Ex-Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been jailed for two years for sexually assaulting two women.
Elphicke, 49, the former MP for Dover, was convicted of groping the women in similar situations, nine years apart.
He denied the charges, but was found guilty of one count of sexual assault in 2007 and two further counts in 2016, after a trial at Southwark Crown Court.
The judge told Elphicke he was a "sexual predator who used your success and respectability as a cover".
The defendant's wife Natalie, the current Dover MP, ended their marriage after his conviction in July.
'Pack of lies'
Mrs Justice Whipple said Elphicke's denials had left his victims faced with the ordeal of giving evidence in court.
"They told the truth, and you told a pack of lies - not only to the jury, but your wife, the whips and the police," she told him during the sentencing hearing.
image copyrightPA Media
His first victim, who was attacked by Elphicke at his London home in 2007, said in a statement his actions had had a "lasting impact" on her life, leaving her cautious of being around men.
He had forced the woman on to a sofa and groped her breast while trying to kiss her, before chasing her and chanting "I'm a naughty Tory", his trial had heard.
'Stole my self-worth'
The second victim, a parliamentary worker aged in her 20s, said the assaults in 2016 left her with a feeling of "fear and helplessness".
"He stole a large part of my self-worth and self-esteem," she said in a statement read to the court.
Elphicke sexually assaulted her twice, the first involving him attempting to kiss her and groping her breast.
In the second assault several weeks later, he ran his hand up the inside of her thigh towards her groin.
Ian Winter QC, defending, had argued Elphicke should not be jailed because he had "fully and completely" learned his lesson.
"Shortly, Mr Elphicke's descent into total disgrace will be complete," Mr Winter said.
As well as his marriage ending he is estranged from his daughter as a result of the conviction, he added.
"The only further degradation would be to lose his liberty," Mr Winter said.
Mrs Justice Whipple said she "considered carefully" whether the sentence should be suspended.
"[But] bearing in mind the gross breach of your position of power... I am satisfied that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody," she said.
Image:Police can issue fines to those who refuse to comply with the 'rule of six'
Asked what she would do if she saw her neighbours breaking the new rule, Ms Patel told the Kay Burley @ Breakfast show: "I'm rarely at home but if I saw something that I thought was inappropriate then, quite frankly, I would call the police."
Advertisement
She added: "It's not dobbing in neighbours, it's all about us taking personal responsibility."
The home secretary stressed it was a "personal choice" for people to report their neighbours if they wanted to do so.
More from Covid-19
But she added if there was a "big party taking place" then "it would be right to call the police".
"Anyone that is effectively defying the rules, they will be helping to spread coronavirus," Ms Patel continued.
"That is not a good thing and obviously we all have a role to play.
"We're all taking personal responsibility, we all have to be conscientious to one another."
Ms Patel's comments echo those of her policing minister, Kit Malthouse, who has also encouraged people in England to contact police if they see their neighbours flouting the new coronavirus measures.
A total of 3,330 confirmed coronavirus cases were recorded in the UK on Sunday - the first time since May that cases have been above 3,000 on three consecutive days.
On Monday, Downing Street suggested police would not immediately start imposing fines on people who break the "rule of six" restrictions.
The prime minister's official spokesman said: "What you would expect to happen is for the police to be out today encouraging people to follow the new rules but in the coming days, if we see people continuing to flout the new rules, it is right that people could face a fine.
"The regulations are in place to help to stop the spread of the virus, to protect the NHS and to ultimately save lives."
Britain's unemployment rate rose to 4.1% in the three months to July as the total number of jobless rose by 62,000, the Office for National Statistics said.
The jobless rate was up from 3.9% a month earlier - but is still yet to be fully illustrative of the economic crisis with the Treasury's soon-to-end furlough scheme helping keep the numbers down.
Meanwhile, payroll data showed that 695,000 fewer people were employed in August compared to March when the UK lockdown started - though after revisions to earlier data that was a smaller number than before.
Darren Morgan, director of ecnomic statistics at the ONS, said: "Some effects of the pandemic on the labour market were beginning to unwind in July as parts of the economy reopened."
The number of people described as "temporarily away from work" - including those on furlough - fell in July though was still more than five million while other measures including average hours worker and job vacancies also improved.
Advertisement
"Nonetheless, with the number of employees on the payroll down again in August and both unemployment and redundancies sharply up in July, it is clear that coronavirus is still having a big impact on the world of work," Mr Morgan added.
The total number of unemployed for the three months to July was just above 1.4 million
More from Covid-19
The number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits - which may include those with low hours or low pay - reached 2.7 million, up 121% since March.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak said: "This is a difficult time for many as the pandemic continues to have a profound impact on people's jobs and livelihoods.
"That's why protecting jobs and helping people back into work continues to be my number one priority."
Mr Sunak pointed to the government's job retention bonus, worth up to £9bn, which will reward employers who take back workers temporarily laid-off under the government-backed furlough scheme.
But a number of MPs and business groups want the Treasury to consider extending the furlough scheme in some form, fearing that if taxpayer subsidies for those jobs ends completely as planned next month there will be a surge in unemployment.
A proposed law giving Boris Johnson's government the power to override parts of the Brexit agreement with the EU has passed its first hurdle in the Commons.
MPs backed the Internal Market Bill by 340 votes to 263.
Ministers say it contains vital safeguards to protect Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, if negotiations on a future trade deal break down.
But critics, including a number of Tory MPs, warned it risks damaging the UK by breaching international law.
Although the government has a majority of 80 in the Commons, it is braced for rebellions in the coming weeks as the legislation receives detailed scrutiny.
Several prominent Conservatives, including former Chancellor Sajid Javid, have said they could not support the final bill unless it is amended, with a number expected to have abstained in Monday's vote.
'Straight-dealing'
Sir Roger Gale, the Tory MP for North Thanet in Kent, told the BBC's Newsnight he had voted against the bill as a "matter of principle" to uphold international law.
"I think that this is damaging our international reputation for honest and straight-dealing at a time when we are about to embark on a series of trade negotiations. I took a view that you fight this tooth and nail at every step."
He suggested other colleagues were "holding their fire" until later in the bill's passage, with a group led by ex-minister Sir Bob Neill pressing for a "parliamentary lock" on the government's ability to exercise the powers.
"I'm not remotely surprised that I am a tiny minority. I think that may change next Tuesday," he added.
Bill's remit
The bill is designed to enable goods and services to flow freely across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the EU's single market and customs union on 1 January.
But, controversially, it gives the government the power to change aspects of the EU withdrawal agreement, a legally-binding deal governing the terms of the UK's exit from the EU earlier this year.
Ministers say this is a failsafe mechanism in case the EU interprets the agreement, in particular the Northern Ireland Protocol designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, in an "extreme and unreasonable" way.
Boris Johnson's government has a hefty majority. It was never going to lose Monday night's vote in the Commons.
Downing Street calculates that most of the public won't pay that much attention to yet more Westminster argy-bargy about the Brexit process.
In turn, many Tory MPs are sure that the wrangling over the UK Internal Market Bill won't filter through to their constituents.
And where it does, they would much more likely take the side of the government taking a tough line with the EU than share the concerns of former prime ministers or august lawyers foaming about the government's behaviour.
And yet - first off, to state the obvious, opposition from former occupants of No 10, former chancellors and former cabinet ministers is not exactly a sign of peace and harmony.
But the resistance to No 10 goes beyond the usual suspects this time.
During a five-hour debate, Mr Johnson claimed the EU's current approach could lead to excessive checks and even tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
He said the bill would ensure the UK's "economic and political integrity", accusing the EU of making unfair demands to "exert leverage" in the trade talks - including a threat to block food exports.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But ministers also said they would listen to concerns, insisting that the powers being sought would only be used if other legal avenues had been exhausted and only if MPs explicitly voted to activate them.
A government spokesman said it was vital the bill - which is expected to face stern opposition in the House of Lords - becomes law by the end of the year when EU law will cease to have effect in the UK.
"It will protect the territorial integrity of the UK and the peace in Northern Ireland, safeguarding trade and jobs across all four corners of the UK following the end of the transition period," he said.
The PM also held a call with Conservative members of the House of Lords on Monday night.
Labour said the PM was reneging on a deal he himself signed earlier this year, and on which Conservative MPs campaigned in the 2019 election, and was "trashing" the UK's reputation.
But the Commons also voted against a Labour amendment to reject the bill entirely by 349 votes to 213.
MPs will now begin detailed scrutiny of the bill on Tuesday with Conservative MPs seeking further assurances that the UK will not betray its treaty obligations.
A proposed law giving Boris Johnson's government the power to override parts of the Brexit agreement with the EU has passed its first hurdle in the Commons.
MPs backed the Internal Market Bill by 340 votes to 263.
Ministers say it contains vital safeguards to protect Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, if negotiations on a future trade deal break down.
But critics, including a number of Tory MPs, warned it risks damaging the UK by breaching international law.
Although the government has a majority of 80 in the Commons, it is braced for rebellions in the coming weeks as the legislation receives detailed scrutiny.
Several prominent Conservatives, including former Chancellor Sajid Javid, have said they could not support the final bill unless it is amended, with a number expected to have abstained in Monday's vote.
'Straight-dealing'
Sir Roger Gale, the Tory MP for North Thanet in Kent, told the BBC's Newsnight he had voted against the bill as a "matter of principle" to uphold international law.
"I think that this is damaging our international reputation for honest and straight-dealing at a time when we are about to embark on a series of trade negotiations. I took a view that you fight this tooth and nail at every step."
He suggested other colleagues were "holding their fire" until later in the bill's passage, with a group led by ex-minister Sir Bob Neill pressing for a "parliamentary lock" on the government's ability to exercise the powers.
"I'm not remotely surprised that I am a tiny minority. I think that may change next Tuesday," he added.
Bill's remit
The bill is designed to enable goods and services to flow freely across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the EU's single market and customs union on 1 January.
But, controversially, it gives the government the power to change aspects of the EU withdrawal agreement, a legally-binding deal governing the terms of the UK's exit from the EU earlier this year.
Ministers say this is a failsafe mechanism in case the EU interprets the agreement, in particular the Northern Ireland Protocol designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, in an "extreme and unreasonable" way.
During a five-hour debate, Mr Johnson claimed the EU's current approach could lead to excessive checks and even tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
He said the bill would ensure the UK's "economic and political integrity", accusing the EU of making unfair demands to "exert leverage" in the trade talks - including a threat to block food exports.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But ministers also said they would listen to concerns, insisting that the powers being sought would only be used if other legal avenues had been exhausted and only if MPs explicitly voted to activate them.
A government spokesman said it was vital the bill - which is expected to face stern opposition in the House of Lords - becomes law by the end of the year when EU law will cease to have effect in the UK.
"It will protect the territorial integrity of the UK and the peace in Northern Ireland, safeguarding trade and jobs across all four corners of the UK following the end of the transition period," he said.
The PM also held a call with Conservative members of the House of Lords on Monday night.
Labour said the PM was reneging on a deal he himself signed earlier this year, and on which Conservative MPs campaigned in the 2019 election, and was "trashing" the UK's reputation.
But the Commons also voted against a Labour amendment to reject the bill entirely by 349 votes to 213.
MPs will now begin detailed scrutiny of the bill on Tuesday with Conservative MPs seeking further assurances that the UK will not betray its treaty obligations.
