IMPORTANT BLOG re: Citizen Newspaper coverage (26/01/2013)

Today’s article in The Citizen claims “MP said wearing high heels puts young women at risk of attack” and that I agreed with Joanne Lumley’s recent comments on this sensitive issue.

What I actually wrote to the reporter was:
 
‘Of course she [Joanna Lumley] is right to highlight the problem. A night out is about having fun without putting yourself at risk’.

I stick by these words. When asked more questions by the reporter I gave examples of things – including getting drunk or wearing clothes that are hard to run away in – that might increase rather than reduce risk for young women.

Encouraging a sensible approach to risk management in no way intimates ANY excuse for predatory behaviour, let alone rape, and I have asked The Citizen to clarify that and to apologise for claiming that I agreed with Ms Lumley’s views.
 
As the father of a 20 year old daughter I rightly have strong views both on the importance of risk management and the hideousness of rape. Let no reader be any doubt about BOTH, and not misled by a misleading article and inappropriate editorial.

Richard

Richard in Parliament
  • 28 Oct: Public Bill Committee: Pension Schemes Bill: Clause 19 - Introduction and definition
    The only point worth adding is that we do not need to take too seriously the contribution  from one witness that the presence of a CDC pension necessarily means that the people in it are going to get pensions that are 30% to 40% better than those who are not in it. I do not think the witness presented any credible evidence to substantiate that suggestion. The reasons for having a CDC...
  • 28 Oct: Public Bill Committee: Pension Schemes Bill: Clause 19 - Introduction and definition
    Where my hon. Friend is right is that if someone has a big company with a significant number of employees, they can get economies of scale from their own scheme. The 100,000-plus businesses that are going to come into the scheme after January 2016 are small companies with fewer than 10 employees. For them, there are no such options available. If NEST and the other entities that I mentioned...
  • 28 Oct: Public Bill Committee: Pension Schemes Bill: Clause 19 - Introduction and definition
    There is a danger of confusion about who will make what decisions and who will be responsible for them. One concern that my hon. Friend flagged up was that those currently in DB schemes would suddenly be plunged into a CDC scheme and so on. The point of the offer of defined ambitions in the Bill is that a risk-sharing offer can be available to people who are currently running DB schemes but...
  • 28 Oct: Public Bill Committee: Pension Schemes Bill: Clause 18 - Rules about modification of schemes
    May I add to my hon. Friend’s points about Transport for London? Although it is not strictly part of the Bill, my memory of the TfL scheme is that it was paying out pensions to many people who were no longer alive. That is not unique, but a fairly frequent problem with large pension schemes. Given that the taxpayer in general is the person paying—
  • 28 Oct: Public Bill Committee: Pension Schemes Bill: Clause 18 - Rules about modification of schemes
    If the Minister responds to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on the TfL scheme, will he touch briefly on whether paying pensions to people who are no longer alive, but whom the pension scheme is unable to trace, could be tackled at the same time?

More from TheyWorkForYou.com

Data service provided by TheyWorkForYou