Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises


1:05 pm - December 13th 2012

by Tim Fenton    


      Share on Tumblr

Back in October, Labour MP Tom Watson used Parliamentary privilege to allege that a child sexual abuse ring had links to a former aide to a Prime Minister.

He urged the reopening of the files on notorious paedophile Peter Righton, but did not say which PM the aide worked for, and nor did he specify any timeframe for his service. Watson did not even suggest which party was in power at the time.

The following week, it was reported by the Guardian that Met commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe had confirmed that Watson’s claims would be taken seriously.

And now the Independent has confirmed that five officers are working on what has been christened Operation Fairbank.

But in the meantime, a torrent of misinformation about Watson’s intervention has spread.

Much of that misinformation has been directed to suggesting that Watson had tried to connect a former PM to the North Wales care home scandal. He had not. It was claimed by Express man Patrick O’Flynn that the PM in question was either Sailor Heath or Margaret Thatcher, but Watson did not give so much as a hint of a pointer in their direction.

That didn’t stop the usual suspects. On November 9, the Daily Mail’s unfunny and tedious churnalist Richard Littlejohn wrongly asserted “the Labour MP Tom Watson claimed in the Commons that a prominent Conservative had been involved in the North Wales child abuse case” and thereby scored two whoppers at once.

Tory MP Rob Wilson, always keen for a session of stir’n’leak, followed up. Wilson’s letter to Watson, tactlessly and deliberately leaked to the rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, loftily instructed the latter to take his claims to the Police. This had already been done, and had Wilson bothered to do a few minutes’ research, he would have easily found the Guardian report confirming this. Watson’s reply once again stresses that he’s unaware of any North Wales connection.

But the phony association between Watson and North Wales was off and running, with the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman gleefully recycling the Wilson letter, stating “Watson has adopted these allegations about ‘Tory paedophiles’ as his next crusade following the phone hacking scandal”. Once more, fact finding and checking was absent: no party had been mentioned by Watson.

And, now that the fog of misinformation has started to clear, none of those slinging mud at Tom Watson is showing any sign of contrition.

Neither Isabel Hardman, nor Rob Wilson, and certainly not the Fawkes crowd, have so much as mentioned the Indy revelation, and of course Littlejohn won’t even consider rowing back on his smear unless the Mail gets threatened with legal action.

As with Phonehackgate, Watson has been proved right.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Tim is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He blogs more frequently at Zelo Street
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Media ,News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


As with Phonehackgate, Watson has been proved right.

Which of his allegations? That there was “a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10″? Or that a Thatcher era cabinet minister was a paedophile? Or that “powerful politicians” may be actively covering up evidence of child abuse? Or that “people who should know” have warned him that he is in physical danger as a result of his fearless truth telling?

I’m not sure any of these allegations have actually been substantiated yet have they?

No Tim that there was enough evidence of these allegations for the police to investigate.

Once again another half truth from the anti Watson Brigade

2 – well, yes. When a senior MP makes an extremely serious allegation in the House the police are pretty likely to investigate. It would have been odd if they’d shrugged their shoulders and said “nothing to do with us”.

But I think it’s a bit premature to say that he has been “proved right” before the investigations have got anywhere.

Although I do rather like joing an anti Watson brigade. Do we have a tie?

Timmikins, why are you so worried about this ? should filthy rapist’s not be investigated a la savile because of who they know and who they have involved in their heinous crimes ? hillsborough, orgrieve, savile, finucane, phone hacking, corrupting police. you agree this is good ? i think you do.

Suggestion: why not add a link to his speech on TheyWorkForYou, then everyone can see what he actually said?

Gerv

I think a lot of people are less bothered by the allegations than by the way he “announced” them – using PMQs to make a grand pronouncement instead of taking his evidence to the police and letting them get on with an investigation.

He could have used his position in Parliament to expose a failure of the police to investigate the evidence he presented them (if such a failure were to have taken place) – not tried to use the information to as a PR win for the Tom Watson marketing campaign.

I think a lot of people are less bothered by the allegations than by the way he “announced” them

Given the content of the allegations, if you’re NOT bothered by them, there’s something deeply wrong and repellent about you.

4 – Ideally I’d like to stick with a system where it takes more to prove guilt than being denounced in the House of Commons.

So, you know, good that there’s a police investigation but let’s at least wait and see what it says before we applaud Watson for what he said, and the way that he said it. Leaping off half-cock on accusations of paedophilia isn’t always the best idea. *Innocent face*

@1

Watson did not allege that a “Thatcher era cabinet minister” was a paedophile.

The Met would not have progressed from an initial investigation to putting five officers on the case unless there was some merit in the information that Tom Watson had given them. So he has been proved right, in that there should be another look at the Peter Righton case and the network of which he was a part.

The point was also made, although you choose not to see it, that Watson did not make any assertion, or even mention, of the North Wales care homes scandal, and nor did he say which PM the aide had worked for, or even what party they had represented.

Nor is anyone saying anyone is guilty, because despite assertions that Watson has identified one or more people, we do not know who the aide is, or what he is supposed to have done, other than to make claims that he could get hold of photos.

And Watson did take his allegations to the police.

Watson did not allege that a “Thatcher era cabinet minister” was a paedophile.

The Daily Mirror needs to be a bit more careful then, in reporting that he did.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-mp-a-top-minister-1417353

The Met would not have progressed from an initial investigation to putting five officers on the case unless there was some merit in the information that Tom Watson had given them. So he has been proved right

The Metropolitan Police employed a number of officers to investigate claims of satanic child abuse. For basically the same reason too:

“Certainly the allegations that have been brought to my attention are horrific, and I want people to know that we will give them support by looking at them in every detail and if it is possible to prove it, then we will.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/636302.stm

Was Valerie Sinason “vindicated” in her allegations because they were taken seriously and investigated by the Met? Or not, because they were delusional fantasies from start to finish?

Let’s at least see what the Met say, before we say that people were “right” to claim that a paedophile ring stretched all the way to No10.

12. margin4error

Seriously – how does anyone read this and not just think “fair play to Tom W for getting an investigation going – those journalists are scum”?

How do we have bitter posts about Tom Watson’s allegation – based literally on the lies about allegations he didn’t make that the article itself points our are lies?

And how do we have a suggestion that an MP seeking an investigation of possible criminal activity that may have been blocked in the past from Downing Street – is WRONG to raise that in Parliament? Again, the pretense this criticism isn’t utterly absurd, is based on the lie – exposed in the article above – that he didn’t take the dossier to the police.

Bizarre all round.

Methink Watson’s detractors doth protest too much.

You can scream and shout “he should have taken his dossier to the police” as much as you like, but the fact remains that the police were involved in the cover up too. Watson was correct to use Parliamentary privilege to bring this out into the open.

Watson was correct to use Parliamentary privilege to bring this out into the open.

He didn’t name any living individuals, so parliamentary privilege doesn’t apply.

Look, the concern that I have about the way that Tom Watson did this is that the nature of his allegation seems to shift whenever he talks about it – at PMQs it was specifically about Peter Righton’s claim that he had links to an aide to an ex-Prime Minister “who could smuggle indecent images” of boys in from abroad. In a subsequent debate he talked about the “rape and torture” of children in Whitehall. At another point he repeats accusations of paedophilia against “a former Cabinet minister who regularly abused boys”.

It’s a scatter of accusations, none of which are directly specifically at anybody named, and they combine to form the sort of grand conspiracy that becomes impossible effectively to deny – if the police turn up no evidence that there were links to no. 10? Cover-up! If the cabinet minister is never named? Cover-up!

If the police really do uncover genuine evidence that substantiates all of Watson’s allegations then he will have done a very great service to society (and helped uncover the greatest political scandal in British history – the rape and torture of children in Whitehall! Cabinet Ministers involved!). But I’m not going to shower him with praises for making terrifying allegations alone. As I noted above, that was done for the Rochdale abuse scandal, and no-one calls the instigator of that vindicated.

Equally, incidentally, if the police report finds that a minor bag carrier to a Prime Minister of 30-40 years ago was guilty of possessing child pornography, it really won’t be the biggest political scandal of that type. A Liberal Cabinet Minister possessed apparently the largest collection of child pornography in Europe, and ended up committing suicide after attempting to rape a 12 year old.

15. margin4error

Tim J

Were Valerie Sinason’s claims fantasies?

I thought she was commissioned by the Department of Health to look into the subject because of the concerns that a previous report focused only on physical evidence, which is of course not typically available when looking at past accusations of abuse of any sort.

I’ll grant you, with psycho-analysis there is always an issue of what is genuinely remembered evidence, and those memories that have been augmented by the patient over time as a result of cultural influences.

But even so, that hardly constitutes delusional fantasies on her part, even if they are somewhat delusional on the part of the patients. And as such it was hardly a bad call by the police to investigate.

At least that’s as I vaguely remember it more than a decade later.

16. margin4error

Also – Tim – Can you link to where Tom Watson made the “scattergun” of allegations you attribute to him.

I say this as you have already seemingly bought into at least one lie about him (that being that he said a thatcherite cabinet minister was a peadophile) – so it would be good to know if the things you think he said or based his claims on were actually things he said or based his claims on.

After all, with so much deliberate misreporting it is understandable that you, along with many other people, perhaps myself included, have a rather inaccurate view of the things he has said.

16 – I’ll do my best:

1. PMQs where he makes the allegation that an aide to an ex Prime Minister imported child porn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20067409

2. The open letter to David Cameron where he repeats and gives credence to an allegation that a cabinet minister abused children (and says that anything short of a full investigation into every incidence of child abuse ever in the UK would be “the friend of the paedophile”)
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/11/letter-to-david-cameron-regarding-child-sex-abuse-investigation

3. The Commons speech accusing Theresa May of covering up child abuse, and referring to the rape and torture of children in Whitehall.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/11/tom-watson-accuses-may-cover-over-child-abuse-claims

Some journalists said Watson had talked about a Tory. In fact, he never named the party at all. Nor did he talk about North Wales.

We know the journalists concerned are wrong because there is a clear difference between what they claim Watson said and what he really did say. The police inquiry is totally irrelevant to that. You just need to look up what Watson said on his blog and in the Commons, and compare it to what people like Littlejohn claim he said.

What amazes me is that anyone should think Watson’s allegations have “been proved right” because the police are looking in to them. You honestly think that because police are investigating an allegation it means that the allegation is true? Ever heard of a guy called Chris Jeffries?

What Watson said in October PMQs:
The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-10-24c.923.2

What Watson said in November in response to Theresa May’s statement to the HoC on the North Wales investigation, the day after that Mirror article was published:
The lesson of Hillsborough and hacking is that a narrowed down investigation is the basic building-block of a cover-up. To limit this inquiry to north Wales and Savile would, in my view, be a dereliction of the Home Secretary’s duty. It would guarantee that many sickening crimes will remain uninvestigated, and some of the most despicable paedophiles will remain protected by the establishment that has shielded them for 30 years. Will the right hon. Lady please guarantee that the SOCA inquiry has licence to follow any lead it finds in what will be, after all, a serious criminal investigation. There should be no historic sexual abuse of children which is off limits to this investigation, and the police should be supported by a dedicated team of child protection specialists, many of whom have been raising their concerns for years. Whether someone was raped and tortured as a child in Wales or in Whitehall, they are entitled to be heard.

The media may be transfixed by the spectre of a paedophile Cabinet Minister abusing children, but what actually matters are the thousands and thousands of children whose lives have been ground into nothing, who prefer to kill themselves than carry on, who have nowhere to turn, to whom nobody listens and whom nobody helps. Does the right hon. Lady sincerely want to start making amends, or can she live with being what she has just announced—the next stage of a cover-up?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2012-11-06b.739.6

Looking at the words in quotes in the Mirror article:
“Maggie minister abused children”
“a former Cabinet minister who regularly abused boys”

The only place they appear is in the Mirror article and copy+pastes of it.

I’ll grant you, with psycho-analysis there is always an issue of what is genuinely remembered evidence, and those memories that have been augmented by the patient over time as a result of cultural influences.

The word you are looking for is ‘confabulated’, not ‘augmented’.

But even so, that hardly constitutes delusional fantasies on her part, even if they are somewhat delusional on the part of the patients. And as such it was hardly a bad call by the police to investigate.

She’s a psychoanalyst and therefore, by definition, a dangerous crank.

‘Recovered memories’ of ”satanic ritual abuse’ are iatrogenic: they are produced by psychoanalysis itself.

22. margin4error

hobson

I don’t think the article suggests that the allegations are true. I suspect the vindication is in reference to the press attacks on Watson.

That the police have concluded it is at least worth investigating – and the clear evidence that the press were lying about what Watson said – is vindication of sorts. Doesn’t mean specific allegations are true. Just that there may be evidence enough to warrant investigating.

Shatterface

psychoanalysts, psychologists, therapists, counselors – all a lot of hocum to me too – but some people seem to think they play a useful role and know something.

And in the context Tim J’s attempt discredit the view that police seeing evidence enough to investigate further may suggest Watson isn’t a lune – It seemed worth pointing out that the woman was presumably respected enough to have been commissioned by the DoH to produce the report in question.

psychoanalysts, psychologists, therapists, counselors – all a lot of hocum to me too – but some people seem to think they play a useful role and know something.

Like astrology, homeopathy, religion, etc..

24. Churm Rincewind

A) Tom Watson has made some serious allegations.

B) The police are investigating those allegations.

Er…that’s about it for now.

So far Tom Watson hasn’t “been proved right” or, for that matter, been proved wrong. I really don’t understand the point of this post.

So far Tom Watson hasn’t “been proved right” or, for that matter, been proved wrong. I really don’t understand the point of this post.

The logic seems to be this:

(A) Watson made vague, nonspecific allegations

(B) Watson was reported to have made specific allegations.

(C) These reports are incorrect.

(D) Therefore the nonspecific allegations must be correct.

A lot of people making excuses for Tim Fenton in this thread.

Fenton claims: “As with Phonehackgate, Watson has been proved right.”

With Phonehackgate, Watson was right because News International were indeed engaged in mass illegal phone hacking, as Watson claimed.

What has Watson claimed regarding paedophilia? To take just one example:

“One allegation involves alleged child abuse and a former cabinet minister. We both know that many untruths are told about politicians, but this allegation was specific, informed and appeared well corroborated.” Tom Watson, November 5, http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/11/letter-to-david-cameron-regarding-child-sex-abuse-investigation

Has he been “proved right” in the same way as he was right about Phonehackgate – which is the claim Fenton makes? No, clearly not.

And no, you really cannot jump to any conclusions simply based on the fact that the police are investigating. It doesn’t prove there is “evidence enough to warrant investigating”. It proves nothing. It certainly doesn’t mean the person making an allegation “has been proved right” as Fenton claims, which is just repeating the worst behaviour of the tabloids.

Although Watson didn’t name names or specify the government his use of the word ‘historic’ implies, to my mind at least, that it wasn’t under New Labour’s watch – 1997/2010 (recent) – and far more likely to be the Conservative’s period – 1979/2010.

I think what a lot of people object to about Watson is his self-righteous manner during the Levesen Enquiry and his ability to into turn out a book faster than the Lord. It’s not that long ago his name was closely linked with Damien McBride’s dirty tricks and no matter how right he was about News International it is amusing we may have witnessed an enactment of the old saying “To catch a thief you need a thief”.

(D) Therefore the nonspecific allegations must be correct.
Where have you got that from. I think all he asked for them to be investigated. What is wrong that ?
The righties Shatterface and Kojak, do get their knickers in about Watson.
I am sorry but your not right wing but part of the
“non aligned but”

29. margin4error

Shatterface

Agreed.

Tim J
Highlighting some of the accusations a bit inevitable isn’t it? And he’s only really focused on two. The third article, I’m sure you’ll agree, he was spot on. A limited focus inquiry is a tool for cover up, as demonstrated by Hillsborough. His rhetoric may be emotionally charged, but that’s parliament for you. It is meant to be. That’s how WESTMINSTER does politics.

The third article, I’m sure you’ll agree, he was spot on. A limited focus inquiry is a tool for cover up, as demonstrated by Hillsborough.

Suggesting that anything short of an open-ended police inquiry into every possible incident of “organised abuse of children” no matter where, no matter when (“There should be no historic sexual abuse of children which is off limits to this investigation”) is to be “the friend of the paedophile” really isn’t terribly helpful. What exactly is being suggested? That the police revisit every single incident of child abuse over the last 40 years, determine whether it was “organised”, and then re-investigate it to make sure there was no cover-up?

That’s a suggestion that’s been made solely so that when it’s rejected, the maker can claim that the Govt aren’t serious about child abuse, or are actively involved in covering it up – using it as a political weapon. Which is, of course, what Watson has gone on to do.

31. margin4error

Tim J

But he hasn’t called for every allegation of abuse ever to be subject to an inquiry. That’s a bizarre strawman even for some one keen on bashing Watson to use. He’s called for the wider possibility of police failure and political cover-up to be investigated.

Just looking into two examples in isolation is obviously inadequate in that regard. If there was a culture of police ignoring such cases, or if there was a cover-up of certain well-thought-of people’s activities – the use of two narrow focused inquiries would be a useful tool to avoid revealing the truth. It worked with hacking (the trial of a couple of people for specific incidents meant the story went away for a while). It worked with Hillsborough (only a wide-ranging inquiry eventually addressed the culture of corruption involved).

31 – What he’s asking for is this:

A dedicated police unit is essential, investigating the organised abuse of children, wherever it happened – from the seediest backstreets even to Downing Street – without fear or favour of exposing the rich and powerful, or those who covered up for them.

To do this he wants this:

The forces so far known of be affected (Met, Surrey, West and South Yorkshire, West Mercia, Dorset, Kent, Essex, North Wales, Suffolk and Sussex) need to have their archives systematically searched for intelligence from witnesses/victims making claims which were not investigated; investigations which were closed down, and so on.

There should be no limit to the scope of this inquiry:

There should be no historic sexual abuse of children which is off limits to this investigation.

In other words, every child abuse investigation in (recent?) history should be reopened and examined to see if there were any claims that weren’t investigated, or where they were investigated, those investigations were closed down.

When you consider that every individual allegation of abuse that doesn’t end in a prosecution means either a claim not investigated or an investigation dropped, you can see that Watson’s proposed inquiry would be unbelievably broad in scope.

33. margin4error

Tim J

Quote 1 – Dedicated units exists for firearms instances – for terrorism – for rape – for organised crime – so why not pedophilia? Seems sensible enough to me. Where a particular type of crime has very specific aspects not commonly dealt with in normal police work, surely it just ensures a good level of expertise. Does it not seem sensible to you?

Quote 2 – if there is evidence of police failure, I don’t see why an investigation of why this happened and how to put it right seems anything less than sensible. If we don’t understand past failure, how do we learn from it (or even put it right for those failed?

quote 3 – again, in achieving this aim, why would you want any case that helps to bring to light those failures, and from which we can learn, off the agenda for such an inquiry. That’s just stupid. It would be like a sports team trying to work out why they lose so many games deliberately ignoring some of the losses and only trying to learn from certain losses.

So I’m left wondering what your problem is here.

Other, of course, than that perhaps you don’t like Tom Watson. Which may be fair enough. He might be thoroughly unlikeable. I don’t know. But the quotes you’ve flagged up are all eminently sensible.

33 – they’re not separate requests, they’re three parts of one call for an inquiry that would cover every allegation of child abuse made in the UK even where – especially where – they were considered so implausible that they didn’t merit investigation. It’s a call for an inquiry that is multiples larger than any other seen in the UK.

It’s a demand that is deliberately impossible to fulfil, so that Tom Watson can accuse the Tories of being the paedophile’s friend, and guilty of covering up child abuse.

So that’s my problem with his proposed solution. My problem with his accusations is that he’s thrown an awful lot of mud, but not really made any specific allegations against anybody. Given his “experience of uncovering massive establishment conspiracies” you’d think he’d realise that this is about the best way of fuelling a conspiracy theory imaginable.

35. margin4error

Tim J

And back to the facile strawman of this being about reviewing every allegation ever made.

So…

Do you think a dedicated unit is sensible?
Do you think an inquiry into past failures or cover-ups is a good idea?
Do you think any such inquiry should be permitted to consider all evidence that might prove useful?

If so – give up the silly strawman – and accept that what has been called for – as quoted by you – is perfectly sensible.

If not – why not? Do you fundamentally believe there is nothing worth looking into here and that the police have always handled cases perfectly and without prejudice?

I’m not one for conspiracies – I think most of it is just profitable hocum peddled by con-men. But come on. We are not talking about aliens or temple knights here. We are talking about political and police failures in a specific area of criminality. Given how often this has happened before, it seems bizarre to consider that the evidence offered to the police now, will not be worth looking into.

And yes, Watson is Labour. So yes, you probably don’t like him much. And of course he hurt the press with his efforts over the hacking cover-up. So he’s not popular with the press either.

But why would the government, and yourself, not just agree and support his calls? It worked in Hillsborough, and we are all glad government backed that. Looking back, we all wish the same had happened sooner with hacking and Leveson has done a great job of exposing dubious behaviour by police, the press and government.

So if an inquiry is held, finds nothing wrong (unlikely), and that’s that – who loses? If it finds something was wrong lots of people might lose. But we all might benefit from better policing and less corruption in future.

Do you think a dedicated unit is sensible?
Do you think an inquiry into past failures or cover-ups is a good idea?
Do you think any such inquiry should be permitted to consider all evidence that might prove useful?

To the extent that there are specific, credible allegations of abuse that have not been investigated, they should be investigated. That’s what’s actually happening.

To the extent that a non-specific, general inquiry should be carried out over historic allegations (and I’m not sure this is a strawman – Watson’s calling for the archives of 11 police forces to be systematically searched for allegations that weren’t investigated, and cases that were dropped, over a non-defined period – whatever way you cut it, that’s a massive, massive undertaking), then I honestly don’t think that’s the right approach.

If Watson has specific allegations to make, then he should make them. Vague assertions of vast establishment conspiracies and government cover-ups are (in the absence of substantiating evidence) not much more than grandstanding.

BBC forever. Its critics have been discredited today!!!

38. margin4error

Tim J

But simply re-investigating cases in isolation is no good. That might shed light into whether an incident of abuse happened, but it won’t shed light on why many cases were poorly investigated in the past and thus help us learn lessons for the future.

And hey, Leveson was a massive undertaking. So was the Hillsborough inquiry. Both were well worth undertaking. How many cases would be required to be found, in isolation, to have been deliberately or incompetently ignored before you would back such an inquiry? Or would your criteria be more linked to who backed such an inquiry (Watson Bad, Cameron good – for example?)

And with your last comment – I’m not sure Tom Watson should be making specific allegations. People’s lives can be wrecked by allegations of that sort and until it is investigated by the police it is best to keep names and specific details for the police to worry about. Obviously it goes without saying that all allegations of this sort can be labelled “unsubstantiated” until the police have substantiated them or not.

The problem appears to be, however, that the police have for some reason persistently not properly attempted to substantiate child abuse claims.

39. Chaise Guavara

@TimJ

“The Daily Mirror needs to be a bit more careful then, in reporting that he did.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tom-watson-mp-a-top-minister-1417353

LOL! The Mirror needs to be more careful in every single story they ever print. Then they need to hang their heads in shame and despair at the state of their souls and give up their jobs as morally bankrupt vultures who sell human misery for a living. Then they need to dedicate the rest of their days to saving blind, orphaned kittens from burning buildings, in a fruitless attempt to compensate the World for the steaming piles of crass, sensationalist, demagoguery that they have been squeezing through their sphincters and onto our front pages for the last decade. There. FTFY.

If you have proudly produced a link to this pit of filth they call a newspaper to somehow add weight to your case, then I’m guessing that you’re not from round here and probably won’t last long. *hint people who quote tabloids on here to support their arguments tend to become a laughing stock.

If on the other hand, you provided the link to excuse your mistake and show that it wasn’t your fault you got it wrong, ‘cos its in the papers init?’ well then poor effort indeed. Only morons regurgitate ‘facts’ from tabs and expect them to be true. The rest of us worked out long ago that the fact that something is in the Mirror actually makes it a candidate for much more rigorous fact checking before we consider it ‘truth’. ‘specially as in this case, the rigorous fact checking would basically consist of actually reading the article you’re commenting on.

It’s mentioned in par 6 the article (which I’m *sure* you did read, but were just a little over-tired) that this and several other things were reported in the tabs as quotes when in fact they were completely misrepresenting what he actually said. That’s kind of the point of the whole article – that the tabs printed inaccurate stories (like you did). And then refused to retract or apologise, but instead began trying to shift the blame (like you did). There is a kind of beautifully ironic symmetry at play here.

Perhaps you’d like another minute to read the article again (slowly this time, following the words with you fingers) and then maybe have a do-over on that opinion? It makes you look quite silly.

Sian Griffiths who was involved in the investigations of the Waterhouse cover up etc, and was keeper of the records for both investigations says the court papers show 6 men – 3 high up’s were not put through a trial, despite being accused of rap by many young boys. WHEN WILL THESE ACCUSED BE RIGHTFULLY PROSECUTED??? THE TORYS HAVE PERPETUATED THE MISERY OF THE VICTIMS WITH THEIR COVER UP’S AND LIES AND DENIED THESE PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO JUSTICE. TOTALLY DISGUSTING THAT THEY HAVE USED THESE PEOPLE AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE FOR DECADES AND STILL ARE.
These high up’s are still being protected today and the Tory party gave Savile the key to nonce at will – knowing full well about any poop that was hitting the fan about him, the many accusations made and the many investigations the police seem to have done over the years.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Notes on the re-blog « Representing the Mambo

    […] Osler’s review of Ian Bone’s memoirs, a book which I’ve just procured myself oddly, and an interesting piece over at Liberal Conspiracy on Tom Watson and the paedophile allegations he made a few weeks ago, which have been largely forgotten, rather […]

  2. Michael Bater

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/QiZGGOks

  3. Anne Joynes

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mGtXHE0v via @libcon

  4. Hermes Trismegistus

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/HAuTMNxI #UK

  5. Julian Thorley

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/HAuTMNxI #UK

  6. Adrianne Seb-Scott

    "Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises" http://t.co/Gr6fwmTe

  7. Angus Carruthers

    "Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises" http://t.co/Gr6fwmTe

  8. Paul Sandars

    "Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises" http://t.co/Gr6fwmTe

  9. Max Bell

    "Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises" http://t.co/Gr6fwmTe

  10. Ryan

    Labour MP @tom_watson vindicated on allegations he made; nobody apologises for questioning him http://t.co/q13yvEsG

  11. Leigh LaFon

    http://t.co/0KzXq9Mh

  12. Jude Calvert-Toulmin

    @StuartSyvret RT @sunny_hundal @tom_watson vindicated on allegations he made; nobody apologises for questioning him http://t.co/Ktzj3vRZ

  13. Eileen Cowen

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations re. child sexual abuse ring; no one apologises http://t.co/yUbZD6jA via @zite

  14. Billy Bragg

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  15. Bethemedia

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/96YB6bBG via @libcon

  16. Robin Ince

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  17. Marcus Ellison

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  18. Tim Ireland

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/RKCHtKad

  19. Richard Ash

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  20. Jack Seale

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  21. Mark Basil Butler

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  22. The Masked Crusader

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  23. lynda marshall clark

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  24. Android Dog

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/RKCHtKad

  25. TescoValueIlluminati

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/RKCHtKad

  26. Rowan D'Albert

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  27. Ben Cave

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  28. Rudi Kolenc

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/RKCHtKad

  29. John Barton

    "@bloggerheads: vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/rSHNzXaC" @RobWilson_RDG are you going to apologise to @tom_watson

  30. John Barton

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  31. Nan Jarvie

    "@bloggerheads: vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/rSHNzXaC" @RobWilson_RDG are you going to apologise to @tom_watson

  32. charles ross

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  33. John Baker

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  34. Joseph Ward

    @GuidoFawkes @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/0ocwqJYN”

  35. SuzeCY

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  36. Liz

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  37. fukvit10

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  38. mr squiggle

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  39. Lisa Westoby

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  40. Rosalinda V. Hutton

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KRRZertH via @libcon

  41. Ayeworld

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  42. BevR

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/hO47NjEi

  43. Craig Larkins

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/hO47NjEi

  44. Pucci D

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  45. Murray Christison

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  46. Julia Kitchen

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  47. Simon

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  48. Carol Haughton

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/hO47NjEi

  49. Michael Venditozzi

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  50. jasidog

    RT @bloggerheads Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/seJjZGUk

  51. Lucy Powell

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  52. Sid Griffin

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  53. AngieBeee

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/RKCHtKad

  54. GMB Leic. Services

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KRRZertH via @libcon

  55. GMB Leic. Services

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/KRRZertH via @libcon

  56. pjie2

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  57. pjie2

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  58. Allan Madeley

    @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/7d9XhhR5 ?

  59. Kanjin Tor

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LLUWXxYD

  60. Commons Culture

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  61. B H

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  62. justice4daniel

    @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/7d9XhhR5 … Pardon Paul & Harry ?

  63. POP

    @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/7d9XhhR5 … Pardon Paul & Harry ?

  64. Stuart Syvret

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IEDHZxOA via @libcon

  65. John Dory

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IEDHZxOA via @libcon

  66. Christine Casey

    @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/7d9XhhR5 … Pardon Paul & Harry ?

  67. Krusty_Pleb_Allslopp

    RT .@AllanMadeley: @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/8Xx9HrGB … Pardon Paul & Harry ? < rt

  68. Leigh LaFon

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IEDHZxOA via @libcon

  69. Moira McGeady

    @GuidoFawkes Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | http://t.co/7d9XhhR5 … Pardon Paul & Harry ?

  70. Mike Hall

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  71. Mike Hall

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  72. Laura Cowen

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations re. child sexual abuse ring; no one apologises http://t.co/yUbZD6jA via @zite

  73. Mark

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mUVfi3H3 via @libcon

  74. Tyler Bennetts

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mUVfi3H3 via @libcon

  75. Barbara Keeley

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  76. Sopwith Camel

    Here we go…RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/do4MpwBg

  77. Sopwith Camel

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  78. Thingy!

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  79. Myles Hall

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  80. Tandy & Wifey

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  81. Nick White

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  82. Edd S.

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  83. Lab InSpiRed

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  84. William R Jones

    Looks like @tom_watson – rubbished by right-wing press when he brought up phone hacking – has been vindicated again http://t.co/wo34zb7B

  85. dirtytrainers

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OXUwMIYj via @libcon

  86. Caspar 01

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IQhSyqxf

  87. Joe Blogs2u ?

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/A6ncz82a

  88. John Finucane

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/A6ncz82a

  89. Phil Magovern

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/mvgdjDFp via @libcon

  90. Jane Shaw

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/ufP0OJEc

  91. NORBET

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/EEqRx5EF #savile #paedogate #tory #tories * allegedly *

  92. Michael Bone

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  93. Kelly McDonald

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  94. Pauline Barten

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  95. ChrisClose

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  96. Android Dog

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  97. appleblossomB

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  98. freeman kai

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  99. Richard Crowden

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  100. Thomas Milman

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  101. John Barton

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  102. Rose-the-pleb

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  103. jim fitzpatrick*

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  104. Paul Trembath

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  105. Dave Hutchinson

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  106. Sandra

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TCxcEJSp cc @tom_watson

  107. Mersey Monkey

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  108. David

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; http://t.co/eDE69ZL9 … @tom_watson you are a hero, a credit to the Labour movement

  109. Pamela

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; http://t.co/eDE69ZL9 … @tom_watson you are a hero, a credit to the Labour movement

  110. alison warner

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  111. jane

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  112. Jill

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TCxcEJSp cc @tom_watson

  113. Éoin

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  114. Ceehaitch

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  115. Andrew Brennan

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  116. athinkingman

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/AKRx8PPO via @libcon (Mt via @mickbone63)

  117. Rob Manuel

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  118. lesley_london

    Well done again to Tom Watson. Obviously he has some ppl very worried. http://t.co/sURF74J7

  119. lesley_london

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  120. Catherine Higgins

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/uRHl0k5Z via @libcon

  121. Chris Slade

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  122. Michele Paule

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  123. Benjohn Barnes

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  124. ll_bazwaldo

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  125. Fran Platt

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  126. glyn harries

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  127. Brian Hall

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  128. Kaptain Khaos

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  129. Delphine Houlton

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  130. Mike Kaye

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  131. Phil H

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  132. Joe Lock

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  133. ChrisClose

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TCxcEJSp cc @tom_watson

  134. Richard Crowden

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/JPdECxBH via @libcon

  135. ChrisClose

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; http://t.co/eDE69ZL9 … @tom_watson you are a hero, a credit to the Labour movement

  136. Rosalinda V. Hutton

    MT “@ChrisClose50: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; http://t.co/eDE69ZL9 … @tom_watson you are a hero, a credit to the Labour movement

  137. Ath Athanasius

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/CUzneFdp via @libcon

  138. Tim Allan

    there's a lot of people, strangely all #Tory trying to silence any questions about #paedogate http://t.co/h6PgODVT #EndToriesB4ItsTooLate

  139. Martin

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/yQlMApdX makes you wonder what Littlejohn has done?

  140. Caroline Hurry

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/EEqRx5EF #savile #paedogate #tory #tories * allegedly *

  141. Melon

    there's a lot of people, strangely all #Tory trying to silence any questions about #paedogate http://t.co/h6PgODVT #EndToriesB4ItsTooLate

  142. Margybargy

    Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/jXZRvoLc via @libcon

  143. Michael David Rix

    RT @libcon: Tom Watson vindicated on allegations; no one apologises http://t.co/v90KV8Oj





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.