Now MPs, even very stupid ones, have a certain status, and when Watson started repeating 'Nick's' sick fantasies the police could no longer ignore them, and weak, back-covering colleagues in the house such as the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, were also compelled to act. As the Telegraph has it
... the police who were, by now, committed to believing any sex abuse complaint, however outlandish. Basic checks that would have disproved Beech’s lurid claims were not carried out. A homicide inquiry was set up solely on the basis of his unsubstantiated allegations and, against this backdrop, Theresa May as home secretary instigated a public inquiry into historic sex abuse. One senior police officer even called this farrago of obviously fanciful tales “credible and true”. They were neither.Watson's involvement was pivotal in the unjustifiable persecution of many wholly innocent public figures, their reputations, established over a lifetime of service, traduced. This fat credulous, cretinous owl, now nicknamed 'the Noncefinder-General' after the 17th century woman-hater Matthew Hopkins, made an utter arse of himself.
Watson is so far refusing to apologise for his substantial role in this nonsense, and for the utter waste of public resources. However, Labour members - and potential Labour voters - must now be asking whether Watson, himself now a proven fool, a believer in absurd conspiracy theories, a weak gossip and repeater of tittle-tattle, a credulous dullard, is a suitable person to lead the Party,
 |
| Steve Bell satirises Watson's 'Noncefinder General' tag |
30 comments:
Obviously I have no time for a fool like watson, he's a labour mp for goodness sake, but the performance of the met police has been utterly disgraceful. The whole mechanism has been shown to be unfit for purpose, not because of the structure itself but because of the stupidity and lack of professioanlism of the idiots employed there, starting with them home sec Treason May (who else?) the DPP Saunders, one of the more evil people to have enjoyed such a senior position, and the dismal performance of the detectives on the case is beyond belief.
"Watson, himself now a proven fool, a believer in absurd conspiracy theories, a weak gossip and repeater of tittle-tattle, a credulous dullard, is a suitable person to lead the Party,
Personally, I thin he's a perfect leader for the Liebore Party, if anything a smidge over-qualified
"Nick" was a bandwagon jumper.
He was not the only accuser of some of these figures, so let's not forget what happened with "plebgate". One of the witnesses was lying. He wasn't there. The others were not, however.
Also Watson's efforts did lead to the conviction of three genuine offenders.
Sadly, other witnesses have died in unexplained circumstances over many years.
This isn't party political. Some of the accused were in Labour and the Lib Dems, or otherwise prominent figures.
Given the way many of our elected leaders operate I wouldn't be at all surprised if we didn't have an 'Epstein' of our own somewhere deep in the dirt.
It might explain how so many politicians seem so co-opted over issues that any normal person would expect integrity to prevail.
Of course it doesn't have to be kiddy-fiddling as the leverage - closets are big enough to hide lots of 'crap' in.
It would be reasonable to expect that, should the Epstein circus ever reach our shores, some of our pols are caught in the net. Indeed there is already speculation of Royal and senior politician involvement.
As always seems to be the case, conspiracy theories are only theories until they become facts.
Dave, my late father-in-law worked for GCHQ during the Cold War, on surveillance technology. He did field operations behind the lines, in some nasty places.
It was common currency amongst his colleagues at all levels, that those methods were exactly how control was maintained over this country, with its superficial trappings of democracy.
The extent to which that's true today can only be estimated, but I share your puzzlement, at just how readily so many still fall into line in Parliament.
You can make an argument that the extremes of the political spectrum depend on conspiracy theories for their justification. Ordinary voters don't (usually) want to get sucked into the madness, or at least are willing to be unconvinced.
I suspect mainstream socialism skirts the edge of conspiracy theory more closely than mainstream social democrats or conservatism does - socialism's foundation idea being that the Bloated Rich conspire to steal from the Worthy Poor.
Any potential leader of a socialist party must balance political expediency against the lure of deeper conspiracy theory. In my opinion Watson has succumbed to the lure. Other flavours of the lure are available and Watson was lucky/skilled enough to pick paedophilia rather than AS.
Nailing pedo's will always have popular public support, so did Watson hitch his wagon to that for political aggrandisement, or did he just go about it in a ham fisted way. One would think surely allegations should be reported and investigations carried out in covertly, for once an investigation becomes a public issue the police and their political masters become pawns to the angry crowd. On the other hand if Watson thought there was a cover up going on he may have deliberately chose the path he did, Epstein looks like being a prime example of cover ups so it's not all conspiracy stuff. Hard to judge.
RAC, fair comment, but we've had cases where complainants have gone to the police and not been taken seriously - think of Rotherham - and have then gone to the press about that fact to try to get traction.
So matters are sometimes public before the Old Bill even move.
Anon - get a name please, or you'll be deleted for being the Edwards
I have always wondered about our politicians' tendency to drop any democratic principles that they have, and take up a position 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
The EU, in particular - why do our politicians go native?
Is it that people like Neil Kinnock turn to the EU when they can't get the better of a Thatcher; or that the five-star lifestyles really turn their heads.
Or, maybe the fleshpots of Brussels supply something not available at home - blackmail being a huge possibility.
I miss the old News of the Screws - it reminded us all that even the Right Honourables were vulnerable to the sins of the flesh.
This one may be unproven, but I'll bet that there are a lot of people in our Parliament today breathing a huge sigh of relief.
Great heavens it can't be
It's Plunkington-Smythe
Good God I'd forgotten
That you were alive
How long has it been now?
As long as all that?
It just goes to show you
You're getting quite fat
Oh now I remember!
It was your name of course
In the News of the World
With the blond and the horse
All dressed up in gymslips
I say what a a lark!
Now now there old fellow
don't take it to heart ...
@ Anonymous 08:41
You say " ...... but we've had cases where complainants have gone to the police and not been taken seriously - think of Rotherham - and have then gone to the press about that fact to try to get traction".
I will need a lot of convincing, that was not a case of "not been taken seriously" and more a case case of political correctness insanity affecting the people at the top, don't forget the official story line, we are being enriched.
RAC, an investigation by the Times in 2012 found that gang rape and trafficking were widespread in Rotherham. A subsequent report in 2014 by Prof Alexis Jay, a former chief inspector of social work, concluded that failures of political and police leadership had contributed to the sexual exploitation of 1,400 children by groups of Asian men in the town over 16 years.
Jay concluded that police gave no priority to child sexual abuse, regarded many victims with contempt and failed to act on their reports of abuse.
The 98 Operation Linden investigations include an inquiry into whether the former South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner Shaun Wright lied under oath when giving evidence to the home affairs select committee in 2014. Wright told MPs he had not been aware that child sexual exploitation was a significant problem during his time as head of Rotherham’s children’s services.
According to Andrew Norfolk in The Times, one Rotherham police officer had been in regular contact with one of the perpetrators. In one incident in March 2000, he and a local taxi driver—who later became a Rotherham councillor—are alleged to have arranged for Arshid Hussain, arguably the gang's ringleader, to hand a girl over to police at a petrol station "in exchange for immunity". Another complaint concerned the same officer, who reportedly asked two of the victims out on a date. One victim reported this to police in August 2013, but no action was taken.
But none of this means that there was a co-ordinated conspiracy involving all the actors, rather, perhaps just a lot of arse-covering, and a number smaller of sub-plots.
The inquiry into the council is pretty damning too, but victims report crimes firstly to the police.
(Apologies for some cut-and-paste from the press there.)
Well this one has run and run, next it will be Jimmy Savile\s turn to be pardoned.
I never saw anything in the press that trumped what Anna Raccoon had to say.
... and Raedwald, the only reason that "Anonymous" is keeping a low profile is because his father, a Mr. Anonymous once worked for GCHQ, and it was all a bit hush hush.
All this at a time and day Prince Andrew's association with Epstein has not prevented a Judge demanding any evidence be destroyed, reportedly.
I wouldn't presume one way or the other, right-writes.
Let's not forget that in 1995, Willam Hague, Redwood's successor as Welsh Secretary, similarly blocked proposals for a full public inquiry into abuse at children's homes in North Wales, on advice that it would not be "appropriate" or "in the public interest".
Investigations were re-opened around 2012. Scores of offenders were convicted for hundreds of offences, involving a like number of victims. Among the criminals was a police superintendent.
I'm not suggesting that any politicians were among the abusers in this case, but rather, politicians do not want evidence of horrors on their watch.
@ JPM 09:59
".......failures of political and police leadership ......" Well what brought about these "failures"?
RAC, you're not suggesting that the police officer, who wanted to take advantage of one of these poor girls was acting on PC are you?
The failures seem to reach right from the front line to the top. The reasons for them will likely be several, ranging from laziness, to cynical couldn't-care-less, to fear of being exposed as inefficient, to disbelief, and, as I think you imply, a doctrinaire approach to community relations, politically directed, but finally, also to outright criminality, complicity, and corruption.
I wouldn't like to try and apportion those, or to say which was operative in individual cases of failure, but I suspect that some pretty nasty types have got away scot free.
@ JPM 12:25
I cannot disagree with anything you wrote there at all.
I would add though that in my personal opinion,a politically directed doctrinaire approach to community relations, is actually criminal complicit and corrupt.
r-w, very interseting! good find. Anna Raccoon sadly missed.
JPM/RAC agree, good comments. Still feel the Rotherham (and 50+ other towns and cities - that we know of) is the greatest UK scandal of my life time and still no REAL attempt to sort it (charging offenders yes but I mean rooting out the failures)
To come back to the centre of the topic, I wonder what Anna Raccoon would have said, about those accused in Belgium, where it turned out that there absolutely was a VIP network, and of the most loathsome kind?
I don't think that we in Britain can imagine that it couldn't happen here for one moment, or even that it has not happened at some time.
Yes, hindsight is a good thing. At the time that Watson was concerning himself with these matters, it seemed that every day another appalling claim was proven to be true. He proved susceptible to the weakness of inductive reasoning, it seems. He wouldn't be the first though, would he?
Good points all - and I agree that those who so readily believed that a distinguished soldier, a field marshal to be guilty of these hideous perversions on the evidence of one dodgy witness but chose not to believe that scores of semi-literate taxi drivers were guilty of the same offences on the evidence of multiple complainants are complicit in these unforgiveable distortions of justice.
JPM you're starting to dominate the discussion. It's not healthy.
Recently published - and if you're an Englishman it should make your piss boil:
Survivors: One brave detective's battle to expose the Rochdale child abuse scandal - Maggie Oliver, John Blake Publishing £8.99
Steve
All well and good having dirt on MPs and business people but what if one of them simply ignores the vileness and is brazen. I'm thinking of a
Mr. K Vaz.
What I find equally disconcerting is the exaggerated (?) 'disgust' and the assertions even though disproven (perhaps - I have my suspicions) that people of the indicated status are incapable of commiting such crimes. The Epstein event shows that it is people of such status that have the greatest opportunities to behave in such deplorable ways, whether they are encouraged to or not.
The angst (and wide promotion of same) being shown seems disproportionate to the actualities of the events given the very much LACK of similar disgust at more recent events as mentioned by others and, perhaps, designed to create the right kind of atmosphere to prevent others bringing such charges. I mean, does anyone really believe the suggested charges against Heath to be entirely false? That other (fat bastard) Labour politician managed to cover up his crimes until he dropped down dead too.
The power of the establishment to cover for their own is legendary - Savile etc and let's not forget Dr David Kelly so if they can cover for murder they can cover for 'lesser' crimes with (seeming) impunity. Creating a media atmosphere to discredit future claims before they even start?????
Pushing the Watson connection/failure is, imho, an attempt to take the high ground and make future applications/charges much more difficult for the public to believe. If Watson has MORE evidence, who, now, is going to take him seriously?
And isn't that the intent?
tom watson is a critical theorist, shit stirring cunt.
lordy, whoever knew?
I agree with all of that, Dave. It seems to have perhaps worked on our friend Anon above too.
We should always be vigilant, but with due diligence.
I believe that our whole 'social services' sector is not fit for purpose (bears and woods etc.)
One thing that always sticks in my mind was a part of a TV program that caught my eye - and it was disturbing.
The scene contained two giggling social services female personnel and a refugee-type person: and for some reason or other this refugee was to have his first sexual encounter via an expected visit from a prostitute (sex worker, I think is the term now)
The would be virgin was in an obvious state of arousal and the female personnel were whipping up his expectations.
I still do not know how such a scenario was allowed - or even filmed; but it was - and on a national TV channel.
There is a corruption at the heart of our society (once more, bears and woods)
JPM
"I wonder what Anna Raccoon would have said, about those accused in Belgium, where it turned out that there absolutely was a VIP network"
From what I recall, Anna Raccoon didn't blithely dismiss claims she knew nothing about.
Her original questioning of the Savile accusations came about because she was at the same school as the original accusers and absolutely knew they were talking bollocks.
Post a Comment