A fair few Liberal Democrats, myself included, have raised our eyebrows over the story that Mike Hancock, our MP for Portsmouth South, who has stepped down from the Defence Select Committee because of his relationship with a woman, now facing deportation, accused of being a Russian spy.
This could be another of those "you couldn't make it up" type stories, like the tale of John Hemming's wife stealing his girlfriend's cat. I just hope, though, that we aren't seeing a huge injustice done to a young woman at an immigration court.
I don't know and I'm not in a position to judge the truth of the matter, but it appears to me that Katia Zatuliveter has been put in a very difficult position. How do you prove that you are not a spy?
We will never know all of the evidence against her because much of the case is being heard in secret.
I wish I could be confident that the right decision will be made but I have a huge feeling of unease about the whole thing. It could well be that the powers that be have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 39.
How do you ensure justice for the defendant in a case like this? Everybody, no matter what the circumstances, deserves a fair hearing.
3 comments:
You can't prove such a thing really. The likelihood of her winning her case are low to ziltch - closer to ziltch. Like you the case concerns me - certainly the fact that MI5 didn't care less until the Anna Chapman case and then they suddenly saw a Russian person in a similar position and did the old 2+2 thing.
If she is not a spy, do you not feel any unease about this older man using his employment of this young women to probably exploit her in return for sex?
The other thing we are missing is the press release from Portsmouth Liberal Democrats that says:
"After fourteen years service Mike Hancock MP has announced he will not be contesting the 2015 General Election and will step down as the MP for Portsmouth at the end of his current term."
The man has been a shabby embarassment for much of his career, and banal tributes to his 'hard work' locally and ability to stick a lot of leaflets through doors is hardly an excuse for behaviour that would see him sacked from any senior position in a serious organisation.
What we have learnt from 'spygate' and the txt-message scandal earlier this year is that he is either foolish old man, or a capricious lech who uses his position to target young and vulnerable women, or both.
What about either of those qualifications does our party think makes him suitable to represent us?
What impact do we think our passive tolerance for eccentric sleazeballs has on our ability to diversify party representation?
Post a Comment