This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Given the despicable manner in which he dragged the name of Leon Brittan (and others)through the mud I'm surprised there's been no comment on these pages.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Well be fair. He only dragged the names of Tory politicians throught the mud. He did not
to sign the letter calling for Labour Lord Janner to be prosecuted
Well be fair. He only dragged the names of Tory politicians throught the mud. He did not
to sign the letter calling for Labour Lord Janner to be prosecuted
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I wonder why. Hardly fair.
> He did not
> to sign the letter calling for Labour Lord Janner to be prosecuted
I wonder why. Hardly fair.
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Why do you assume he was being hypocritical? He was made aware of the allegations being made against Britain, and that they weren't being properly investigated, and felt he had responsibility, as an MP, to raise the issue. Not sure whether the claims, which may or may have been genuine, were made by a constituent.
With Janner the claims were investigated, but the decision not to prosecute was based on medical grounds.
But of course the right-wing tabloids don't want to consider the details....
> Well be fair. He only dragged the names of Tory politicians throught the mud. He did not
> to sign the letter calling for Labour Lord Janner to be prosecuted
Why do you assume he was being hypocritical? He was made aware of the allegations being made against Britain, and that they weren't being properly investigated, and felt he had responsibility, as an MP, to raise the issue. Not sure whether the claims, which may or may have been genuine, were made by a constituent.
With Janner the claims were investigated, but the decision not to prosecute was based on medical grounds.
But of course the right-wing tabloids don't want to consider the details....
12
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Maybe it is because Leon Brittain was not just accused of the rape of a woman there were other accusations, relating to children , and after Saville and Smith , I for one am not convinced that just because there was 'insufficient evidence ' on one accusation, that I should then round on his accusers , and perhaps put off other witnesses coming forward.
Before Saville I might Have reacted differently. I could be wrong, but my gut just tells me not to jump to Brittain's defence.
> Given the despicable manner in which he dragged the name of Leon Brittan (and others)through the mud I'm surprised there's been no comment on these pages.
Maybe it is because Leon Brittain was not just accused of the rape of a woman there were other accusations, relating to children , and after Saville and Smith , I for one am not convinced that just because there was 'insufficient evidence ' on one accusation, that I should then round on his accusers , and perhaps put off other witnesses coming forward.
Before Saville I might Have reacted differently. I could be wrong, but my gut just tells me not to jump to Brittain's defence.
11
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It was not necessary to publicise any of this no matter who was involved until the police had carried out at least a preliminary investigation. Too much muck raking and Labour seem to be at the forefront right now. Watson, of course, pushed as hard as he could. Not good. the man is a t..t.
It was not necessary to publicise any of this no matter who was involved until the police had carried out at least a preliminary investigation. Too much muck raking and Labour seem to be at the forefront right now. Watson, of course, pushed as hard as he could. Not good. the man is a t..t.
3
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Not quite like that, I'd say. The allegations against Brittain were investigated and dropped. In the light of the subsequent decision after the second investigation that there was no case to answer, it would seem correctly dropped but Watson used his position to demand the case be re-opened in the interests of the victim. When the case against Janner was dropped politicos of all parties called for it to be pursued with at least a hearing for the 'finding of the facts' to satisfy the alleged victims that their evidence had been heard and placed on record, even if Janner himself could not be prosecuted. Watson, the self-proclaimed champion of abuse victims looked the other way. 'Hypocritical' seems rather mild to me. It is very hard not to see his zealous - now it seems over-zealous - pursuit of arch Tory Brittain and inaction over Labour Grandee Janner as playing politics with a subject that should be above party concerns.
> Why do you assume he was being hypocritical? He was made aware of the allegations being made against Britain, and that they weren't being properly investigated,..... With Janner the claims were investigated, but the decision not to prosecute was based on medical grounds.
Not quite like that, I'd say. The allegations against Brittain were investigated and dropped. In the light of the subsequent decision after the second investigation that there was no case to answer, it would seem correctly dropped but Watson used his position to demand the case be re-opened in the interests of the victim. When the case against Janner was dropped politicos of all parties called for it to be pursued with at least a hearing for the 'finding of the facts' to satisfy the alleged victims that their evidence had been heard and placed on record, even if Janner himself could not be prosecuted. Watson, the self-proclaimed champion of abuse victims looked the other way. 'Hypocritical' seems rather mild to me. It is very hard not to see his zealous - now it seems over-zealous - pursuit of arch Tory Brittain and inaction over Labour Grandee Janner as playing politics with a subject that should be above party concerns.
2
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.
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
11
1
In reply to Jim C:
But you don't need to jump to Brittan or anyone elses' defence to see that due process and the presumption of innocence mean that if one has reasonable suspicion, one should report it, not make what would be wildly defamatory comments under any circumstances the protection of parliamentary privilege, nor do you need to defend anyone to realise that just because Saville was guilty, that does NOT mean it is reasonable to condemn someone completely different on the basis of rumours.
Authur Miller in the preamble to The Crucible actually discusses the question "were there in fact witches in Salem?", a direct analogy for "were there prominent communists in America?" at the time of Mcarthy, concluding that the answer was "yes or maybe" in both cases (not actual witches in Salem, but dancing round trees, incantations and drinking and possible sexual looseness), but that was no good reason for abandoning all normal legal precautions, i.e. due process, and presuming that accusation is the same as guilt.
> Before Saville I might Have reacted differently. I could be wrong, but my gut just tells me not to jump to Brittain's defence.
But you don't need to jump to Brittan or anyone elses' defence to see that due process and the presumption of innocence mean that if one has reasonable suspicion, one should report it, not make what would be wildly defamatory comments under any circumstances the protection of parliamentary privilege, nor do you need to defend anyone to realise that just because Saville was guilty, that does NOT mean it is reasonable to condemn someone completely different on the basis of rumours.
Authur Miller in the preamble to The Crucible actually discusses the question "were there in fact witches in Salem?", a direct analogy for "were there prominent communists in America?" at the time of Mcarthy, concluding that the answer was "yes or maybe" in both cases (not actual witches in Salem, but dancing round trees, incantations and drinking and possible sexual looseness), but that was no good reason for abandoning all normal legal precautions, i.e. due process, and presuming that accusation is the same as guilt.
Post edited at 18:48
3
In reply to Simon4: I don't think you have to meet him to find him highly dubious character.
And I'm a fully paid up Guardianista.
And I'm a fully paid up Guardianista.
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
I think the main question is whether anyone has seen him and Nick Frost in the same room.
I think the main question is whether anyone has seen him and Nick Frost in the same room.
In reply to Stone Idle:
And, of course, the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance. My understanding is that Watson went out of his way to dissociate himself from the accusations levelled at Janner.
Brittan was effectively hounded to his death by these accusation and the failure of the Metropolitan Police to reveal their findings earlier during Britten's life time.
> It was not necessary to publicise any of this no matter who was involved until the police had carried out at least a preliminary investigation. Too much muck raking and Labour seem to be at the forefront right now. Watson, of course, pushed as hard as he could. Not good. the man is a t..t.
And, of course, the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance. My understanding is that Watson went out of his way to dissociate himself from the accusations levelled at Janner.
Brittan was effectively hounded to his death by these accusation and the failure of the Metropolitan Police to reveal their findings earlier during Britten's life time.
1
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
We'll see, shall we?
I can't form much of a view on this, having no information about the likelihood of Brittan's guilt to base a position on (my view doesn't have to reach a threshold of reasonable doubt, so please don't give me any "proven innocent" crap). Like REW above, I find TW deeply shady (mind you, while I imagine I am perceived as part of the "UKC guardianista" I neither read the Guardian, nor vote Labour) and don't fully trust his motives. On the other hand, I don't find it implausible that, combined with a twist a self-interest, he is genuinely fighting the corner of potential victims whom he believes have been mistreated by the law.
So it might well turn out that you're talking complete crap.
> And, of course, the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance.
We'll see, shall we?
I can't form much of a view on this, having no information about the likelihood of Brittan's guilt to base a position on (my view doesn't have to reach a threshold of reasonable doubt, so please don't give me any "proven innocent" crap). Like REW above, I find TW deeply shady (mind you, while I imagine I am perceived as part of the "UKC guardianista" I neither read the Guardian, nor vote Labour) and don't fully trust his motives. On the other hand, I don't find it implausible that, combined with a twist a self-interest, he is genuinely fighting the corner of potential victims whom he believes have been mistreated by the law.
So it might well turn out that you're talking complete crap.
3
2
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
'My understanding is that Watson went out of his way to dissociate himself from the accusations levelled at Janner. '
Based on what?
'My understanding is that Watson went out of his way to dissociate himself from the accusations levelled at Janner. '
Based on what?
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
'And, of course, the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance.'
Er ... well I didn't.
'And, of course, the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance.'
Er ... well I didn't.
In reply to Simon4:
Interesting.....I've only read the Guardian story about his semi-demi-apology and it doesn't mention any of this.
> 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.
Interesting.....I've only read the Guardian story about his semi-demi-apology and it doesn't mention any of this.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
How? The police have concluded that there was no case to answer. Even had there been a case to answer, Watson's duty was to inform the police of this, not to use parliamentary privilege to viciously malign a former political opponent before any of the evidence had been examined.
Watson's weasel reply, that he was right to report what he knew to the police, is a deliberate avoidance of the the point being made by his critics . New principled politics my arse.
> We'll see, shall we?
> I can't form much of a view on this, having no information about the likelihood of Brittan's guilt to base a position on
> So it might well turn out that you're talking complete crap.
How? The police have concluded that there was no case to answer. Even had there been a case to answer, Watson's duty was to inform the police of this, not to use parliamentary privilege to viciously malign a former political opponent before any of the evidence had been examined.
Watson's weasel reply, that he was right to report what he knew to the police, is a deliberate avoidance of the the point being made by his critics . New principled politics my arse.
Post edited at 21:41
7
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think you're going off on one.
The claim I am disputing is that
Let's see if that happens, shall we?
I think you're going off on one.
The claim I am disputing is that
> the predominantly left wing guardianista of UKC will close ranks to back Watson and maintain their "Labour/Left is good/innocent;Conservative is bad/guilty" stance
Let's see if that happens, shall we?
1
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
The thing is the guy could have gained some credibility(or at least maintain what little he had), if when the Police dropped the case, he made a public apology to the family and said he made the claims based on what he thought, or was informed, at the time. Instead he has just shown his true colours and character.
What is scary is that if labour thinks they'll ever get power, this muppet would be running the country when Corbyn, has other previous bookings in Fort William.
The thing is the guy could have gained some credibility(or at least maintain what little he had), if when the Police dropped the case, he made a public apology to the family and said he made the claims based on what he thought, or was informed, at the time. Instead he has just shown his true colours and character.
What is scary is that if labour thinks they'll ever get power, this muppet would be running the country when Corbyn, has other previous bookings in Fort William.
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
No, I just misunderstood your main point.
>
Hopefully people on here are more sensible than Labour aparatchiks
> I think you're going off on one.
No, I just misunderstood your main point.
>
> Let's see if that happens, shall we?
Hopefully people on here are more sensible than Labour aparatchiks
Post edited at 22:25
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
'Hopefully people on here are more sensible that Labour aparatchiks'
That is the most damning comment that I have ever heard on the current state of the Labour party.
'Hopefully people on here are more sensible that Labour aparatchiks'
That is the most damning comment that I have ever heard on the current state of the Labour party.
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
Just seen part of his statement. I see he went for the deflection tactic of we're all to blame 'We should all examine our consciences....' No, mate, you're the one, nobody else, who labelled a dead man 'close to evil' after he had been hounded on his death bed because you insisted on further inquiries which in fact cleared him. What an odious man Watson is!
With Watson as deputy leader it really does make you pray for the continued good health of Jeremy Corbyn
Just seen part of his statement. I see he went for the deflection tactic of we're all to blame 'We should all examine our consciences....' No, mate, you're the one, nobody else, who labelled a dead man 'close to evil' after he had been hounded on his death bed because you insisted on further inquiries which in fact cleared him. What an odious man Watson is!
With Watson as deputy leader it really does make you pray for the continued good health of Jeremy Corbyn
Post edited at 23:01
2
In reply to Morgan Woods:
I don't know is my honest answer, but it has been suggested that on these sorts of subjects Simon4 might be considered an unreliable narrator. Possibly like Watson himself!
> Interesting.....I've only read the Guardian story about his semi-demi-apology and it doesn't mention any of this.
I don't know is my honest answer, but it has been suggested that on these sorts of subjects Simon4 might be considered an unreliable narrator. Possibly like Watson himself!
Post edited at 23:22
2
2
In reply to The New NickB:
It may be said that S4 is not the most measured of sources on these subjects but I do recognise some of what he said from the Panorama programme the other night. Other bits sound like they may be from a Daily Mail piece at the weekend. Make of the latter what you will.
It may be said that S4 is not the most measured of sources on these subjects but I do recognise some of what he said from the Panorama programme the other night. Other bits sound like they may be from a Daily Mail piece at the weekend. Make of the latter what you will.
1
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Certainly something visceral about it!
> Nah.....S4 tells it like it is....from the gut!
Certainly something visceral about it!
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
1. we have a history of allegations against public people that were true being made and not followed up or even covered up, leading to lots of preventable misery for children.
2. Tom Watson has raised a number of allegations. I understand some have led to convictions (not sure where I read this.)
3. Often abused people are not reliable witnesses and there were multiple allegations against Britten and, apparently, these haven't all been covered by the Panarama investigation
4. it appeared this wouldn't be properly investigated, Britten wasn't going to be interviewed.
5. Tom Watson tried to make sure he was.
Now, maybe, in the case if Brtitten he was innocent. I've genuinely no idea. If we was it's a tragedy he was accused. But there are much worse tragedies going on today because other politicians, police and people in positions of power or responsibility have failed to follow up on allegations. Unfortunately there's no perfect system. Under any system some innocents will be abused and some innocents will be accused of abuse and many abusers will go free. Clearly we were too far in favour of abusers before. In this context I think Tom Watson's actions were justifiable.
I'd also note that he's put his career and reputation on the line here. If he genuinely new the witnesses to be incredible he made a bloody stupid political calculation.
1. we have a history of allegations against public people that were true being made and not followed up or even covered up, leading to lots of preventable misery for children.
2. Tom Watson has raised a number of allegations. I understand some have led to convictions (not sure where I read this.)
3. Often abused people are not reliable witnesses and there were multiple allegations against Britten and, apparently, these haven't all been covered by the Panarama investigation
4. it appeared this wouldn't be properly investigated, Britten wasn't going to be interviewed.
5. Tom Watson tried to make sure he was.
Now, maybe, in the case if Brtitten he was innocent. I've genuinely no idea. If we was it's a tragedy he was accused. But there are much worse tragedies going on today because other politicians, police and people in positions of power or responsibility have failed to follow up on allegations. Unfortunately there's no perfect system. Under any system some innocents will be abused and some innocents will be accused of abuse and many abusers will go free. Clearly we were too far in favour of abusers before. In this context I think Tom Watson's actions were justifiable.
I'd also note that he's put his career and reputation on the line here. If he genuinely new the witnesses to be incredible he made a bloody stupid political calculation.
2
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
I note that Watson has kicked off again about another (Tory) politician. The man has no shame. Those who voted the pie eater in should be ashamed.
I note that Watson has kicked off again about another (Tory) politician. The man has no shame. Those who voted the pie eater in should be ashamed.
1
In reply to Stone Idle:
What's been more of a problem historically? A lack of investigation or too many innocent men accused?
I didn't vote for him but I'd be proud to.
What's been more of a problem historically? A lack of investigation or too many innocent men accused?
I didn't vote for him but I'd be proud to.
2
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Simon nails it on the head.
> Nah.....S4 tells it like it is....from the gut!
Simon nails it on the head.
Post edited at 21:04
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...