Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Tom Watson Apology
Topic Started: Oct 22 2015, 03:00 PM (278 Views)
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tom Watson has apologised to the widow of Lord Brittan for repeating the description he was given by one of his (Lord Brittan) accusers ("close to evil"). He "regrets" having done so, regrets the upset it has caused for his family.
David Cameron said he must go further and "examine his conscience about whether he's said enough so far" and said he had "a lot of questions to answer"

Will David Cameron apologise for describing J Corbyn as "a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security"?
When politics are the reason for such exchanges being made, criticisms levelled, and posturing at play, shouldn't the PM be setting a good example of behaviour?

As an aside; if it were not for Tom Watson we would not know of the organised paedophile activities of the past, nor of the coverup involving the MET.
I understand that former MET officers have contacted TW detailing their own suspicions of a top level cover up and that there are currently 19 investigations ongoing regarding MET failures/corruption.
Hounding the Corbyn tribe is now a favourite sport of the National press .... hypocrites that they are.



Edited by Affa, Oct 22 2015, 03:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 2 2015, 12:01 AM
Hard evidence please, this could go on forever......if you so wish.
If only people weren't so tediously gullible eh Rich? ;-)

You've heard by now (have you?) that various documents and even photos have been handled in a way that would not be out of place in a Laurel & Hardy movie, you then come along and claim there is little to worry about and the allegations should be investigated by the Keystone Co......sorry an understandable mistake on my part, the Metropolitan Police who have such an outstanding record in this specific area.

So much for being a professional cynic eh Rich? :)

Or is your cynicism based entirely on political leanings and the need to fool yourself because of this.........?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
So far RJD and Rich have only offered insults and criticisms based on..??? It seems, based on their dislike for lefties/Labour and certain posters. If you don't like the topic then sod off? Don't ask for it to be closed just to accommodate your idiotic wants..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 07:13 PM
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 07:07 PM
There's been stuff all evidence so far from you. It's all been inuendo, wild extrapolation and the classic "they denied it so they must be guilty""
I have shown you evidence that there was a cover-up which you continue to ignore.

So the MI5 file and the whips books evidence? Where's the lack of substance there then?

Remember: much of the stuff I quoted wasnt even from my own links. My links which I posted have got stuff-all responses.

There's a video re the whips book which you might want to watch.
What Whips Book evidence?

All you posted was a This Week report about a seedy little nigh on nobody (Tim Fortescue) saying he could do dishonest things. Yes like make up stories to get attention. Evidential credibility: sod all

As your own link says: "It was just a little book in which you wrote down various things you heard about people," Does that make such evidential? :nono:

I could make up lurid stories about you and get someone to write them in a book. Does that make them true?

Spose I best go and find your MI5 link now. Please let it have more credibility

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well the MI5 material wasn't much better

It's covered in this Guardian Article

Seems MI5 boss Antony Duff is asked if some allegations are a security risk and he replies “At the present stage ... the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”

Or in other words "I'm not worried, maybe you should be"

There is nothing evidential in there at all. Had he said "yes we knew he was dodgy" there would be but Duff didn't did he.

So can we return to the thread. A number here have said Tom Watson is a hero with nothing to apologise for because there is supposedly conclusive evidence of MPs involved in child abuse and high ranking people covering up for them

There clearly is not. What we have been presented with is the false memory industry's inventions, hopeless twisting of old words and wild imaginings. That's all Watson has got but we know for a fact he sought to ruin a decent detective's career, persecuted a dying man and appears to have fed 'Jane' to the press by revealing her true identity.


Statistically it is likely some MPs past and present have abused children, statistically it is likely colleagues knew or saw suspicious activity and did nothing and covered it up. The same is true for all walks of life

But to give Tom Watson carte blanche for his now known abuses of real people because of a heap of politically motivated nonsense is just wrong. He should apologise and not get away with the mealy mouthed, caveated and limited scope insincere dribbling we have had so far.
Edited by Steve K, Nov 2 2015, 09:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 09:05 PM
"It was just a little book in which you wrote down various things you heard about people,"[/i] Does that make such evidential? :nono:




Seedy little nobody eh? What do you suppose he could have been talking about?  :o

Surely you don't believe MP's and other establishment figures could possibly have been involved in fiddling with small boys do you? Especially after there has been no shying away from total disclosure and not one single person has has tried to hide, delete or redact any information, why even I a nobody has been able to read the Dicken Dossier and found it all above board.

Post may contain vast quantities of cynical irony, best cured by suspending credulity and ingesting large doses of salt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 09:30 PM
Well the MI5 material wasn't much better

It's covered in this Guardian Article

Seems MI5 boss Antony Duff is asked if some allegations are a security risk and he replies “At the present stage ... the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”

Or in other words "I'm not worried, maybe you should be"

There is nothing evidential in there at all. Had he said "yes we knew he was dodgy" there would be but Duff didn't did he.

So can we return to the thread. A number here have said Tom Watson is a hero with nothing to apologise for because there is supposedly conclusive evidence of MPs involved in child abuse and high ranking people covering up for them

There clearly is not. What we have been presented with is the false memory industry's inventions, hopeless twisting of old words and wild imaginings. That's all Watson has got but we know for a fact he sought to ruin a decent detective's career, persecuted a dying man and appears to have fed 'Jane' to the press by revealing her true identity.


Statistically it is likely some MPs past and present have abused children, statistically it is likely colleagues knew or saw suspicious activity and did nothing and covered it up. The same is true for all walks of life

But to give Tom Watson carte blanche for his now known abuses of real people because of a heap of politically motivated nonsense is just wrong. He should apologise and not get away with the mealy mouthed, caveated and limited scope insincere dribbling we have had so far.
You like the establishment investigating the establishment don't you?

Unfortunately I don't suffer from debilitating pedanticism and I'm rather cynical of human nature when it comes to this kind of thing, you know once bitten twice shy and all that............

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 08:56 PM
So far RJD and Rich have only offered insults and criticisms based on..??? It seems, based on their dislike for lefties/Labour and certain posters. If you don't like the topic then sod off? Don't ask for it to be closed just to accommodate your idiotic wants..
Well chap if you are so confident of your claims then take your"evidence" to the CPS and just ask them why they are not proceeding, simple really, could you be so kind as to appraise us all of the reply you get as a result please? I am most eager to know.

And don't be fobbed off with excuses, refuse to leave until you have an acceptable answer.

Hopefully that will take about 6 months......ah, peace at last. !wav!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 2 2015, 09:42 PM
You like the establishment investigating the establishment don't you?

Unfortunately I don't suffer from debilitating pedanticism and I'm rather cynical of human nature when it comes to this kind of thing, you know once bitten twice shy and all that............

Maybe I just believe in people apologising properly when they have done harm and personally gained from it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 10:46 PM
personally gained from it.
In what way has Watson personally gained from this?

From where I'm sitting it looks like the establishment has closed ranks and cold shouldered him, I suspect he has broken many unwritten rules that all old boys clubs have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 2 2015, 11:07 PM
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 10:46 PM
personally gained from it.
In what way has Watson personally gained from this?

From where I'm sitting it looks like the establishment has closed ranks and cold shouldered him, I suspect he has broken many unwritten rules that all old boys clubs have.
He has gained my respect....You mustn't rattle the old boys club cages....They get EVEN dirtier when you do..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Ah ;D More 'accommodate my unfounded opinion on the matter and fuck off if you disagree'. It's clear that this thread is too high-brow for certain simpletons (dear god). The irony being that it's them who should stop reading/posting if the thread offends.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 09:30 PM
Well the MI5 material wasn't much better

It's covered in this Guardian Article

Seems MI5 boss Antony Duff is asked if some allegations are a security risk and he replies “At the present stage ... the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”

Or in other words "I'm not worried, maybe you should be"

There is nothing evidential in there at all. Had he said "yes we knew he was dodgy" there would be but Duff didn't did he.

So can we return to the thread. A number here have said Tom Watson is a hero with nothing to apologise for because there is supposedly conclusive evidence of MPs involved in child abuse and high ranking people covering up for them

There clearly is not. What we have been presented with is the false memory industry's inventions, hopeless twisting of old words and wild imaginings. That's all Watson has got but we know for a fact he sought to ruin a decent detective's career, persecuted a dying man and appears to have fed 'Jane' to the press by revealing her true identity.


Statistically it is likely some MPs past and present have abused children, statistically it is likely colleagues knew or saw suspicious activity and did nothing and covered it up. The same is true for all walks of life

But to give Tom Watson carte blanche for his now known abuses of real people because of a heap of politically motivated nonsense is just wrong. He should apologise and not get away with the mealy mouthed, caveated and limited scope insincere dribbling we have had so far.
It's clear that a whole raft of allegations have been left uninvestigated. Y/n?

It's clear that evidence has been destroyed, lost etc in very sus circumstances? Y/n?

It's clear that some people have died in very sus circumstances? Y/n
Edited by skwirked, Nov 2 2015, 11:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:52 PM
Ah ;D More 'accommodate my unfounded opinion on the matter and fuck off if you disagree'. It's clear that this thread is too high-brow for certain simpletons (dear god). The irony being that it's them who should stop reading/posting if the thread offends.
Well, the thread does not offend me but the constant headbanging against a brick wall by those saying the same thing over and over rather than debating something that can be factually resolved concerns me lest they do permanent damage to their frontal lobes.....maybe that damage has already been done....oh dear. :banghead: !tkq!

PS, who is this simpleton called dear god?
Edited by Rich, Nov 3 2015, 12:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 08:49 PM
RJD
Nov 2 2015, 07:16 PM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 07:13 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
But unless the CP believes it will stand up in a Court of Law why should I take any notice of your unproven claims? I don't do conspiracy, I leave that for the Usuals.

Your opinion is of little interest. It's pure unsubstantiated twaddle, refute the as-yet unchallenged links if able or continue wasting screen space and be ignored, your choice.
I see nobody in a Court of Law, perhaps you do in your wildest dreams.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:52 PM
Ah ;D More 'accommodate my unfounded opinion on the matter and fuck off if you disagree'. It's clear that this thread is too high-brow for certain simpletons (dear god). The irony being that it's them who should stop reading/posting if the thread offends.
Oh dear "high brow"? Looks more like uncivilised "low brow" too me. The burden of proof should be with those Prosecuting not those defending their reputations. Got it yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 09:00 AM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:52 PM
Ah ;D More 'accommodate my unfounded opinion on the matter and fuck off if you disagree'. It's clear that this thread is too high-brow for certain simpletons (dear god). The irony being that it's them who should stop reading/posting if the thread offends.
Oh dear "high brow"? Looks more like uncivilised "low brow" too me. The burden of proof should be with those Prosecuting not those defending their reputations. Got it yet?
Seeing as you have nothing to contribute to the topic in any way, perhaps you haven't 'got it' yet? Steve at least explains his position re Watson with some detail and makes a fair point about false accusations. We get that you are a rank opportunist who will sink to any depths to smear Labour/lefties and all you've done is heap scorn on Watson and others. Well done. Perhaps you should give this thread a wide berth.

Got it? Sunk in yet?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 2 2015, 11:07 PM
Steve K
Nov 2 2015, 10:46 PM
personally gained from it.
In what way has Watson personally gained from this?

From where I'm sitting it looks like the establishment has closed ranks and cold shouldered him, I suspect he has broken many unwritten rules that all old boys clubs have.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed who got elected as deputy leader of the Labour Party on the groundswell of popular acclaim his crusade brought.

Do keep up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:44 AM
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 09:00 AM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:52 PM
Ah ;D More 'accommodate my unfounded opinion on the matter and fuck off if you disagree'. It's clear that this thread is too high-brow for certain simpletons (dear god). The irony being that it's them who should stop reading/posting if the thread offends.
Oh dear "high brow"? Looks more like uncivilised "low brow" too me. The burden of proof should be with those Prosecuting not those defending their reputations. Got it yet?
Seeing as you have nothing to contribute to the topic in any way, perhaps you haven't 'got it' yet? Steve at least explains his position re Watson with some detail and makes a fair point about false accusations. We get that you are a rank opportunist who will sink to any depths to smear Labour/lefties and all you've done is heap scorn on Watson and others. Well done. Perhaps you should give this thread a wide berth.

Got it? Sunk in yet?
No. I deplore the way many here confuse claims of guilt with proof of such. I deplore the bad logic of those that say there is a crime when there is no proof of such. I deplore the way that some condone the character assassination of people for political reasons and then excuse themselves with a complete red herring. And finally those that sign up to the idea that innocence must be proven should be excluded from civilised society. This thread only has legs because of the desperate desire of politically motivated tribalists to stick some shit on those they dislike, nothing more. They are the vile bodies.

The burden of proof must always be with those making such accusations and thus far they have failed miserably.

So in short I will not stand aside and listed to the crap that emanates from the uncivilised intolerant lefties. And yes I doubt their sincerity.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:54 PM
It's clear that a whole raft of allegations have been left uninvestigated. Y/n?

It's clear that evidence has been destroyed, lost etc in very sus circumstances? Y/n?

It's clear that some people have died in very sus circumstances? Y/n


- Not clear

- Not clear and

- Yes, some people have committed suicide following false allegations or having their identities leaked to the media


What those questions have to do with Watson not apologising for causing harm pursuing his own ego I have no idea.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:54 PM
It's clear that a whole raft of allegations have been left uninvestigated. Y/n?

It's clear that evidence has been destroyed, lost etc in very sus circumstances? Y/n?

It's clear that some people have died in very sus circumstances? Y/n


- Not clear

- Not clear and

- Yes, some people have committed suicide following false allegations or having their identities leaked to the media


What those questions have to do with Watson not apologising for causing harm pursuing his own ego I have no idea.

The fact that many on the left support Watson's stance, they go out of their way to excuse him by bringing up all sorts of unrelated bunkum is telling. I believe their stance to be wholly political and their excuses insincere. They only paint themselves up as the nasty face of the left.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:54 PM
It's clear that a whole raft of allegations have been left uninvestigated. Y/n?

It's clear that evidence has been destroyed, lost etc in very sus circumstances? Y/n?

It's clear that some people have died in very sus circumstances? Y/n


- Not clear

- Not clear and

- Yes, some people have committed suicide following false allegations or having their identities leaked to the media


What those questions have to do with Watson not apologising for causing harm pursuing his own ego I have no idea.

1. It's crystal clear, you implicitly said so in previous posts
2. So you believe in 1000 coincidences centering around the same matter? FFS!
3. Nice, turn it back round .. So the sus death of the south london council worker was just another coincidence? Watch the interviews,

Steve you have your blinkers welded on on this topic and it's clear that nothing will change your mind. I feel the evidence provided proves (no not in a Court of Law because they aren't into 'coverups') that there has been some sort of cover-up.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:44 AM
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 09:00 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Seeing as you have nothing to contribute to the topic in any way, perhaps you haven't 'got it' yet? Steve at least explains his position re Watson with some detail and makes a fair point about false accusations. We get that you are a rank opportunist who will sink to any depths to smear Labour/lefties and all you've done is heap scorn on Watson and others. Well done. Perhaps you should give this thread a wide berth.

Got it? Sunk in yet?
No. I deplore the way many here confuse claims of guilt with proof of such. I deplore the bad logic of those that say there is a crime when there is no proof of such. I deplore the way that some condone the character assassination of people for political reasons and then excuse themselves with a complete red herring. And finally those that sign up to the idea that innocence must be proven should be excluded from civilised society. This thread only has legs because of the desperate desire of politically motivated tribalists to stick some shit on those they dislike, nothing more. They are the vile bodies.

The burden of proof must always be with those making such accusations and thus far they have failed miserably.

So in short I will not stand aside and listed to the crap that emanates from the uncivilised intolerant lefties. And yes I doubt their sincerity.

We get it, smear everyone by association. Lazy thinking at its best, keep it up.

PS: I note you never attacked the Tory MP who famously exposed the issue the first time? Unlike you I am sincere in that anyone, of any stripe who attempts to expose this cover-up for what it really is gets my full backing. Yes I am a usual in that I think like most others; that this is disgusting and needs to be resolved..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
What is very clear is that Watson pursued a vendetta against a decent detective effin up his career because Settle had correctly worked out that the rape allegation by 'Jane' was a total crock and that did not suit Watson's agenda at all.

It is also very clear that someone gave 'Jane' a copy of Watson's letter to the DPP recklessly including her name, which then ended up with the media. Now who is likely to have done that, the DPP or Watson?

It is also very clear that Watson made and false allegations about Brittan leading to further distress to a terminally ill man. We will never know how much that shortened his life.

And yet several here seem to think that such is behaviour by Watson that should be celebrated. It is not, he should apologise.

Cue further attempts to fudge the issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 10:16 AM
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:44 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No. I deplore the way many here confuse claims of guilt with proof of such. I deplore the bad logic of those that say there is a crime when there is no proof of such. I deplore the way that some condone the character assassination of people for political reasons and then excuse themselves with a complete red herring. And finally those that sign up to the idea that innocence must be proven should be excluded from civilised society. This thread only has legs because of the desperate desire of politically motivated tribalists to stick some shit on those they dislike, nothing more. They are the vile bodies.

The burden of proof must always be with those making such accusations and thus far they have failed miserably.

So in short I will not stand aside and listed to the crap that emanates from the uncivilised intolerant lefties. And yes I doubt their sincerity.

We get it, smear everyone by association. Lazy thinking at its best, keep it up.

PS: I note you never attacked the Tory MP who famously exposed the issue the first time? Unlike you I am sincere in that anyone, of any stripe who attempts to expose this cover-up for what it really is gets my full backing. Yes I am a usual in that I think like most others; that this is disgusting and needs to be resolved..
No just the uncivilised intolerant lefties. Those lefties that support the concept that one is innocent until proven otherwise are not in that group. So which one do you think you are in? Jonky has already declared he is in the uncivilised one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
No 'fudging' from me, the man is a politician. Someone has to stand up to what I and others perceive to be a cover-up. His career is likely headed straight down the gutter anyway?

So what are you worried about? You will be very pleased when he crashes and burns..you and others with their hate-laden posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 10:23 AM
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 10:16 AM
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
We get it, smear everyone by association. Lazy thinking at its best, keep it up.

PS: I note you never attacked the Tory MP who famously exposed the issue the first time? Unlike you I am sincere in that anyone, of any stripe who attempts to expose this cover-up for what it really is gets my full backing. Yes I am a usual in that I think like most others; that this is disgusting and needs to be resolved..
No just the uncivilised intolerant lefties. Those lefties that support the concept that one is innocent until proven otherwise are not in that group. So which one do you think you are in? Jonky has already declared he is in the uncivilised one.
Oh well, at least J is sincere in his motivations, yes he has attacked Lab too.

I have stated a dozen times on this very thread what I believe, you can draw your own conclusions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 10:23 AM
No 'fudging' from me, the man is a politician. Someone has to stand up to what I and others perceive to be a cover-up. His career is likely headed straight down the gutter anyway?

So what are you worried about? You will be very pleased when he crashes and burns..you and others with their hate-laden posts.
Isn't it funny how the likes of RJD get all indignant over mentioning a cover up over something as serious as Philadelphia because it involves the tories (and other parties) but he himself and many others have categorically stated that brown caused the economic downturn and not the true culprits the private sector bankers and their greed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
As I read it; the reaction to what Tom watson has done rests on establishing the burden of proof. There are those of the opinion that what proof there is has been hidden, the accusation of a cover-up. And those that without this proof being of the second opinion 'that without proof there is no case to answer'.
The CPS are not going to investigate these allegations if 1) they are implicated in a cover-up. 2) if the government has instructed them not to investigate 'on the grounds of National security.
All that remains therefore is for the public to pressure the government into answering these allegations to their satisfaction ...... it is in the public interest that they do so!
Tom Watson can be outed as a self serving politician very easily (if that is what he is) - the government can reveal what it knows unredacted.
Witnesses, victims, and former officers can give their evidence (publically) and the verdict found and published.

There is a precedence: Victims of rape can have their day in court and the accused named and shamed or so be it established. Men have been jailed and their names put on registers based on less evidence than we believe exists in these cases.

If I was named as a child molester I would welcome the opportunity to establish my innocence in court ....... in the court of public opinion no less.


Edited by Affa, Nov 3 2015, 02:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 10:19 AM
What is very clear is that Watson pursued a vendetta against a decent detective effin up his career because Settle had correctly worked out that the rape allegation by 'Jane' was a total crock and that did not suit Watson's agenda at all.

It is also very clear that someone gave 'Jane' a copy of Watson's letter to the DPP recklessly including her name, which then ended up with the media. Now who is likely to have done that, the DPP or Watson?

It is also very clear that Watson made and false allegations about Brittan leading to further distress to a terminally ill man. We will never know how much that shortened his life.

And yet several here seem to think that such is behaviour by Watson that should be celebrated. It is not, he should apologise.

Cue further attempts to fudge the issue.
Just out of curiosity do you think jimmy saville was innocent?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 10:23 AM
No 'fudging' from me, the man is a politician. Someone has to stand up to what I and others perceive to be a cover-up. His career is likely headed straight down the gutter anyway?

So what are you worried about? You will be very pleased when he crashes and burns..you and others with their hate-laden posts.
I see, so now your certainty of the situation is reduced to a "perception" well, I suppose that is an admission of sorts that you have been over zealous in your claims regarding guilt, perhaps you no longer feel so sure of bringing perceptions to the CPS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 09:55 AM

Do keep up
I suspect you were dozing when the race was on. ;D

Watson has done a few other things as well that might have been responsible for him getting 198,962 votes in the recent deputy leadership race.

For example he's a bit of a thorn in the side of some real arseholes who think they can buy influence in this country, for example he has published details of links between Rupert Murdoch and senior police officers over the hacking scandal, in fact he has likened Murdoch senior to a Mafia boss, he's written a book in collaboration with an Independent journalist entitled Hack Attack, How the Truth Caught up With Rupert Murdoch, I'm guessing it won't be serialised in any mainstream paper, he also passed on documents to the police about this child abuse stuff we've been talking about Operation Fairbank it's called if you didn't know, and it's still up and running, and there is plenty of other stuff I've not even mentioned!

So Steve, Watson is clearly a "little shit" because unlike so many in our rotten to the core establishment politicians he actually highlights the serial abuse of privilege,the corrupt links between the fourth estate and government and vile behaviour in high office! In short the bloke has got some bottle.


No wonder you fell for all the bollocks printed in the press............... ;-)
Edited by Tigger, Nov 3 2015, 09:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 3 2015, 10:05 AM
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 10:02 AM
skwirked
Nov 2 2015, 11:54 PM
It's clear that a whole raft of allegations have been left uninvestigated. Y/n?

It's clear that evidence has been destroyed, lost etc in very sus circumstances? Y/n?

It's clear that some people have died in very sus circumstances? Y/n


- Not clear

- Not clear and

- Yes, some people have committed suicide following false allegations or having their identities leaked to the media


What those questions have to do with Watson not apologising for causing harm pursuing his own ego I have no idea.

The fact that many on the left support Watson's stance, they go out of their way to excuse him by bringing up all sorts of unrelated bunkum is telling. I believe their stance to be wholly political and their excuses insincere. They only paint themselves up as the nasty face of the left.



PURE IGNORANCE! ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 3 2015, 09:34 PM
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 09:55 AM

Do keep up
I suspect you were dozing when the race was on. ;D

Watson has done a few other things as well that might have been responsible for him getting 198,962 votes in the recent deputy leadership race.

For example he's a bit of a thorn in the side of some real arseholes who think they can buy influence in this country, for example he has published details of links between Rupert Murdoch and senior police officers over the hacking scandal, in fact he has likened Murdoch senior to a Mafia boss, he's written a book in collaboration with an Independent journalist entitled Hack Attack, How the Truth Caught up With Rupert Murdoch, I'm guessing it won't be serialised in any mainstream paper, he also passed on documents to the police about this child abuse stuff we've been talking about Operation Fairbank it's called if you didn't know, and it's still up and running, and there is plenty of other stuff I've not even mentioned!

So Steve, Watson is clearly a "little shit" because unlike so many in our rotten to the core establishment politicians he actually highlights the serial abuse of privilege,the corrupt links between the fourth estate and government and vile behaviour in high office! In short the bloke has got some bottle.


No wonder you fell for all the bollocks printed in the press............... ;-)
I hope Steve doesn't think that Watson hurt poor old vulnerable Murdoch's feelings too? Perhaps he should apologize for everything he's done.

RJD would certainly agree, being a lefty = being a vile body and all lefties believe in the same things. Some right wingers think all leftys are evel muslim pro-philadelphia goons, looks like the ones who hate philadelphia are 'just as bad'?

See how I'm smearing by association? Great aint it.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 3 2015, 09:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:41 PM
I hope Steve doesn't think that Watson hurt poor old vulnerable Murdoch's feelings too? Perhaps he should apologize for everything he's done.
Poor Lupert!

;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/oct/13/tories-gunning-for-tom-watson-forget-ignored-sexual-abuse-muckraking

Tories gunning for Tom Watson forget their years of ignored muckraking
Tabloids and Conservative MPs have peddled abuse allegations in Westminster for years, yet many stories, like Jimmy Savile case, went unheard


Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Photograph: PA
Michael White
Tuesday 13 October 2015 16.47 BST Last modified on Tuesday 13 October 2015 19.57 BST

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Shares
694
Save for later
Tory MPs and outraged tabloids, now gunning for Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, over the allegations of sexual abuse he directed at the late Leon Brittan, might like to ponder the fact that Tory MPs and tabloids have shown similar enthusiasm for such stories down the years. People in glass houses should be careful throwing bricks.

As I have reported here before, the first whisper of child molestation I heard against Brittan at Westminster was at least 30 years ago when he was briefly home secretary (1983-85). It came not from Tom Watson, who was a teenager at the time, but from a well-known rightwing Tory MP, also now dead. I thought the specific allegation implausible then, and still do.

Much less posh, another Tory MP, the late Geoffrey Dickens, spent a lot of time in the 80s peddling paedophile cover-up conspiracy stories which the tabloids hoovered up enthusiastically. In the Peter Hayman case, Dickens was right, but in some allegations he wasn’t. Fearless muckraker Tam Dalyell thought him a publicity hound and took no part in it.

That all goes with the territory, too, as Watson is discovering. Not every such allegation is true; nor are they all untrue. There is still much more to be resolved, either by Judge Goddard, or by the police. Brittan’s name may still be in the frame, despite this week’s belated police apology over what they now say was a false historic allegation of rape by a woman.

It’s also true – I wrote at length about it here – that Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Her aide, Peter Morrison MP, was probably protected, albeit not by her. Yet the mid-80s allegations against Brittan peddled to me by my Tory MP chum were later investigated by Private Eye’s redoubtable Paul Foot (no Tory), who decided they were an MI5 smear planted to damage the then home secretary. I’ve heard that, too. Smoke and mirrors, isn’t it?


Many journalists disregarded the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye allegations against Cyril Smith. Photograph: PA
In the Commons yesterday, gallant Sir Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill and a rare survivor of aristocratic political attitudes in the modern Commons, called on Watson to apologise for “vilely traducing the late Lord Brittan”.

Advertisement

As you can see, tough guy Watson, the man who took on Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, rejected the invitation, along with David Cameron’s suggestion on LBC Radio that he “examine his conscience” about the way he handled the information which came his way in 2012. Given the mess we have made of child sexual abuse in this country – “abused, ignored, dismissed”, Watson said – “we all need to examine our consciences”. Fair point. Soames, who is a decent man, was not satisfied. Nor are the Brittan family or the Daily Mail.

But hang on. As recently as last November, the mighty Mail was enthusiastically running paedophile cover-up stories like this one by Guy Adams, a smart operator, in which Watson and fellow accusers are respectfully treated. The Mail has a track record of being quick to accuse, then to turn on false accusers as if the paper had never given their claims any coverage. Cot deaths, anyone?

Advertisement

I’m conflicted on this one, naturally sceptical about some of the more exotic allegations being promoted by Exaro and others with assorted axes to grind – remember Harvey Proctor’s dignified statement in August – but aware that many of us were too complacent when the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye made allegations against Cyril Smith. “If it was true, they’d arrest him.” Not necessarily.

So the best way to proceed, as in so much else, is with an open mind and a cautious use of language.

I’m conflicted a bit about Tom Watson, too. Plenty of good people, including likely allies, warn me off him, as divisive and sectarian, not to be trusted. I hope they are wrong, because the Corbyn-led Labour leadership needs the stability and deal-making pragmatism a trade union fixer like Watson has in his bones. We’ll know soon enough if he can hold it together.

Myself, I’ve always instinctively liked Tom and have been given no reason to disbelieve what he tells me when we occasionally chat. It includes his claim that he and Gordon Brown simply watched Postman Pat with their children when Tom visited Gordon at home before the abortive coup to oust Tony Blair in the autumn of 2006. I was mocked at the time, but it might be true for reasons I won’t go into. A former engineering union official (the AEEU later merged to become Unite), Watson resigned (he is a serial resigner) before he was sacked, but Blair lasted only a year.

In this case, it looks as if some of the allegations Watson made may not stick, and that some of the words he used may prove unwise. It is always so, even at the Mail. But things are not quite as his accusers say. Consider the first such intervention he made during PMQs on 24 October 2012 – scroll down quite a long way here – his language is circumspect, as is David Cameron’s reply.

At that stage (here’s his account), Watson hadn’t heard anything about Brittan, let alone those Dolphin Square “orgies”. It was Jimmy Hood MP, who used a debate on the 1984-5 miners strike two weeks later to drag in Brittan. Some miners’ families will never forgive anyone connected with their historic defeat.

Struggling to catch up after years of Savile-style failure (how much did assorted police forces and tabloids really know about him?), the cops asked Watson to reassure potential victims that they would be taken seriously: he did. More information flowed in. He explained it on his blog (now discontinued?). Again, I think you will find the tone reasonable, cautiously thoughtful even. There are enough “mays” and “coulds” in it to constitute prudence.

Of course, things got rapidly more lurid after the ailing Brittan died in January and the Met police were at fault in not telling him there was no real evidence in the rape allegation. In January Watson weighed in, identifying Brittan as the senior politician he had not previously named. A lot of others were put in the frame, including Lord Bramall, a distinguished former chief of the defence staff. His home was searched and he was interviewed by Operation Midland officers (most cops like to form a view after interviewing a suspect) in March. Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard have both been given the treatment: cops and media in concert. All have denied the various allegations.

It sounds like madness and in most cases it may well be. But not all. That is, I suspect, why Watson refused to accept Soames’s invitation to recant yesterday. This sordid business, consuming so much police time years after it should have been tackled head on, isn’t over yet. Which is why thoughtful Tory pundits like Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson might sensibly hold some of their scornful fire, likewise the Observer’s Nick Cohen.

After all, did not Bishop Peter Ball, convicted the other day of indecent assault years ago, have some powerful backers and protection by the church? Has Thatcher’s biographer, Moore, not forgotten her Savile knighthood against advice? No, he wrote about it. Are they not all making the same mistake they (and most of us) made years ago when we disbelieved all we were told?

Critics say that Watson has used the campaign to promote his political career. The poor chap is now Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, so he is suffering for his ambition. But the same charge of ulterior motive can be laid against most people in public life. There are easier ways to advancement than attacking Rupert Murdoch and making allegations against other powerful people. In any case, some attackers have ulterior motives, too: as Murdoch’s nemesis, Watson is deemed an enemy of the oligarch free press, a sort of friend of Corbyn, too. That’s two more reasons to get stuck in.

I cannot vouch for this law firm or its motives, ulterior or otherwise, but it is clearly experienced in this field. What it says today is this: it isn’t over yet. Plenty of time for the Mail to change sides again.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jimmy Saville was probably the biggest and most prolific sex offender on reord in the UK not only was he a rapist and paedophile he was also into necrophilia.
He was interviewed under caution several times over sex offenses when he was alive but nothing ever came of it. This is the guy who went on to fool several PM’s the royal family and the country as a whole. And now the truth is out it seems that very many of those in show business and many of his colleagues knew he was dodgy to say the least and still nothing ever came of it until he died, and then there were well in excess of 400 counts against him.

Not only did he fool the country he went on and received a bloody knighthood. Whoever vetted him for that should have had their arse kicked. At the end of the day he was just a poxy DJ, so just look what those in power and in the government like Brittan who was a home secretary for a period could achieve to cover up their own plus others tracks and prevent the truth from coming out.

One of the times saville was interviewed by the police under caution it took place at his office in Stoke Mandeville hospital rather than a police station where serious cases like sexual abuse were normally carried out. One has to ask the question who was actually calling the shots at the interview/s?


There are way too many allegations out there for them all to be false and anyone who cannot see that there has not been a cover up of the highest magnitude by the BBC, (in savilles case) the government the police and the security services quite frankly should have their heads examined.
Edited by Jonksy, Nov 4 2015, 06:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 3 2015, 09:44 PM
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:41 PM
I hope Steve doesn't think that Watson hurt poor old vulnerable Murdoch's feelings too? Perhaps he should apologize for everything he's done.
Poor Lupert!

;D

Sir Nicholas Soames who has initiated the attack on Tom Watson. I love the way the Guardian have put the fat tory bastard on a pedestal..

A question that therefore follows is whether there is or isn’t a case for such an enquiry in the first place. Over 130 MPs believe that there is, and their number on the Conservative side includes Graham Brady, Sir John Randall, Sir Nicholas Soames, and Caroline Spelman. These are not excitable citizens. Douglas Carswell, George Freeman, Charlotte Leslie and Paul Maynard are among the other Tory backers.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/07/why-there-should-be-an-enquiry-into-historical-child-abuse.html

Hypocritical or what? The compassionate and caring Sir Nicholas Soames, is the fat gutted tory arsehole who did everything he could to discredit our returning military from GW1 over gulf war syndrome.

But of course this is the same fat bastard who was linked to the manufacturers of the concoction of drugs that were pumped into our military personnel's arms.

This is also the obnoxious piece of work Nicholas Soames ([Churchill's grandson and Conservative MP and former Minister) who avoided paying inheritance tax on family heirlooms he had been left, by listing them as available to public inspection when they were not.

He also threatened to sell Churchill's personal diary and private memoirs etc on Crown owned paper which he had written in the time of being PM in WW2 to the USA and the National Lottery stepped in and purchased them for the nation who technically owned them in the first place,

Edited by Jonksy, Nov 4 2015, 06:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jonksy
Nov 4 2015, 05:31 AM
Tigger
Nov 3 2015, 09:44 PM
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:41 PM
I hope Steve doesn't think that Watson hurt poor old vulnerable Murdoch's feelings too? Perhaps he should apologize for everything he's done.
Poor Lupert!

;D

Sir Nicholas Soames who has initiated the attack on Tom Watson. I love the way the Guardian have put the fat tory bastard on a pedestal..

A question that therefore follows is whether there is or isn’t a case for such an enquiry in the first place. Over 130 MPs believe that there is, and their number on the Conservative side includes Graham Brady, Sir John Randall, Sir Nicholas Soames, and Caroline Spelman. These are not excitable citizens. Douglas Carswell, George Freeman, Charlotte Leslie and Paul Maynard are among the other Tory backers.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/07/why-there-should-be-an-enquiry-into-historical-child-abuse.html

Hypocritical or what? The compassionate and caring Sir Nicholas Soames, is the fat gutted tory arsehole who did everything he could to discredit our returning military from GW1 over gulf war syndrome.

But of course this is the same fat bastard who was linked to the manufacturers of the concoction of drugs that were pumped into our military personnel's arms.

This is also the obnoxious piece of work Nicholas Soames ([Churchill's grandson and Conservative MP and former Minister) who avoided paying inheritance tax on family heirlooms he had been left, by listing them as available to public inspection when they were not.

He also threatened to sell Churchill's personal diary and private memoirs etc on Crown owned paper which he had written in the time of being PM in WW2 to the USA and the National Lottery stepped in and purchased them for the nation who technically owned them in the first place,

Your ramblings about Soames has nothing to do about the Tom Watson apology of course.
Just a new day and another anti Tory rant,on your part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 3 2015, 09:41 PM
Tigger
Nov 3 2015, 09:34 PM
Steve K
Nov 3 2015, 09:55 AM

Do keep up
I suspect you were dozing when the race was on. ;D

Watson has done a few other things as well that might have been responsible for him getting 198,962 votes in the recent deputy leadership race.

For example he's a bit of a thorn in the side of some real arseholes who think they can buy influence in this country, for example he has published details of links between Rupert Murdoch and senior police officers over the hacking scandal, in fact he has likened Murdoch senior to a Mafia boss, he's written a book in collaboration with an Independent journalist entitled Hack Attack, How the Truth Caught up With Rupert Murdoch, I'm guessing it won't be serialised in any mainstream paper, he also passed on documents to the police about this child abuse stuff we've been talking about Operation Fairbank it's called if you didn't know, and it's still up and running, and there is plenty of other stuff I've not even mentioned!

So Steve, Watson is clearly a "little shit" because unlike so many in our rotten to the core establishment politicians he actually highlights the serial abuse of privilege,the corrupt links between the fourth estate and government and vile behaviour in high office! In short the bloke has got some bottle.


No wonder you fell for all the bollocks printed in the press............... ;-)
I hope Steve doesn't think that Watson hurt poor old vulnerable Murdoch's feelings too? Perhaps he should apologize for everything he's done.

RJD would certainly agree, being a lefty = being a vile body and all lefties believe in the same things. Some right wingers think all leftys are evel muslim pro-philadelphia goons, looks like the ones who hate philadelphia are 'just as bad'?

See how I'm smearing by association? Great aint it.
Not true, I spelled out exactly who went in which group and you chose to ignore that. I think now I know which group you sit in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 4 2015, 12:53 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/oct/13/tories-gunning-for-tom-watson-forget-ignored-sexual-abuse-muckraking

Tories gunning for Tom Watson forget their years of ignored muckraking
Tabloids and Conservative MPs have peddled abuse allegations in Westminster for years, yet many stories, like Jimmy Savile case, went unheard


Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Photograph: PA
Michael White
Tuesday 13 October 2015 16.47 BST Last modified on Tuesday 13 October 2015 19.57 BST

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Shares
694
Save for later
Tory MPs and outraged tabloids, now gunning for Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, over the allegations of sexual abuse he directed at the late Leon Brittan, might like to ponder the fact that Tory MPs and tabloids have shown similar enthusiasm for such stories down the years. People in glass houses should be careful throwing bricks.

As I have reported here before, the first whisper of child molestation I heard against Brittan at Westminster was at least 30 years ago when he was briefly home secretary (1983-85). It came not from Tom Watson, who was a teenager at the time, but from a well-known rightwing Tory MP, also now dead. I thought the specific allegation implausible then, and still do.

Much less posh, another Tory MP, the late Geoffrey Dickens, spent a lot of time in the 80s peddling paedophile cover-up conspiracy stories which the tabloids hoovered up enthusiastically. In the Peter Hayman case, Dickens was right, but in some allegations he wasn’t. Fearless muckraker Tam Dalyell thought him a publicity hound and took no part in it.

That all goes with the territory, too, as Watson is discovering. Not every such allegation is true; nor are they all untrue. There is still much more to be resolved, either by Judge Goddard, or by the police. Brittan’s name may still be in the frame, despite this week’s belated police apology over what they now say was a false historic allegation of rape by a woman.

It’s also true – I wrote at length about it here – that Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Her aide, Peter Morrison MP, was probably protected, albeit not by her. Yet the mid-80s allegations against Brittan peddled to me by my Tory MP chum were later investigated by Private Eye’s redoubtable Paul Foot (no Tory), who decided they were an MI5 smear planted to damage the then home secretary. I’ve heard that, too. Smoke and mirrors, isn’t it?


Many journalists disregarded the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye allegations against Cyril Smith. Photograph: PA
In the Commons yesterday, gallant Sir Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill and a rare survivor of aristocratic political attitudes in the modern Commons, called on Watson to apologise for “vilely traducing the late Lord Brittan”.

Advertisement

As you can see, tough guy Watson, the man who took on Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, rejected the invitation, along with David Cameron’s suggestion on LBC Radio that he “examine his conscience” about the way he handled the information which came his way in 2012. Given the mess we have made of child sexual abuse in this country – “abused, ignored, dismissed”, Watson said – “we all need to examine our consciences”. Fair point. Soames, who is a decent man, was not satisfied. Nor are the Brittan family or the Daily Mail.

But hang on. As recently as last November, the mighty Mail was enthusiastically running paedophile cover-up stories like this one by Guy Adams, a smart operator, in which Watson and fellow accusers are respectfully treated. The Mail has a track record of being quick to accuse, then to turn on false accusers as if the paper had never given their claims any coverage. Cot deaths, anyone?

Advertisement

I’m conflicted on this one, naturally sceptical about some of the more exotic allegations being promoted by Exaro and others with assorted axes to grind – remember Harvey Proctor’s dignified statement in August – but aware that many of us were too complacent when the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye made allegations against Cyril Smith. “If it was true, they’d arrest him.” Not necessarily.

So the best way to proceed, as in so much else, is with an open mind and a cautious use of language.

I’m conflicted a bit about Tom Watson, too. Plenty of good people, including likely allies, warn me off him, as divisive and sectarian, not to be trusted. I hope they are wrong, because the Corbyn-led Labour leadership needs the stability and deal-making pragmatism a trade union fixer like Watson has in his bones. We’ll know soon enough if he can hold it together.

Myself, I’ve always instinctively liked Tom and have been given no reason to disbelieve what he tells me when we occasionally chat. It includes his claim that he and Gordon Brown simply watched Postman Pat with their children when Tom visited Gordon at home before the abortive coup to oust Tony Blair in the autumn of 2006. I was mocked at the time, but it might be true for reasons I won’t go into. A former engineering union official (the AEEU later merged to become Unite), Watson resigned (he is a serial resigner) before he was sacked, but Blair lasted only a year.

In this case, it looks as if some of the allegations Watson made may not stick, and that some of the words he used may prove unwise. It is always so, even at the Mail. But things are not quite as his accusers say. Consider the first such intervention he made during PMQs on 24 October 2012 – scroll down quite a long way here – his language is circumspect, as is David Cameron’s reply.

At that stage (here’s his account), Watson hadn’t heard anything about Brittan, let alone those Dolphin Square “orgies”. It was Jimmy Hood MP, who used a debate on the 1984-5 miners strike two weeks later to drag in Brittan. Some miners’ families will never forgive anyone connected with their historic defeat.

Struggling to catch up after years of Savile-style failure (how much did assorted police forces and tabloids really know about him?), the cops asked Watson to reassure potential victims that they would be taken seriously: he did. More information flowed in. He explained it on his blog (now discontinued?). Again, I think you will find the tone reasonable, cautiously thoughtful even. There are enough “mays” and “coulds” in it to constitute prudence.

Of course, things got rapidly more lurid after the ailing Brittan died in January and the Met police were at fault in not telling him there was no real evidence in the rape allegation. In January Watson weighed in, identifying Brittan as the senior politician he had not previously named. A lot of others were put in the frame, including Lord Bramall, a distinguished former chief of the defence staff. His home was searched and he was interviewed by Operation Midland officers (most cops like to form a view after interviewing a suspect) in March. Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard have both been given the treatment: cops and media in concert. All have denied the various allegations.

It sounds like madness and in most cases it may well be. But not all. That is, I suspect, why Watson refused to accept Soames’s invitation to recant yesterday. This sordid business, consuming so much police time years after it should have been tackled head on, isn’t over yet. Which is why thoughtful Tory pundits like Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson might sensibly hold some of their scornful fire, likewise the Observer’s Nick Cohen.

After all, did not Bishop Peter Ball, convicted the other day of indecent assault years ago, have some powerful backers and protection by the church? Has Thatcher’s biographer, Moore, not forgotten her Savile knighthood against advice? No, he wrote about it. Are they not all making the same mistake they (and most of us) made years ago when we disbelieved all we were told?

Critics say that Watson has used the campaign to promote his political career. The poor chap is now Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, so he is suffering for his ambition. But the same charge of ulterior motive can be laid against most people in public life. There are easier ways to advancement than attacking Rupert Murdoch and making allegations against other powerful people. In any case, some attackers have ulterior motives, too: as Murdoch’s nemesis, Watson is deemed an enemy of the oligarch free press, a sort of friend of Corbyn, too. That’s two more reasons to get stuck in.

I cannot vouch for this law firm or its motives, ulterior or otherwise, but it is clearly experienced in this field. What it says today is this: it isn’t over yet. Plenty of time for the Mail to change sides again.

Oh dear now we play the illogical trick of seeking to condone the vile behaviour of their hero by claiming others have mokes in their eyes.

Sorry skw but that kite will not fly. Best keep grubbing around. We have seen the "well he wasn't proven innocent claims and the Strawmen, how about some real rock solid evidence for a change"? You know of the standard required by a Court of Law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply