his physical size meant that, in reality, he wasn’t a very nice man.

 

Ended up homeless and used to hang about on a bench near my parents house harassing people who had chosen to walk into town.

 

We don’t have too many celebrities from Wakefield though so he’s on a list along with:

 

Robin Hood

Black Lace

The Brotherhood of Man

Jane McDonald

 

The Acid Bath Murderer was also brought up here, but was born elsewhere. 

 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

It absolutely was known at the time, including by the Evening Standard.

 

 

That just means the story has been updated since the original tweet.

 

If they changed the article headline again, that's what would show on the link.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

That just means the story has been updated since the original tweet.

 

If they changed the article headline again, that's what would show on the link.

"10:34 PM Aug 1, 2020" 

 

Jesus fucking wept 

[Strontium]

10 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It is now, not when it was originally raised despite it being all over the place at the time that he was a Tory MP. They have changed it because of the backlash. You know this you are just trolling and trying to be contrary as per usual. Making yourself look like a proper dick while doing it. 

 

You have zero evidence that it was changed because of some fantasy backlash. You have zero evidence that they were originally trying to cover it up because of the owner's peerage.

 

Yes, it was widely rumoured he was a Tory MP, but the Met did not confirm it, and indeed, still haven't.

 

Once other outlets started reporting on his occupation, the Standard followed suit. You'll note they're still saying "according to reports".

 

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

"10:34 PM Aug 1, 2020" 

 

Jesus fucking wept 

 

The article has been changed in the interim. What part of the internet don't you understand?

[Duff Man]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

That just means the story has been updated since the original tweet.

 

If they changed the article headline again, that's what would show on the link.

The story was posted 17 hours ago. Where does it say it's been updated?

 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

You have zero evidence that it was changed because of some fantasy backlash. You have zero evidence that they were originally trying to cover it up because of the owner's peerage.

 

Yes, it was widely rumoured he was a Tory MP, but the Met did not confirm it, and indeed, still haven't.

 

Once other outlets started reporting on his occupation, the Standard followed suit. You'll note they're still saying "according to reports".

 

The article has been changed in the interim. What part of the internet don't you understand?

It's a screenshot from the fucking article look at the timestamp you fucking cradle. What more evidence does anyone need? You are being a cunt for the sake of it, you are just like that Darren Grimes cunt. Waffle shite to create a bit of attention then cry when you get called a hysterical bellend. 

 

 

[Duff Man]

Here's the story. I can't see anything about it being updated since it was originally posted

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/conservative-former-minister-arrested-rape-a4514431.html

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

The story was posted 17 hours ago. Where does it say it's been updated?

 

It doesn't. But since it includes quotes from less than 17 hours ago, unless the journalist is in possession of a time machine, it's a pretty safe bet.

 

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

It's a screenshot from the fucking article look at the timestamp you fucking cradle.

 

Good god, it's like arguing with a child. A particularly foul-mouthed, abusive child.

 

It is not a screenshot. It is a summary of the article as it currently is.

 

The article was published at 10.34pm last night.

It has been altered since with more details.

 

If it was altered again - say, with the name of the MP in question - then the article summary on Twitter would reflect this new version of the article.

[Bruce Spanner]

It's on the front pages of two national newspapers, The Mail On Sunday & The Sunday Times, which are filed the day before and printed in the very wee hours, notwithstanding that it was on both websites prior to the physical edition being printed.

 

I'm sure nobody at The Standard saw it on their way in to work or caught a glimpse of it on the news channels this morning, both BBC & Sky were running with it, or maybe they don't visit any other websites that have all carried the story.

 

You choose some strange fucking hills to die on.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

It doesn't. But since it includes quotes from less than 17 hours ago, unless the journalist is in possession of a time machine, it's a pretty safe bet.

 

 

Good god, it's like arguing with a child. A particularly foul-mouthed, abusive child.

 

It is not a screenshot. It is a summary of the article as it currently is.

 

The article was published at 10.34pm last night.

It has been altered since with more details.

 

If it was altered again - say, with the name of the MP in question - then the article summary on Twitter would reflect this new version of the article.

You hypocritical snotty little fart. Go and ring someones mum to get them sacked while crying over a neg. 

 

You've (for god knows what reason) decided to challenge something where you are completely wrong just for the sake of it. You do it ll the time. You wont even admit your "embarrassing' comment was wrong even though people on this very forum have lost loved ones from the virus. Whilst I do admire your stubbornness to a certain extent, your arrogance and hypocrisy makes me embarrassed for you. 

[Duff Man]

14 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

It doesn't. But since it includes quotes from less than 17 hours ago, unless the journalist is in possession of a time machine, it's a pretty safe bet.

 

 

Good god, it's like arguing with a child. A particularly foul-mouthed, abusive child.

 

It is not a screenshot. It is a summary of the article as it currently is.

 

The article was published at 10.34pm last night.

It has been altered since with more details.

 

If it was altered again - say, with the name of the MP in question - then the article summary on Twitter would reflect this new version of the article.

Which quotes? This article posted an hour later on the Graun has the same quotes?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/01/former-minister-arrested-sexual-assault-charge

 

Same quotes here from an article posted 19 hours ago:

 

https://newsopener.com/uk/senior-tory-mp-is-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape/

 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

You choose some strange fucking hills to die on.

 

If anyone can find any evidence that the owner of the Evening Standard ordered his journalists not to reveal the occupation of the man arrested because the Tories made him a crossbench peer, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

If anyone can find any evidence that the owner of the Evening Standard ordered his journalists not to reveal the occupation of the man arrested because the Tories made him a crossbench peer, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

Can you find any evidence at all that the editor didn't? 

[Strontium]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Can you find any evidence at all that the editor didn't? 

 

Burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Burden of evidence is on those making a claim.

You are claiming it's not true so you'll need to provide some. QED. 

[Strontium]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

You are claiming it's not true so you'll need to provide some. QED. 

 

That's not how it works. 

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

That's not how it works. 

It is. Now get the fuck out the road. 

[Jairzinho]

11 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

If anyone can find any evidence that the owner of the Evening Standard ordered his journalists not to reveal the occupation of the man arrested because the Tories made him a crossbench peer, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

@Bjornebye

 

Incredible that you haven't provided this concrete evidence yet. After all, Stronts has set you an entirely feasible challenge here.

 

An original copy of a handwritten note or recorded footage of a confession will suffice.

[Strontium]

22 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Here's the story. I can't see anything about it being updated since it was originally posted

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/conservative-former-minister-arrested-rape-a4514431.html

 

Go into the page source. You'll see that the article, which was published at 22:34, was updated at 23:04.

 

<meta property="og:updated_time" content="2020-08-01T23:04:09+01:00">

 

3 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

@Bjornebye

 

Incredible that you haven't provided this concrete evidence yet. After all, Stronts has set you an entirely feasible challenge here.

 

An original copy of a handwritten note or recorded footage of a confession will suffice.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

@Bjornebye

 

Incredible that you haven't provided this concrete evidence yet. After all, Stronts has set you an entirely feasible challenge here.

 

An original copy of a handwritten note or recorded footage of a confession will suffice.

I think a timestamped article and knowledge of the owner of the publication suffices don't you think?

[Jairzinho]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

I think a timestamped article and knowledge of the owner of the publication suffices don't you think?

Definitely not.

 

[Bruce Spanner]

17 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

If anyone can find any evidence that the owner of the Evening Standard ordered his journalists not to reveal the occupation of the man arrested because the Tories made him a crossbench peer, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

 

You're a man of reason, right?

 

So apply Occam's razor to the rest of the text you deleted from my initial reply as to why they did not run the story fully, as it can not have been anything other than an editorial choice, who was acting as editor is the uncertain part, not the outcome of the story being editorial choice.

 

Now if this is a flunky, skeleton staff, weekend editor, not wanting to piss off Two Beards, Osbourne, or David Cameron's sister in law Emily Sheffield then fine, it's understandable that this is the outcome as they are doing what they assume their paymasters want them too, it's shitty, but I get it you don't want to piss off the boss(es). But, when all the evidence is seen it leads to believe that an editorial decision had been made, to remove the identifying characteristics of the offender deliberately, for whatever reason, and that would have been done through comittee, or at the very least discussed editorially.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Jairzinho said:

Definitely not.

 

Prove to me that you aren't Myra Hindley. I want a photograph of you holding a sign saying "I called your work to get you sacked because you negged me on an internet forum" and I will believe you aren't. You child killing cunt. 

[Duff Man]

3 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Go into the page source. You'll see that the article, which was published at 22:34, was updated at 23:04.

 

<meta property="og:updated_time" content="2020-08-01T23:04:09+01:00">

And just to be clear, the article was updated with which quotes? And how would you know that?

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Bruce Spanner said:

 

You're a man of reason, right?

 

So apply Occam's razor to the rest of the text you deleted from my initial reply as to why they did not run the story fully, as it can not have been anything other than an editorial choice, who was acting as editor is the uncertain part, not the outcome of the story being editorial choice.

 

Now if this is a flunky, skeleton staff, weekend editor, not wanting to piss off Two Beards, Osbourne, or David Cameron's sister in law Emily Sheffield then fine, it's understandable that this is the outcome as they are doing what they assume their paymasters want them too, it's shitty, but I get it you don't want to piss off the boss(es). But, when all the evidence is seen it leads to believe that an editorial decision had been made, to remove the identifying characteristics of the offender deliberately, for whatever reason, and that would have been done through comittee, or at the very least discussed.