In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Not to mention the fact that the principal source of his allegations was one Chris May, a hard-left ex-Labour councillor who apparently said that he was "fully up for a witchhunt against Tories". Mr May is also a convicted fraudster, who also touted his evidence to Labour MP Simon Mann, who has also been active in pursuing child sexual abuse issues. Mann decided that neither May nor his supposed victims were remotely plausible, including a Labour activist called "Jane" who seemingly has mental health issues and another called "Darren" who also has previous convictions and seems to be something of a fantastist.
Watson not only ignored these clear warning signs, or the obvious point that while victims have certainly been disgracefully overlooked in the past (Saville), there is a clear danger that if supporting evidence is not available, open season on prominent figures, especially if they are political opponents will attract all manner of cranks and the malicious, a witch-hunt in short. Simple prudence about an important matter should have given him pause, as it did for Mann.
Watson did not only report these claims to the police (and was also instrumental in getting an investigation restarted when it had been dropped for lack of evidence), he also used parliamentary privilege to claim he knew of a high level paedophile ring, and published an article describing Brittan as "as nearly evil as a human being can be", with a weasely get out that he was reporting what a "victim" had told him. Clearly if he was interested in suppressed abuses being taken up with due process, he should have just reported them, maybe inquired about progress but in no way should he have publically made a viciously pejorative comment about the claimed offender.
As it happens, I have met Tom Watson and he struck me as a highly dubious character, with multiple agendas to grind as long as they were to his personal advantage. Bearing in mind the bias thread, this may be a hasty generalisation as I have not met many nationally prominent politicians and a high proportion of them might strike you as a bit dubious had one done so. But it was not solely an impression, there was a rather more tangible bit of evidence behind it.
Before TW became Nonce finder general (somewhat selectively, that is, depending on the political orientation of supposed nonces), his main claim to fame was as Mr "all things digital and modern" to the house of commons. So when TW was due to speak on the subject of RFIDs, I went along to the HOC with my then boss, a reasonably prominent industry figure.
We were both bemused to listen to TW's speech, as it seemed full of misconceptions about what RFIDs were for and their import. So afterwards Paul, my boss, said to him :
"Tom, we were a bit puzzled by some of the things you said, as they don't quite reflect how we see the significance of RFIDs in business, can we have a bit of a talk about them?".
TW, despite his posture of being the "House expert", was not remotely interested, though Paul was not being the least bit aggressive or dismissive, just trying to correct some significant misconceptions in someone who seemed to have a position of some influence. TW clearly urgently wanted to get to one of the subisidised bars (though he DID buy us a drink!), he just saw RFIDs, and matters digital generally, as being a bandwagon he could personally jump on and get noticed. Later, and more harmfully, (as it is a serious subject that should not be trivialised by personal ambition), he became more excited by CSE than RFIDs, seeming to see a better opportunity for himself there.
Post edited at 18:36