Your self-contradiction is quite obvious and easy to state: You
referred to the complainants in the Labour Party's sexual assault allegation
scandal as "the victims" TWELVE TIMES, but never as "complainants",
which is the term which the interviewer repeatedly used. However, you only
referred to what they actually said ONCE, and then you used the word "allegations".
If someone makes an "allegation" which is deliberately false or
accidentally mistaken, they are not a "victim", because what they
claim happened did not actually happen. It is only if their allegation is
true that they are a victim -- yet you did not use any term such as "description
of events," which would indicate that what they alleged was actually
true. You said "allegations."
You said that you believed them, and you twice referred to a "victim-led"
process, which has no legal meaning, as far as I am aware. I put it to you
that, if they are lying or mistaken, then the man who they have accused was
the victim of false or mistaken allegations, which might lead to criminal
charges being laid agains the complainants. So he might be the victim. Would
a "victim-led" process mean that you would have to treat him as
the victim from the start? You have not even spoken to him -- obviously --
so you don't know his side of the story. Of course, since you are a sexist
ex-Minister of Women's Affairs, you would automatically believe a woman, wouldn't
have any legal qualifications, apparently. If you knew anything about
the Law, you would know the slogan, "Audi Alteram Partem" ("Hear
the other side" -- i.e. hear both sides.) That is Natural Justice, and
that is presumably what the QC has been doing. Apparently you think that kangaroo
courts and trials by media are preferable to that process.
You say that the so-called "victims" are intelligent. On the topic
of why they hadn't gone to the Police, you said, "They wanted to keep
this within the Labour Party". Well, going and blabbing to you is the
exact opposite of keeping this within the Labour Party, isn't it? So why didn't
they go to the Police? Neither you nor the interviewer mentioned that going
to the Police would have been much less harmful to the Labour Party than going
to you, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Could it
be that they were lying and the Police might find that out? Could it be that
they hate the Labour Party?