Inquiry into Tory conference ‘gay-sex party paid on expenses’

Parliament’s expenses watchdog is to investigate claims that the taxpayer indirectly funded a hotel suite that was used for a gay-sex party during a Conservative Party conference.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it was “deeply worried” by allegations that public money was used to pay for a suite of rooms used where the party took place.

It said it would be investigating the claims, which come in the wake of revelations about inappropriate relationships between young Tory researchers and MPs following the Nigel Evans trial. Mr Evans was cleared of a string of sexual assaults on young men following a five-week trial at Preston Crown Court.

The Independent understands that a suite of rooms costing up to £2,500 per night was booked at Manchester’s Light ApartHotel by an organisation called the Policy Research Unit (PRU). The PRU, which is overseen by senior Conservative figures, provides “parliamentary research” for the party’s MPs that is carried out by a team of mainly young researchers and interns.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-inquiry-into-tory-conference-gaysex-party-paid-on-expenses-9255489.html

Another sleaze allegation comes along right on the day that Nigel Evans is cleared of rape and sexual assault charges. You certainly don't have to wait long for them because they're as regular as clockwork.

He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

just disgusting what will we find the politicians have spent tax money on next ...

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

That's nonsense VOD. He was cleared by a jury not because he was gay. He was cleared because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had committed any criminal act.

And I don't think the sex party allegations had anything to do with Evans.

Irn Bru wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

That's nonsense VOD. He was cleared by a jury not because he was gay. He was cleared because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had committed any criminal act.

And I don't think the sex party allegations had anything to do with Evans.

no one dare stand up and give proper evidence plus they didn't want gays to look bad or promiscuous ..

I wonder how many had their jobs threatened..

Irn Bru wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

That's nonsense VOD. He was cleared by a jury not because he was gay. He was cleared because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had committed any criminal act.

And I don't think the sex party allegations had anything to do with Evans.

Its my opinion of which i am entitled

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

That's nonsense VOD. He was cleared by a jury not because he was gay. He was cleared because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had committed any criminal act.

And I don't think the sex party allegations had anything to do with Evans.

no one dare stand up and give proper evidence plus they didn't want gays to look bad or promiscuous ..

I wonder how many had their jobs threatened..

Well you weren't privy to all the evidence - the Jury were. I'm just surprised that there as so many liars in the HoC and at Tory Party conferences but I suppose I shouldn't be.

Evans behaviour was certainly inappropriate and taking advantage of young workers is plainly wrong but the Jury obviously believed Evans rather than the complainants.

Urn its our opinion we are entitled to it and nothing can make us change our minds why are people trying to make us say and think things we don't want to ??

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

no one dare stand up and give proper evidence plus they didn't want gays to look bad or promiscuous ..

I wonder how many had their jobs threatened..

Well you weren't privy to all the evidence - the Jury were. I'm just surprised that there as so many liars in the HoC and at Tory Party conferences but I suppose I shouldn't be.

Evans behaviour was certainly inappropriate and taking advantage of young workers is plainly wrong but the Jury obviously believed Evans rather than the complainants.

no one will ever be privvy to all the evidence, even the jury will get the abridged version as pressure is exerted to try and hide the truth...

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

no one dare stand up and give proper evidence plus they didn't want gays to look bad or promiscuous ..

I wonder how many had their jobs threatened..

Well you weren't privy to all the evidence - the Jury were. I'm just surprised that there as so many liars in the HoC and at Tory Party conferences but I suppose I shouldn't be.

Evans behaviour was certainly inappropriate and taking advantage of young workers is plainly wrong but the Jury obviously believed Evans rather than the complainants.

no one will ever be privvy to all the evidence, even  the jury will get the abridged version as pressure is exerted to try and hide the truth...

All the evidence that was presented at the trial. If the CPS had anything else then they should have produced it. That's how it worls.

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

no one will ever be privvy to all the evidence, even  the jury will get the abridged version as pressure is exerted to try and hide the truth...

All the evidence that was presented at the trial. If the CPS had anything else then they should have produced it. That's how it worls.

you would think so wouldn't you but how hard would it be to lean on someone and they forget some of the events and how they happened..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

no one will ever be privvy to all the evidence, even  the jury will get the abridged version as pressure is exerted to try and hide the truth...

All the evidence that was presented at the trial. If the CPS had anything else then they should have produced it. That's how it worls.

you would think so wouldn't  you but how hard would it be to lean on someone and they forget some of the events and how they happened..

Was there any evidence presented or any suggestions that anyone had been leaned on?

Irn Bru wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

you would think so wouldn't  you but how hard would it be to lean on someone and they forget some of the events and how they happened..

Was there any evidence presented or any suggestions that anyone had been leaned on?

would you expect to ever hear any evidence if there had been...  

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

"He was probably guilty" to quote VOD. My God I don't often find myself in agreement with Irn Bru but as he said the jury had the benefit of hearing the evidence presented by a seriously hostile DPP. Despite the best efforts of the DPP to big up what little they had the jury cleared him in minutes. Your anti gay rhetoric extends to anti justice if a person is gay. That is not on. I have no time for militant gays neither have I for militant religous zealots who persecute people born like they are.

Phyllis and you are two sides of the same coin.

I might add listening to him today I have every sympathy with him regarding his costs. All to often cases are coming up in court were someone has cried rape only for it to transpire later it was a jealous girl friend looking to get even with a boyfriend who had dropped her or similar. When these serious charges are brought they have major consequences for the accused life, they can destroy it, even if found not guilty. Conversely the accusers rarely get sanctioned severely, even when they admit to lying.

Well it's not often I'm in agreement with you Drinky, but I certainly am in regard to the anti justice rhetoric because he is gay.

Alright said Fred wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:He was probably guilty but because he is gay and who he is he got away with it , so this doesn't surprise me that the tax payer paid for his gay sex party

"He was probably guilty" to quote VOD. My God I don't often find myself in agreement with Irn Bru but as he said the jury had the benefit of hearing the evidence presented by a seriously hostile DPP. Despite the best efforts of the DPP to big up what little they had the jury cleared him in minutes. Your anti gay rhetoric extends to anti justice if a person is gay. That is not on. I have no time for militant gays neither have I for militant religous zealots who persecute people born like they are.

Phyllis and you are two sides of the same coin.

I might add listening to him today I have every sympathy with him regarding his costs. All to often cases are coming up in court were someone has cried rape only for it to transpire later it was a jealous girl friend looking to get even with a boyfriend who had dropped her or similar. When these serious charges are brought they have major consequences for the accused life, they can destroy it, even if found not guilty. Conversely the accusers rarely get sanctioned severely, even when they admit to lying.

Yes, whatever Drinky   

Haven't you been banned from here in the past?