Coffee House

Harman: I cannot vouch for the strength of Tom Watson’s evidence

11 November 2012

3:09 PM

11 November 2012

3:09 PM

Tom Watson’s Twitter feed has gone a bit quiet recently. Strange, as he is normally quite vocal about media ethics and their failings. But his silence is well-judged: when he stood up in PMQs and referred to a ‘a powerful pedophile network linked to Parliament and Number 10’ and referred to ‘senior aide of a former Prime Minister’ he started a massive and tawdry guessing game, just as the Newsnight investigation did. And was his evidence any stronger? Harriet Harman has just been asked on BBC Sunday Politics, and she didn’t know. For those who missed it, here’s Watson’s PMQs intervention:

Of course, MPs can make any accusation they like in parliament and be protected from being sued. This is an ancient privilege, but has acquired a new potency in the Twitter era because if your intervention is televised it takes about five seconds for a Twitter lynch mob to start having a guess. Spontaneous smearing begins. And next thing you know, Philip Schofield is presenting the Prime Minister with a list of names he found on the internet.

Was it appropriate for Watson to use parliamentary privilege in this way? One lesson of the Newsnight investigation was that if you divulge enough of a clue about the suspect’s identity ‘senior aid to a former Prime Minister’ a whole category of people are smeared, a thousand hares are set running on Twitter and people’s lives risk being ruined. Watson is deputy chairman of the Labour Party and his boss, chairman Harriet Harman, has just been on BBC Sunday Politics. Here’s the full exchange:


Andrew Neil asked if she was satisfied that the quality of Watson’s evidence was enough to justify his an intervention in PMQs. It matters, Neil said, that:

‘People don’t make wild an unsubstantiated accusations that result in senior people being accused of things which are wholly false. That has happened, not just with Lord MacAlpine but with other public names who have been smeared terribly on the internet. And the kind of interventions Tom Watson has made in the House has encouraged that.’

Harman responded that: ‘I can’t say, having not seen the information…it’s not for me to evaluate that information.’

If I were Harman, I’d steer clear of this too. It could be that Watson is acting on very strong evidence. But it could also be that the strength of the evidence used by the Deputy Chairman of the Labour Party was no better than that of the Newsnight investigation.

Now, I have no great love for Watson. But I genuinely do not believe he set out just to smear Tories — he’d be charged with wasting police time if his evidence was that flimsy. No.10 is taking his claims seriously. Watson may yet be proven right — but, even if so, sensationalising such an accusation by making it on live TV has unintended consequences. Child abuse accusations were potent enough in the pre-Twitter era: now, their toxicity has been multiplied in a way that I suspect even Watson did not expect. There is not much good to come from any of the mess we see unfolding before us this weekend. But I hope that it will, at least, will give MPs reason to think very carefully before making accusations in parliament that they would not make outside it.

PS Watson has blogged an update, saying (in effect) that his aim was to use PMQs as a megaphone to send a message to the Met. He doesn’t say whether he gave any thought to innocent people who would be affected, MacAlpine-style, by his fingering “a senior aide of a former PM”. Watson says nothing about the strength (or otherwise) of his evidence and talks about documents. I wonder: has anyone else seen these documents? Watson will, of course, still have copies. If Harman won’t vouch for him, then will anyone else?

PPS In response to the comments: yes, I know that Watson is an attack dog and don’t imagine he’ll worry too much about the Conservatives wrongfully under suspicion as a result of his stunt. But I don’t agree with CoffeeHousers that his sole purpose is to smear Tories. His greater weakness is vanity. He’s in full caped crusader mode (see his blog entitled ‘Ten Days that Shook my World“), and I suspect the sheer drama of a PMQs intervention – and the opportunity of a new campaign – will have been so attractive to him that he would not have thought too closely about the collateral damage. Or what would happen to his reputation if it turns out that he did a Newsnight, and launched a witchhunt with flimsy evidence.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Jez

    No offence but where was all this soul searched sage wisdom at the perils of clinging to Twitter as some kind of all seeing oracle that is always the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you lot were screaming to get into Libya, et al?

    You lot are probably going to absolutely undermine the foundations of your smug little status quo’s you’ve built up this last 30 years if you keep this up.

    Great! :-)))

  • adeybob

    Oh dear, ANOTHER hatchet-job? …but now performed on Tom Watson? You can’t dispute a mounting call for Mr Watson’s questions to be answered, any more than you’re able to dismiss the mountain of testimony obtained via botched investigations. Said investigations may have floundered, but the testimony remains…and the fact that our representatives have refused to do anything but ‘have a quick look’, is frankly an insult to our outrage, and a smear on our national grief.

    • Lamia

      That’s a strawman. No one here is dismissing either the seriousnesss of the nature of this matter or arguing that allegations of abuse should not be investigated. Of course they should, and thoroughly and indefatigably. That means getting the facts right, not using parlimanetary privilage and the media to make false insinuations. How would YOU like to be falsely accused on a matter like this, you brainless hypocrite?

  • billbe

    Since Harriet Harman was such an ardent supporter of PIE maybe she would actually know the strengh of T Watson. Of course that was years ago, and we all change and no one knew it was so bad, nor did we think children really didnt like being forced and anything else some can use as excuses to avoid the reality of their henious crimes as they looked away and supported them by default now and in the past by our so honest politicians and their increadible friends. Go help us and our depraved world and the hypocrits that are in charge.

  • Prince Rupert

    Fraser, you are not stupid, and the readers of the Spectator are not stupid. Watson did not raise this issue becuase he felt a moral duty. He did it to smear the Tories, and help the BBC deflect attention from their own problems. In doing so he has misled Parliament, the Police and the Public, and is now coming unstuck. The problem with our media is that all of you, with the exception of Rod Liddle, are blind to how biased you have become. Watson is nasty, and is attacking Tories with smears and fibs, and you, Fraser, try to convince people that he is ok and on the side of justice. You really should stand back and see how blinkered you have become, either that or you simply dont want to fall out with Watson and the Labour party. Remember who your subscribers are please, we want the truth not buckets of Student Union Bulls==t, and you Fraser should know better.

  • Arthur Moe
  • DavidIT

    “Watson says nothing about the strength (or otherwise) of his evidence and talks about documents. I wonder: has anyone else seen these documents? Watson will, of course, still have copies.”

    You think Watson has copies? I got the strongest feeling that he was passing on information supplied to him, backing the integrity of this information but doesn’t know if this information, or any copies of it, exist any longer. From Watson himself…

    1. “The evidence file – used to convict paedophile Peter Righton – if it still exists …

    2. But if the files still exist …

    3. 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.

  • sunnydayrider

    No point in repeating what most contributors have mentioned ie. Rochdale, Rotheram etc. But when will our stupid electorate wake up and stop taking statements from the Labour mob at face value? Apart from the nasty Watson would you beleive a word that came out of the mouth’s of Brown, Lair, Balls, Harman, Campbell, McBride, Abbot, Red Ed, McShane (RIP) and the rest. What a nest of Vipers!

  • munch58

    Watson’s creditability is now in question as he is the one who contacted the left thinking Bureau of Investigative Journalism and provided them with the evidence that they then went to BBC’s Newsnight and was used in their hatchet job so Lord MacAlpine may have possible cause to sue him now as Watson has usually only made his smears in the Commons so he can hide behind Parliamentary Privilege.. What now of his evidence to Leveson & chair of the select committee into News International which he hijacked for his own means

  • obbo12

    Is this the same Tom Watson who worked closely with Damien McBride? The same Damien McBride who had to resign for attempting to smear conservative politicians. The labour party does have recent track record of attempted smears. Watson is too tribal to look before he leaps, he saw an opportunity to brand the Tories as evil pedos and took it. As with all fanatics his lack of moderation has undone him(hopefully)

  • D B

    More American spelling, I see.

  • paulus

    You must be sniffing glue, suggesting that Lady Thatcher had a court of paedophiles. I would be suprised if she even knew who any of these people were, its defamation of charactor. You need to be careful there is a fine line between insult and defamation.

  • Colonel Mustard

    I see the Labour loonys have arrived to stick up for the fat bounder.

  • HooksLaw

    Weasel words from Watson. The most complimentary thing you can say about him is that he is clueless.

  • The Oncoming Storm

    On the issue of Parliamentary Privelege, Ian Paisley Snr used it to falsely accuse Eugene Reavey of being involved in the sectarian killing of 10 Protestant workmen in the 1976 Kingsmills Massacre, a charge that several subsequent police inquiries found to be wholly unsubstantiated, Reavey has constantly challenged Paisley to retract the accusation but he has refused. I agree with the principle behind PP but there should be some mechanism of address for people who are wrongly accused.

  • modeluprightcitizen

    I’d just like to point out that the allegation made by Tom Watson in the House of Commons referred specifically to the evidence file relating to the investigation and trial of Peter Righton, who was jailed for paedophile offences in 1992, and not to the Welsh care home scandal. The claims relative to the latter came not from Watson’s intervention but from the BBC’s own failure the fully investigate and authenticate the claims of Steve Meesham. Following the Savile scandal it’s important that all new claims made relating to historical cases of child abuse are carefully considered, wherever they come from. Watson states on his website that the source for his claim was someone close to the Righton investigation who has indicated that other important leads weren’t followed up by the police at the time. In the light of apparent police failings relating to the Jimmy Savile scandal, Hillsborough, Orgreave and indeed the Welsh care home scandal, I think it’s right that such claims need to be properly investigated by the police now to ensure that nothing pertinent was overlooked or ignored at the time.

  • Plato

    Your faith in Mr Watson is touching – I have no doubt what his motivations were.

  • maurice12brady

    The narrow-minded sh!!t (& I mean it as a noun not an adjective) that contribute to the Speccy defy belief! — We opine at the endurance of Jimmy Savile’s immoral & iniquitous behaviour — Yet nobody spoke up, although many knew. Speculation is now rife (with good cause) & the naysayers emerge from the woodwork — Including you Nelson. Politicians from that era were complicit in both debauched conduct & subsequent cover-up (only a fool would deny this!) — Many are alive & active in politics today.


    Tom Watson has publicly replied to Rob Wilsons public letter of admonishment. In summary, He never said “tory” he never said “Thatcher” he didnt even mention a decade let alone a year, his information was passed to the police who are investigating -oh and it had nothing to do with Wales or Mc Alpine. I already knew most of the foregoing because I fact checked by listening to the actual intervention rather than just reading online reports of it – Fact checking is important , I agree.

    • HooksLaw

      Tell that to Lindsay

  • Mike Barnes

    read watsons response fully,you obviously havent

    • Rose Norman

      It was clear politicking on Watson’s part. Watson refers to ‘organised child abuse at the heart of government thirty years ago’ in his 5 November letter to Boy Dave. Who was in power then?


    Nor has Watson, or our very own generous hearted Fraser, even mentioned the Labour domination of the Paedophile Information Exchange (the very existence of such an organisation and its officers should surely be investigated) and its close friend the National Council for Civil Liberties.

    Has Watson, or Fraser, spoken to Harman and Hewitt and in particular asked them if they are now in any way embarrassed by their employment in these groups and do they now think that their public pronouncements about consensual sex with minors (I don’t think nonces would have the guts to try it on with an actual miner) not causing any harm to the minors contributed to an atmosphere of such depravity being OK?

    Fraser will have, like Scofield, spent three minutes on the internet and seen not only more Labour names in the frame for this crime, but there have in recent weeks been what, five or six Labour councillors JAILED!

    I know Fraser seems always mindful of the indignity of being struck off a Xmas Card list, but not finding Watson wholly partisan smacks of naivety and I think he should make his professional judgement rather more acute than it is presently.

  • John Hodges

    Tom Watson is in denial about slurring Lord McAlpine’s name as his reply to Rob Wilson shows I hope McAlpines lawyers get better results .

    • modeluprightcitizen

      The Peter Righton case raised by tom Watson and the Welsh care home scandal are two very different issues. You seem to be equating them both.

  • David Lindsay

    If Patten is somehow not a proper Conservative, then nor is the Prime Minister who put him the Cabinet. Can you name her?

    It really is quite extraordinary to read the comments on right-wing sites where this story is concerned, as it is when, for example, the NHS or the Middle East is being discussed. The once-mighty Conservative Party has become the weirdest of fringe sects, membership of which is conditional on subscription to a dozen or more shibboleths poles apart from mainstream, normal opinion.

    Those include that the BBC should be abolished, that the NHS should be abolished, and that Britain should adopt an Israel First ultra-hawkishness far in excess of the position of Mossad or the IDF. A fantasy version of history is constructed and idealised, a combination of the 1950s without the first half of the twentieth century, and the 1980s without almost anything that really happened during that decade.

    This sort of thing, and that relating to nothing more than PBS and ObamaCare rather to the BBC and the NHS, has just failed to win the Presidency of the United States and has just lost or failed to gain Senate seats in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, North
    Dakota and Montana. How much appeal do you honestly imagine that it might have in Britain?

    • Colonel Mustard

      Says you.

      • David Lindsay

        Yes. Well, the bits that are not just facts, which most of them are. Look at the threads on here about this story, for a start. This site is hardly unique in being like that. Thus has the Republican Party died. And thus is the Conservative Party dying. No past Republican President could be nominated now. No past Conservative Prime Minister could be selected as a first time parliamentary candidate after 2015.

        • Colonel Mustard

          You can’t distinguish between facts and opinion. You never could. You conflate them all the time. You read propaganda that suits your opinion and call it fact. You read history that doesn’t and call it propaganda. You are completely unaware of your own prejudice and complete lack of objectivity. Your belief in your own certitude borders on psychotic. Adolf Hitler had a similar character. As a matter of interest have you ever been wrong about anything in your life – and admitted it?

    • Telemachus the Teletubby

      Prime sample of how a troll changes te story to remove the heat out of a bad labour story. Maybe the Tories HQ can lean something here!

    • doggywoggy

      “The once-mighty Conservative Party has become the weirdest of fringe sects”

      Yet they are in government??? That’s a mighty powerful Fringe Sect.

      And in Gordon Brown’s labour won fewer votes than even John Major’s thrashing in 1997. Now THAT is a fringe sect!

  • Verbals

    Watson is on to something real here, a huge cover up is taking place right now. As old Queenie told Diana “There are dark forces at work in this country”.

    • John Hodges

      Wow a conspiracy I never thought of that you must be onto something you must go to the police

  • Swiss Bob

    Harman’s a ludicrous figure, a charicature and as a number of interviews shown, quite thick. No serious political journalist should take any notice of what she says. It’s all bollocks.

    Watson may survive but what’s the betting he’s no brighter than Harman and has kicked all this off on the flimsiest of evidence?

    NB: That there are plenty of perverts among the political elite is in no doubt but this whole thing has a whiff of smear of the type propagated by Messrs Watson, Brown, McBride and Draper.

    Good luck Tom 😉

  • les

    “But I genuinely do not believe he set out just to smear Tories”

    Sorry, but he only deals in Tories!

  • Colin

    It would be interesting to see who watson talked to before he made his allegation in the commons.

  • Andy

    Honestly Fraser you’re a damn fool if you believe Watson’s primary motivation was and is not to smear Conservatives. if his motive had been to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister allegations of child abuse he would have used other parliamentary means as you well know. He didn’t and that proves the point. I notice his twitter account and his website have been ‘down’ over the last few days. One is not surprised.

  • David Lindsay

    Why should she have? It is nothing to do with her in particular. He is not a party staffer. He is a parliamentarian.

    • HooksLaw

      She is chairman he is her deputy.

      • David Lindsay

        Aside from in relation to the National Executive Committee and the Party Conference, in which case it changes every year and is rarely held by an MP (I have a feeling that the Deputy Leader might be barred from it), there is no such position. And even if you were right, so what, in the present context?

        • HooksLaw

          By Labours own admission Harman is Chairman of the Labour Party

          ‘The Prime Minister and the Labour Party Chair, Harriet Harman, have already…’

          Watson is her deputy yet even now she has no idea of the evidence for his accusations.
          She should resign.

          If of course you are saying that Watson is a loose cannon and is endeavouring to gain hegemony over labour for himself and his Brownite clique – then we can agree.

          • David Lindsay

            And I have explained what that position is or isn’t.

            He’s not a loose canon.

            No one might have bothered to keep Harman in the loop, but why would they?

            • HooksLaw

              You have failed abysmally to explain what the position is.
              The Labour party say
              ‘Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, Party Chair and Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
              Harriet Harman’
              ‘Labour Party Deputy Chair and Campaign Coordinator
              Tom Watson MP

              Tom Watson is deputy ‘chair’ of the Labour Party. His chairperson has no idea even now about the strength of is allegations.
              You say he is not a loose cannon and then say who cares if Harman was not kept in the loop.
              Ho ho ho”

          • therealguyfaux

            “I have no idea what those below me in the table of organisation are saying or doing.” Seems there’s a bit of that bug going around, and a few people have caught it.

        • Lamia

          “there is no such position”

          It is there on the Labour Party’s own website. Don’t you ever tire of telling bare-faced lies, Mr Lindsay?

  • Steerage

    Watson would “be charged with wasting police time if his evidence was that flimsy”.
    Come off it Fraser. His only purpose was and is to destroy the Conservative Party.
    It’s a great pity Downing Street (BBC Influenced?) doesn’t draw attention to the unquestionable bias that motivated the Newsnight programme and most else besides.
    It is possible, but unlikely, he has come to believe all the conspiracy theories going round in which case he is to be pitied. Not.

  • judy

    Tom Watson is Labour’s election strategist, and there are four by-elections imminent. One of them is in Labour Rochdale, centre of a major child abuse scandal involving the abuse of young women in care in the town. What were the Labour MP and Cllrs doing during the period? The HoC Education Select Cttee in the very week following Watson’s intervention grilled the senior Social Services professionals in Rochdale, and their responses were very similar to Entwistle’s.

    A second by-election imminent is in the Labour seat of Rotherham, which manages to combine an almost identical running child abuse of girls in case scandal like Rochdale’s, but where the by-election is happening because the Labour MP Denis McShane was forced to resign after being found to have fraudulently claimed thousands of pounds of expenses. The latter item was beginning to gain traction in the press just as Watson dropped his bombshell. McShane’s misdemeanours sank into the back pages once “Tory paedophile rings” got taken up as the main story by media and BBC.

    A third by-election is in Middlesborough, caused by the death of Labour’s Sir Stuart Bell, notorious for having led the fought in the last Parliament to have MPs’ expenses kept secret on a range of grounds such as “security”, and to have those who leaked them prosecuted. Bell also got a lot of stick in the last few years for ceasing to hold MP surgeries for constituents in Middlesborough. It was widely claimed that this was because he was living in Paris. Bell also achieved huge publicity by going after the child protection medics in the Cleveland child abuse scandal. He could not have known whether the allegations were true or false, but got huge newspaper and BBC coverage with his claims that the allegations were false.

    Also happening within a fortnight of Watson’s bombshell. Margaret Moran, ex Labour MP goes on trial for £53,000 worth of fraudulent MPs’ expenses claims. She will not face a full trial (and therefore a prison sentence) because she has medical certification stating she is not fit to stand trial.

    Fraser Nelson thinks Tom Watson’s motives are unrelated to anything else other than his sincere desire to unmask child abusers in high places, all coincidentally in Tory high places. He has not raised any questions about any Labour folk in high places who have been alleged to have been involved in child abuse.

    • MikeBrighton

      Excellent stuff. Fraser I do hope you are reading Judy’s insightful post?

    • Framer

      I don’t see any by-election pending in Rochdale.


      Nor has Watson, or our very own generous hearted Fraser, even mentioned the Labour domination of the Paedophile Information Exchange (the very existence of such an organisation and its officers should surely be investigated) and it’s close friend the National Council for Civil Liberties.

      Has Watson, or Fraser, spoken to Harman and Hewitt and in particular asked them if they are now in any way embarrassed by their employment in these groups and do they now think that their public pronouncements about consensual sex with minors (I don’t think nonces would have the guts to try it on with an actual miner) not causing any harm to the minors contributed to an atmosphere of such depravity being OK?

      Fraser will have, like Scofield, spent three minutes on the internet and seen not only more Labour names in the frame for this crime, but there have in recent weeks been what, five or six Labour councillors JAILED!

      I know Fraser seems always mindful of the indignity of being struck off a Xmas Card list, but not finding Watson wholly partisan smacks of naivety and I think he should make his professional judgement rather more acute than it is presently.

      • fubar_saunders

        Nail….Head…. BLAM. Only thing needing to be added is the 100 year Hutton D Notice, for the full set. Couldnt agree more with this post. Very well said.

    • telemachus

      Your post is insane.

      This is not a party political issue

      Watson is a Maverick

      I was so pleased to see Harman saying the Solid Chris Patten should complete his job-unlike slug toe sucking Mellor who purports to be his friend

      • Judy

        Watson is such a maverick that he’s Labour’s Deputy Chairman and Campaign Manager (ie in charge of election strategy including for by-elections). Fraser also believes he is not politically motivated. You may agree with him. But a post in disagreement is insane? Protest too much, why don’t you?

      • obbo12

        Who did Damien McBride and Alistair Campbell work for?

        • telemachus

          I do not remember either stoking up the most damning of allegations against an innocent man who just happened to have been married 3 times.
          Campbell was a Balls type superstar

          • Fegus Pickering

            Are you saying that Lord McAlpine is really guilty then? Otherwise what is your point. By the way, you have been convicted of soliciting in a public toilet, have you not? I read it on the internet, so it must be true.

          • obbo12

            Who do you think was the source of all the negative stories about Gordon Brown? The stories about Gordon’s mental health and prescription pain killers came from NO 10. Campbell even smeared his own party

            • Jeremy Poynton

              Pain killers was Marr. Anti-depressants said everyone else. Why Marr came up with that, nobody knows.

              • majentah

                Marr didn’t come up with that. It was fed to him.

          • fubar_saunders

            Oh right. You dont remember Dolly Draper’s and McBrides attempted smears against Cameron and Nadine Dorres then? Quelle surprise. I would venture that theres a hell of a lot between 1997 and 2010 that you very conveniently dont remember.

      • fubar_saunders

        Not a party political issue?


        It is only ever about sticking one to the tories. Nothing absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of vulnerable children or the chances of justice for the abused. Until you lot even acknowledge that the 100 year Hutton D Notice is covering up offenders in your own party, you cant begin to be even remotely taken seriously.

    • Katie

      Well said Judy, this is the most well constructed explanation for the original accusation by Tom Watson I have seen. Unfortunately the electorate on the whole will not grasp this and will always believe that the Tories are nasty and Labour are working for ‘them’. The Tories should make the BBC show Animal Farm on a monthly basis until people realise that is exactly what the Labour party is about, e.g. telling people that they should send their children to comprehensive schools, whilst they all happily pay for their own children to go private, talking about the ‘Cabinet of Millionnaires’, when most of the shadow cabinet are also millionnaires. ‘Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others’ they are hypocrites one and all!

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Here you go – a list of Labour councillors and such who have been done for paedo porn. It is very long

      • Dave Hill

        I like how that website has Harriet Harman labeled as “Known Zionist” – that tells me all I need to know about whoever is behind it (definitely a closet pedo BTW as well)

  • HooksLaw

    Harman not seeing the information of her junior means she is standing on just the same rung of the ladder as Entwsitle. It snapped and sent him flying and she should take the fall as well.

    Of course Watson is not her defacto junior, which really is another reason why she should go.

    If you do not believe that he deliberately set out to smear the tories you should go back to journalism school. it would be interesting to know of Watson’s links with the (labour donor funded) Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

  • anyfool

    Fraser you say that he would be charged with wasting police time if his evidence was so flimsy, he is under parliamentary privilege, if he was not under privilege have you not noticed the police are having a go at the Tories, also the world where public servants served the public not themselves are long since passed, that is directly down to political trash like Watson.

    That you think this man did not set about to smear the Tories shows an endearing charm long since gone from most walks of life in these now Septic Isles.

  • toco10

    The awful Watson also used Parliamentary privilege to say James Murdoch was akin to the Mafia which had the effect of creating sympathy for the latter which was no mean feat.How would he like it if his family was subjected to the fallout others have suffered from his politically motivated parliamentary outbursts?

  • Michael990

    ” But I genuinely do not believe he set out just to smear Tories”…And that, Fraser, is your big problem. You’re too gullible.

    • Swiss Bob

      Especially given Watson’s record.

  • MikeBrighton

    PS Hattie was frankly appalling in that interview.

    For Tom Watson as Deputy Chairman of The Labour Party to level the simply incredible allegation of a paedophile ring operating in the Conservative Party around Thatcher’s number 10 and for Labour not to ask the basic questions of fact and proof, and look at the evidence PRIOR to the allegation being made is beyond belief.

    Mr. Watson (who has gone uncharateristically quiet), now has to stand up his evidence under parlimentary priviledge at the earliest opportunity or his credibility will be destroyed.

    A very large unexpolded political bomb has just landed in Tom Watson’s lap and it’s ticking loudly.

    • HooksLaw

      There is a well know and well tested law.
      It is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

      One thing we can be sure of – the Speaker will not do his duty.

      • ANdy

        Lets hope the speaker’s ghastly wife gets a writ from Lord McAlpine.

        • HooksLaw

          Hard to see how the speaker can do his job quite frankly. He needs to call Watson to account and in the process gets his wife into court.

          • MikeBrighton

            Agreed. Parlimentary Prividledge is as it says a priviledge – it should not provide a platform for MPs to make wild and unsubstantiated allegations that fall apart after 1 minute of scruitiny and complex processes of validation such as (holds picture of Lord McAlpine to accuser) “Is this the man who abused you”?… “er No”

            • razzysmum

              I thought Parliamentary Privilege went out when Blair trashed the British Bill of Rights 1869? Didn’t one of the jailed expenses bods try to invoke it and failed?

          • 2truenlue

            in your dreams, he is one of theirs.

  • MikeBrighton

    You are wrong.

    Here’s my allegation, and it has evidence to back it up. A combination of the lefty Bureau of Investigative Journalism (surprise suprise funded by a Labour donor), the highly partisan Brownite thug Tom Watson and the BBC have actively set out to link the Tory party to the allegations of peadophilia swirling about.

    The BBC because it’s under huge pressure so seeking to spread the blame and accusations onto it’s political enemy (the Tories) and Tom Watson to smear the Tories with headlines with the words “Paedophile”, “Conservative Party” and “Thatcher” in the same headline, like Chrismas coming early for Labour. Watson has previous form :

    Fraser I challenge you and the Speccie to probe this.

    • MikeBrighton
    • Davyyy12


      The left hate us, they hate you, they hate the Tories. The only thing that unites the left is hatred. That’s why they ignore socialist paedophiles, socialist tax evaders, socialist thieves, socialist thugs, socialist murderers, socialist atrocities socialists dictators….

      When you realise all socialism is, is hatred wrapped inside an extremely thin veneer of economics and science. Gone and get some love by browsing CIF.

    • David Lindsay

      There is no doubt about the existence, only about the identity, of a Thatcher Cabinet Minister (which McAlpine never was) so well-known that even the residents of children’s home recognised him when he was sexually abusing them. The Speccie should “probe” that.

      There is, of course, no need to “probe” the undisputed fact that Thatcher surrounded herself with Peter Morrison, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Laurens van der Post, Jonathan King, et al.

      • MikeBrighton

        “There is no doubt about the existence”, really? Where’s the evidence – if there was any Tom Watson and the BBC would have presented it. Unless you can provide it, then it’s a smear. Your allegation has no more validity that me alledging Tom Watson to be a Martian and that there are faries at the bottom of my garden.

        Since when did Thatcher “surround” herself with Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter. Another Smear. Savile was entertained by No.10 as a significant supporter of charity and attended events with both Tory and Labour Politicians. Glitter was really a star in the 70s under Ted Heath and Harold Wilson.

        All smears. Even if Thatcher surrounded herself with Savile, Glitter, Van Der Post and King then so what? None had been accused or convicted of anything, all were established and well known figures. To say Thatcher was aware that they were active pedophiles is simply a smear that you’ll have to provide evidence for….

        • Swiss Bob

          Lindsay is Tom Watson and has gone quite mad. He used to post long boring diatribes but has now completely lost the plot, because as is obvious he has become unhinged watching his political career disappear down the plughole.

        • Span Ows

          I thought David Lindsay was being ironic/sarcastic (except for Morrison). If DL was serious then he needs to start/stop* the medication.

          * delete as appropriate

        • David Lindsay

          Just as Blair will be remembered for nothing except Iraq, so Thatcher will be remembered for two things only. One will be Hillsborough, possibly with Orgreave thrown in. The other will be for having maintained a court of nonces. Already as good as the established popular view, and she is not even dead yet. Nothing that you, she or anyone else can do about it.

      • IRISHBOY

        I thought Lindsay that today you’d’ve been out with your placards enriching Remembrance Day Services bewailing the lot of the Durham Miners during the war, and reminding all our brave boys and veterans that their sacrifices were wholly avoidable. No doubt thanking them all the same for their valiant but ultimately vain contribution to your freedom.

        Shame, because I can’t be the only one here who would’ve loved to hear your 12,000 word tale of how you’d been probed by a ceremonial sword.

        • David Lindsay

          No serious person disputes that those sacrifices were avoidable. That was vaguely un-sayable between the end of the War (although certainly not during it) and the fairly recent past. But no serious person disputes it now. Oh, and ask them about Churchill, even now, in any of the old mining areas. Again, while not unanimous, that was mainstream opinion of him until he was safely dead, as his electoral record as a Party Leader makes clear.

          However, I have tried to educate you on all of this. You are, to use a word beloved of Margaret Thatcher, ineducable. She probably had that son of hers in mind. But it applies equally to you. She turned the middle classes from people like her father into people like her son. People, that is, like you. The ineducable grandchildren of relentless self-improvers.

          • HooksLaw

            Howling barking mad.

          • IRISHBOY


          • Lamia

            ” Oh, and ask them about Churchill, even now, in any of the old mining areas.”

            Er, any particular reason why should we especially care about the views of Durham miners on Churchill? They did a valuable and difficult job just like everyone in reserved occupations did (yes – gasp! – even people from outside of Durham), but they were also reasonably lucky to be down the pit rather than being shot at, shot down, sunk, bombed etc.

            Have you never wondered, just one little bit, why almost everyone who ever responds to you on the internet people hold the view that you are an arrogant fantasist or plain liar, and why there is so little – if any – agreement with your pronouncements and your bizarre political ideology?

      • HooksLaw

        You are clinically insane. See a doctor.

  • Salisbury

    Is it just me, or was the world a nicer place before Twitter?

    • Harold Angryperson

      The best observation I’ve seen about Twitter is “It gives every idiot in the world an instant village”

      • CityBlue

        Twitter is a platform for people with nothing to say.

        • Chris lancashire

          Twitter is a place where twits tweet. (I didn’t actually mean twits)

        • doggywoggy

          Twitter is the perfect communication medium for those with the attention span and intellect of the average left wing ranter.

      • fubar_saunders

        Its a left wing echo chamber.

    • HooksLaw

      Computers are a licence for pea brains

    • eeore

      I can’t say I have noticed it playing any part in my life beyond noticing the medias increasing reliance on building stories based twits.

      I suppose on the bright side the microwaves in the phone are sterilising the users and the output clearly demonstrates the way mobile phones rot your brain.

    • Julian F

      Alas, Twitter is but a symptom. The rot started on 1st May 1997.

      • HooksLaw

        No it started before than when the press went in cahoots with Labour’s anti Tory smears (the LDs were taken for a ride at the same time by Blair)

      • 2trueblue

        Actually it started when Blair got up and declared that he was a modern man.

    • John Hodges

      It is not just you, the world was a much nicer place before twitter.

  • Leeroger

    I hope that Tom Watson comes a cropper just like Damian McBride and Derek Draper his former chums.