Coffee House

Rob Wilson attacks Tom Watson on child abuse claims

9 November 2012

5:03 PM

9 November 2012

5:03 PM

After Lord McAlpine’s statement this morning about the allegations and rumours of child abuse surrounding the Tory peer and other figures, Tory MP Rob Wilson has gone on the warpath and written a stern letter to Tom Watson, who first raised the possibility of a paedophile ring linked to Number 10. Wilson doesn’t hold back in the letter, which you can read in full here:

‘MPs can and do play a vital role in bringing such matters to public attention. However, as a result of your repeated and sensationalist public claims of the involvement in abuse of a ‘senior aide of a former Prime Minister’, ‘a former cabinet minister’, and alleged abuse taking place in ‘Downing Street’, several people who vigorously protest their innocence have been widely named on the internet as paedophiles. I am sure you understand the effect on their lives of such allegations, if untrue. Some of them have been besieged by the media, causing distress to their families and neighbours.

‘As I am sure you agree, unfounded allegations could lead to innocent lives being damaged – or even destroyed. So, in the interests of the innocent, I am asking you to exercise caution and be sure that you can fully substantiate allegations yourself before making them in public. I fully respect your motives, but it is important that you do not add to unsubstantiated rumours by publicly repeating them.’

He instructs Watson to take any further information to the police. Wilson has also written to Ofcom to complain about Newsnight’s broadcast last Friday, asking whether Ofcom ‘believes there may be grounds for investigating whether the BBC did in fact give the man against whom these allegations were being made an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond before the episode of Newsnight was broadcast’. He also asks whether Ed Richards, chief executive of Ofcom, believes there is a loophole in the Ofcom broadcasting code which allows broadcasters to step around its fairness requirements. In a third letter to BBC Trust Chairman Lord Patten, Wilson asks for more details on the commissioning process of the Newsnight investigation and whether the journalists involved approached the politician their report referred to.

Watson has adopted these allegations about ‘Tory paedophiles’ as his next crusade following the phone hacking scandal, and has already suggested that the backlash against the social media mob is not dissimilar to the refusal of many commentators and politicians to accept that phone hacking was as widespread as it turned out to be. He has also been making links to an ongoing row about the Church of England and child abuse in Eastbourne, suggesting that investigating cover-ups of child abuse is going to be a long-term project for him, no matter what Rob Wilson says.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • dd

    Lord Mc – i read somewhere that he might pop up in another case.

  • dd
  • Angelina Jullie

    An unbelievable blog. This blog will indisputably be definitely recommended to my friends as well.visit this site

  • Bookworm

    I do not respect the motives of Tom Watson. His motivation is simply to smear all Conservatives as paedophiles. In my view he has neither any genuine interest in the subject or the victims – they are as much his playthings, as they were of anyone who might have abused them.I did not for instance notice Watson being present at the parliamentary discussion about child exploitation.

    For the record I am a working class Conservative voter, in a profession overwhelmingly dominated by left wing opinion – namely social work. I was actively engaged in child protection investigations for 16 years. I have a number of concerns about the work of Mark Williams-Thomas, in both his documentaries, and the Scalliwag article which actually underpins the Newsnight programme. Actions are recorded in the Scalliwag article which would actually undermine the possibility of successful prosecution of anybody. I am of course extremely concerned by Newsnight taking on trust the report by the BIJ, an avowedly anti-Conservative, anti-capitalist, anti-private sector organisation. The funding of the BIJ is also rather odd, as it seems in part to be by donations from major charities, in some cases for ‘research’. Why are these charities giving public and in some cases goverment money to attack a specific political party? How could anyone in the BBC consider the BIJ as an authoritative source? One BBC reporter, a Mr Plaut, has described me and all Conservatives as ‘vermin’. The answer to the question why the BBC ran the story is simply that the BBC considers that all Conservatives are paedophiles.
    Finally I am aware of widespread cruelty in adult residential establishments and children’s residential establishments, plus some sexual abuse, in the Midlands in 1970’s and 1980’s, not far from Watson’s constituency. I was a whistle blower in relation to this abuse, which included NALGO members, and a NALGO union representative. It took place in an overwhelmingly Labour LA, I made the Chair of Social Services,(Labour), and three constuency MPs, (two labour one Conservative), aware of the cruelty to which I was personally a witness. This was ‘investigated’ at the time, and due critically to some speciffic medical evidence, (which has since been substantiated as the drug involved is no longer used upon the elderly), foundered. However Nalgo were less than enthusiastiuc about supporting me, but were able to arrange an early retirement for their representative, (the payout was rumoured to be £80,000 lump sum, plus pension rights. I attempted to respond with some of this information to Mr Watson’s website, but it seems that his interest does not extend to Labour party scandal.

  • http://twitter.com/Lithlad Lithlad

    PrivateEye did a fantastic piece on Tom “Witch-finder General” Watson this week. Pompous, self-righteous arse that he is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/festgirl Tina Jennings

    Dear Mr Tom Watson,

    Please investigate the Groucho Club child pornography network and the subsequent cover up by the Police and the false report issued by the Police . If you are not simply just another cronies politician who is just playing the media game then you have a solemn duty to fully investigate a forum with 42,000 members.

    This may be difficult for you personally as you may have many friends at the club especially after accepting a nomination of “Maverick of the year award”last year from the Groucho Clubs own Chairman John H J Lewis.

    Incidentally, this was just a year after John Lewis played for his old pal Jeremy Hunt to fly to New York to Meet with the Murdock’s. I have always wondered if you ever became suspicious of this clear encouragement for you to go after the Murdoch’s and help expose the phone hacking .

    Do you think you may have been a pawn or that you may have been used by John H J Lewis who is a Conservative Party Chairman of Tourism and certainly connected to Mr Jeremy Hunt also until recently was a tourism animal for the Tories.

    Its obliviously to the dull man in the street that they (Lewis/Hunt)
    turned on the Murdoch’s after the BSKYB deal went sour. Did you at any time
    conduct due diligence by any chance or are you just old buddies with Jeremy
    Hunt and or John H J Lewis. Do you ever happen to knock across Jimmy Savile or
    any of the other sexual depraved wrenches at the Groucho club? Did you know
    about the rapes at the Groucho club that to this day are “unsolved” despite the
    Police being provided with the name of the perpetrator, the witnesses and the
    victim?

    Because they not only hang out at the Groucho club but Hunt has also been gifted money by the Groucho. Have you ever received any “GIFTS” From the Lewis/Hunt Groucho club?

    Or are you just an honest politician who is oblivious to what goes on around him and can’t even Google the Groucho Club to find out for yourself what the place is like , that’s assuming you did not already know.

    Next time your there perhaps you can keep a good eye out for the rapist who is still on the loose and also ask the Groucho Club MD Matt Hobbs and the Chairman John H J Lewis who destroyed the evidence of child pornography and who covered it up.

    Now if I hear in the next few day you are investigating the Groucho Club then you are legit, if not your a Charlton wine bibbing buffon and better off at the groucho club

    Tina Jennings

  • 1965doc

    Well, Peter Morrison was a close confidant of Mrs. T and he was undoubtedly a paedophile. Methinks the hysteria about the BBC drummed up by right-wing Tories is a smoke screen—-attack is the best form of defence, they seem to imagine, so discredit the BBC and the unmasking of people like Morrison will cease. Maybe, maybe not, but it’s a very risky strategy—–we’ll find out in a couple of weeks, months or years.

  • Pete

    I’m a labour party supporter and I’m ashamed of the way Tom Watson has abused his parliamentary privilege and basically engaged in malicious gossip.

  • JanCosgrove1945

    Hapless Entwistle falls on sword. Probably glad to be out of it as Savile and now Newsnight roll on.

    But we should not overlook the facts that, though Meesham admits he made a mistake he still alleges it was SOMEONE, and there were others, and that more people are coming forward with similar allegations. The question is whether Waterhouse was adequate to its brief.

    The Jersey Haut de la Garrene allegations have resurfaced and a new inquiry ordered, and the Savile allegations remain at the BBC, plus 2 NHS hospitals.

    It is plain wrong for umpteen disconnected inquiries to be started within organisations accused of inadequate procedures. Time for the Independent Inquiry into Institutional Child Abuse which MPs on all sides are starting to call for.

    In January 2009 ‘spiked’ ran a review about hysteria and witch-hunting re the North Wales allegations. That looks rather threadbare now. It has the feel of being Abuse Denial based on ideological reasons. “Sure it happened, but never on that scale”.

    To gauge the level of abuse, one listens to the survivors and tests the evidence.Maybe all is well in the children’s homes/institutions sector. So everyone thought until recently re Penn State University and its iconic place in American College Football, but now known re cover-up and failure to act. Fined $68 million by its governing body, titles voided etc, and more cases pending plus investigations of links.

  • jazz6o6

    It looks to as if the BBC is determined to take the Tories down with them.
    Of course there aren’t any Labour paedophiles.

  • Tubby_Isaacs

    So, does Rob Wilson realise that Watson’s allegations were nothing to do with North Wales?

    He’s right about the BBC getting this seriously wrong, and they deserve some shit over it. But he even managed to mess that point up by calling them out for breaking the OFCOM code.

    The one that his party wanted to abolish? And the sort of thing that’s apparently not to countenanced for the “free press”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Barnes/100001161441771 Mike Barnes

    Watson’s allegation was not about N Wales…read his tweet.

  • Duffington

    Woah there! Paedophiles are not just Tories this is about perversion not politics I would hope! BBC damned if they do expose allegations and if they don’t. This shouldn’t degenerate into political or media argument – the loose ends of Operation Ore need to be checked out to see if there has been, as claimed, a cover up.

  • JBG

    Doh! why did Rob Wilson have to put in the ‘respect your motives’ line? He should have called it as it is. Classic old-school McBride-style dirty tricks. Watson clearly wants us to believe NW Wales is a different ‘ring’ altogether to his ‘Downing street’ allegation. Indeed, some of the names being bandied about would have been the same age or younger as those abused in Wrexham. The disaster that is the Meecham case will blow a hole in the credibility of Watson’s crusade, but he wont stop until he really slips up and finds himself in the dock, and cut adrift from the Labour Party. RIght now he is turning into David Icke.

    • http://twitter.com/ljredux LJ Redux

      “Watson clearly wants us to believe NW Wales is a different ‘ring’ altogether to his ‘Downing street’ allegation.”

      It would be particularly dangerous for Watson to change his story considering he availed the Prime Minister of all the details after he asked the question. The PM would just blow the lid on him and expose him as a liar.

      So no, I don’t buy your speculation.

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Watson eminates the sort of bigoted sanctimony that I imagine has inspired inquisitions and witch hunts (and worse) throughout history (from Mediaval Popes to McCarthy). There is something distinctly evil about such people…..

    • http://twitter.com/ljredux LJ Redux

      Tom Watson asked a question in parliament. He didn’t name names. He didn’t name locations. But the witchhunt conducted on the internet and certain media (concerning names and locations associated with a completely unrelated child abuse case) is his fault? Interesting.

      Perhaps we should ban MPs from asking questions altogether.

  • Kevinc

    Does no-one remember the Orkney satanic abuse trials over 20 years ago? Entire families were accused of child abuse involving satanic rituals, charged, and their children taken into care. The case lasted less than one day in court when the judge threw it out, because there was no proof. None. Nada! The whole thing was cooked up by a demented ultra-feminist social worker called Liz McLean who was later described by several of the children as a terrifying figure who was “fixated on finding satanic abuse.” For instance a model aeroplane made by one of the children from two pieces of wood was identified by her as a wooden cross. The point is that at the time a hysterical media-driven witchunt much like the present one started in which all the adults involved were effectively declared guilty in print and monstrously vilified. Their lives were ruined and some of them didn’t see their children again for years. And the whole things was a complete and utter pack of lies (in which incidentally the RSPCC was again heavily involved – doesn’t that suggest something?). You would think after this sobering example that the same thing could never happen in the same country again, but when you live in a stupid, hysterical, emotionally incontinent culture where most people’s memory does not even extend to the day before yesterday, this is what will happen. Hysteria destroys reason and clear thinking, which is what children need above all and in fact crave. Meanwhile, where there is ample evidence of genuine sexual child abuse (in fact, extremely rare), the children are often left to rot.

    • HooksLaw

      The press went berserk on a wink wink nudge nudge character assassination of a murdered woman’s landlord a while back I seem to recall, all because he has a wierd comb-over.

  • Swiss Bob

    David Lindsay is Tom Watson and I claim £5.00.

  • sunnydayrider

    Without doubt any MP who speaks out with honesty on the subject of child abuse is to be applauded. Watson, however, is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. He was one of the most dispicable players in the Brown group of lefty boot boys in the last administration. His behaviour hasn’t changed with the arrival of Red Ed. Hopefully McAlpine will sue him as well as the BBC. Parliamentry privilage or not.

  • smoot

    Agreed, Watson is Labours’ witchfinder general. What concerns me is who exactly is feeding him his ‘information’. He seems to be avoiding the limelight very well at the moment. No mention of his involvement at all in the media since it went pear shaped, one might believe he was being protected. Very shady.

    • HooksLaw

      We must expose the cover up.

    • http://twitter.com/ljredux LJ Redux

      How does Tom Watson’s “information” relate to this story exactly, beyond Rob Wilson sending him letters when he himself wasn’t even privy to the specific information relating to Tom’s PMQ?

  • Marshyman

    You’re an arse

    • HooksLaw

      You can generally find a valuable use for an arse.

      • Marshyman

        Yes but all I read from DL is S,.t

        • HooksLaw

          Diarrhoea would be a more apt description.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Monbiot’s been at it as well.

    http://order-order.com/2012/11/09/guardians-george-monbiot-apologises-to-lord-mcalpine/

    He deleted these…

    =============================================================
    I looked up Lord #McAlpine on t’internet. It says the strangest things.

    I can confirm that Lord #McAlpine was Conservative Party Treasurer when Mrs Thatcher was prime minister.

    Historical fact of the week: Lord #McAlpine was a well-known treasurer of the Conservative Party during the Thatcher era.

    =============================================================

    and went on to post this

    =============================================================
    Though I didn’t make direct allegations, I think I was wrong to hve mentiond McAlpine on Twittr, as contribtd to febrile atmos. I apologise.—
    =============================================================

    A first rate shit, as my old man would have called him.

    • http://elfnhappiness.blogspot.com/ eeore

      He’s an idiot.

    • Swiss Bob

      Sally Bercow is also deep in the brown stuff. They’re going to find out gobbing off is going to cost them.

      • HooksLaw

        Oh I do hope so.

  • David Lindsay

    First Obama (not that I am much of a fan, but my doubts are as nothing compared with yours), and now this, which has only just begun.

    Gosh, I am enjoying all of your very evident nervous breakdowns.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andy.walsh.1426 Andy Walsh

    I understand that a severely obese speccy four eyed Labour MP has been molesting children for years.
    There…is that how you do it?

    • http://elfnhappiness.blogspot.com/ eeore

      Not good enough.

      You need to find a relation, or tenous connection, and then drip poison.

      Much in the way that the Daily Mail – who feeds the Graudian stories – runs tales of footballers second cousin found drunk in the street.

  • 2trueblue

    Watson only had the best intentions??????? Give me a break. What is terrible is that the BBC has entered into this in a totally unprofessional way. No surprise there. The BBC has become too big and we are paying too much for a very poor service that is really a mouthpiece for the centre left, whilst at the same time they denigrate Fox for being right wing.

    The real problem is that people think that what they put up on the internet does not have to have the same value as something that is printed.
    We had 13yrs of Liebore, they were in charge of the most corrupt parliament, and no one has really tackled it and returned order to the house we are governed from. We deserve better.

  • Cyclops

    Would any of you leave Tom Watson alone with YOUR child?

    • HooksLaw

      I would not leave Tom Watson alone with my sandwich.

  • IRISHBOY

    Curious photo above!
    I can see Tom Watson in the background holding a placard and wearing, of all things under the circumstances, a dirty raincoat, so who’s the spotty globular lump in the foreground then??

  • In2minds

    No retundario Tom Watson is not fat, he’s just chunky, that’s all. Mind you he does claim the maximum food allowance for MPs.

  • Andy

    Stephen Messham has now issued a statement -: ‘This is not the person i identified by photograph [shown to me by police] who told me the man. . . was Lord McAlpine. I want to offer my sincere and humble apologies to him and his family’.

    Now that Meesham has withdrawn and apologized that ugly thug Watson should do the same.

    • hexton

      Good on Steve Messham for coming forward straight away, and apologising so clearly and unreservedly for having been led into misnaming his abuser.

  • Framer

    Time for an enquiry by the BBC into why they let this Newsnight programme go ahead when there wasn’t a scrap of new evidence involved? And why they hired a freelance non-BBC operation from City University’s ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism’ to make the film rather than themselves?

    The judgment shown here by Entwhistle – if he bothered to ask about it, or was told, or heard at a party – is as bad and culpable as with the Savile programme, and particularly so as the accuser has admitted his accusations were false. And now we discover the BBC never spoke to Lord McAlpine before accusing him when knowing it was his name in the frame.

    Heads should roll immediately. The BBC can only respond politically when attacked not morally.

    • Richard 111

      Time for Heads to roll at the BBC and some of them to appear in Court. What is sauce for the goose is also good enough for the gander.

    • HooksLaw

      You also have to remember that a senior BBC journalist commissioned the design for the Scottish parliament building, drawn as it was on the back of a napkin.

    • Salisbury

      I agree entirely. In an earlier comment on another post, I questioned Messham’s behaviour in this, but I withdraw that in light of his subsequent apology. I don’t, however, take back anything I said about Newsnight. It is deeply deeply dubious how they allowed this man’s imperfect recollection of who abused him to be spun into a smear against Lord McAlpine. Lord Patten, if he has any gumption at all, should insist that the inquiry into Newsnight’s Savile cover-up be extended to include this episode too.

      It will be interesting as well to compare with how Ofcom react to the complaints about Philip Scofield. What Scofield did was crass, but not, in my view, at anything like the scale of the editorial misjudgements perpetrated by Newsnight. If we get an investigation into Scofield, but nothing into Newsnight, we shall know for certain (if we don’t know already) that the regulation of the BBC sucks.

      • Salisbury

        So the BBC has now apologised for the Newsnight report and put a hold on its investigations. That’s something I suppose, but it can’t and won’t end there. I think this should be the end for Newsnight, whose reputation now is tarnished beyond repair.

        The real questions though are what will happen to the bigwigs – Lord Patten and the man he appointed as director general George Entwhistle. One or both of these has to go now surely.

        Credit though to the Media Show’s Steve Hewlett, who is reliant for his living on the BBC, and who has said very directly, and very correctly, that this is a complete disaster for the Corporation.

        • 2trueblue

          Perhaps we will get lucky and get rid of both. The whole of the BBC needs restructuring. It is meant to be our national service and it was taken over by Blair and has never been the same since. Impartiality went by the board and once that has gone you have lost the point.

      • Andy

        Messham’s behaviour is still to be questioned. He provided the information and the interview upon which the BBC and Watson based their entirely defamatory claims. It goes to show how poor the standard of journalism is at the BBC that none of them thought to show him a few pictures and actually do a bit of checking. They eagerly accepted his word and do not seem to have question his story.

        Of course the reason the BBC, and Newsnight in particular, leapt on this false story was that it directed attention away from the entirely true allegations of child abuse against Sir Jimmy Savile and the BBC role in facilitation this abuse, however unwittingly this might have been. It has also drawn attention away from the actions of senior figures in the Labour Party and their support for pedophile organisations in earlier times, which was of course a help to Savile.

        I hope Lord McAlpine, who has been defamed in the most disgraceful manner, sues and one of the first writs should be directed to Philip Scofield and ITV.

        • 2trueblue

          My recollection of the interview with Messham is that the police showed him photographs and told him it was McAlpine, which it was not? It has not been mentioned since.

          • Andy

            So Meesham said. The whole point is that the BBC Newsnight prepared and broadcast a programme which although it did not name Lord McAlpine made enough details know for his identity to be deduced. Meesham is said to have told Newsnight in confidence that Lord McAlpine was the man, BUT what efforts did Newsnight make to establish the veracity of this statement ? The answer is none at all.

            The Guardian (and I am not fan of that rag) have looked at Meesham’s allegations twice and found them wanting. At the Waterhourse Inquiry his testimony was inconsistent and unreliable. And I’m afraid that given his background Meesham would make a very poor witness at any trial.

  • toco10

    Tom Watson is a disgrace to Parliament-would he have alluded to James Murdoch as being akin to the Mafia or hightlight claims against ‘a top Conservative’ if he had not the benefit of Parliamentary privilege.Hopefully his tweets will represent grounds for legal action by those affected.

    • David Lindsay

      Using parliamentary privilege does not make one “a disgrace to Parliament”. This is what it is for. Murdoch-Thatcher loyalists can swivel on that fact. As they can on the perfectly proper, highly effective use of it.

      • toco10

        It is not the proper use of Parliamentary privilege that is of concern here but whether the manner in which in these instances it was used by Watson is appropriate.I am sure members of his family would have been upset if the ‘bovver’ boot was on the other foot.

        • David Lindsay

          It has been. Just ask him. He had the Durham Miners’ Gala in tears, and that is not an easy thing to do.

          • IRISHBOY

            Were the Durham Miners perhaps not in tears over the shameful memory of, between 1940 and 1944, accepting a ten-fold increase in pay, which beneficence they rewarded their war-torn country by increasing the number of days they spent on strike by an equal proportion?

            • David Lindsay

              There were lots of strikes during the War, and they were quite justified against the appalling Government of the day. Even if they had not been, then just consider the fact that they happened at all. Churchill only became a popular figure when he was safely dead, and mass sentimentality about the War did not start until Dad’s Army took off. Most people hated every second of it at the time, as Clive Dunn often pointed out.

              • IRISHBOY

                You couldn’t go on strike if the temperature of the water on the shores of Normandy wasn’t quite what the TUC recommended.

                And if a prat like you hadn’t malingered his way out of Service and was in front of me running up the beach, I’d have taken the opportunity to warm-up for my foray against Gerry with a bit of well-aimed bayonet practice up the hole from where endless acres of your sanctimonious guff normally spews.

                • David Lindsay

                  As I said, Dad’s Army. It wasn’t really like that. Look at what actually went on during the War. For example, the huge number of strikes. The people understood that this was an avoidable war, and one for much of the time incompetently directed. Look at Churchill’s colossal electoral defeat while the War in the Far East was still going on.

                • IRISHBOY

                  Point proved.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Look at some of the other things that went on too, and not through the prism of the Labour party and your own dementia. Your understanding of the war is risible.

                • David Lindsay

                  My understanding of the War is factual.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  From books you have read. Pff!

                • HooksLaw

                  WW2 was not like Dads army? Well I never…

                  The highest number of strikes in WW2 was in 1944 when there were 2000. The disputes in the mining industry seemed to revolve around Bevan Boys.

                  An avoidable le war? Well thats a new one.

                • David Lindsay

                  No, it isn’t.

                  You should try reading books.

                • HooksLaw

                  You should try selecting authors.

                • David Lindsay

                  I do.

                • HooksLaw

                  A wide selection of authors.

                  Still its good to know you think Britain should have refused to make a stand against fascism, not to mention Japanese imperialism.

                • David Lindsay

                  Nothing at all to do with what the War was about at the time. Well, the second part up to a point, although we still could have stayed out of it. But the first part, not at all.

                • HooksLaw

                  Ah.. I see; it was a Freemasonary conspiracy in alliance with the Illuminati and the Brotherhood of Leftfooted Latter Day Saints.

                • David Lindsay

                  It was about preserving the Empire, which we ended up losing, and the freedom of Poland, which we needed up handing over to Stalin as if he had been any better than Hitler.

                  Honestly, if you had ever read anything, then you would know all of this and a whole lot more.

                • HooksLaw

                  What had Hitler’s invasion of Poland got to do with Empire?

                  The outcome of WW2 did not result in loss of Empire. or indeed influence since we were a founder member of the UN with a permanent seat.
                  Socialist failures 45-51 undoubtedly wrecked the UK economy and recovery from the war. You will find if you read a few books that this is well documented.

                  Your delusions grow like topsy.

                • David Lindsay

                  They really are nothing compared to yours.

                  Give it up. You have not even the most basic knowledge and you are only making yourself look silly.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Ah, your standard response. Only David Lindsay knows the truth and anyone who disagrees is ignorant. What an arrogant, deluded fool you are to think that history is only seen through your partisan prism.

                  As for looking silly, have you tried reading your collected insanities on this site? Christ we even have a picture of you to reinforce the impression of weirdness beyond all normality.

                • David Lindsay

                  Normality as defined by a Thatcher entourage wannabe (or veteran?). Knowing what we know now. Oh, dear…

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Never in Thatcher’s entourage and never a Thatcherite veteran. But don’t let that stop your ridiculous frenzy of labelling all and sundry and doing what you do best – smearing and insulting.

                • HooksLaw

                  It is a bit worrying that Lindsay might actually be slightly more sane than Tom Wastson.

                • HooksLaw

                  No answer then.

                  Oh hold on a minute…
                  Hitler invades Poland and Chamberlain (and indeed Atlee) suddenly say – ‘oh my God – the Empire! We must save the Empire’.
                  And France they say, ‘Mon Dieu, the British Empire, we must save the British Empire!’

                  Yes I see it all now.

                • David Lindsay

                  You see as much as you ever will.

                  Is anyone going to rescue him, or are you all enjoying the spectacle as much as I am? That is very cruel to your won side, you know.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  It is arguable in fact that the British government’s preoccupation with European politics, its alliance to France and thereby to Poland and its concentration on pursuing the war in Europe at all cost lost the Empire. Had Britain gone to war to preserve the Empire as you posit then the Empire would have been more meaningfully prioritised, reinforced and defended from the outset. It wasn’t. The German drive on Suez and the resultant threat to Empire was not foreseeable in 1939 and therefore cannot be cited as a motivation for war. It was a consequence of a war already started. The Japanese drive was only stopped at the gateway to India, a continent already clamouring for independence and a post-imperial fait accompli to all but the most deluded minds. Hong Kong was virtually abandoned to fall at the end of 1941 with no air cover whatsoever and risible naval protection yet it was one of the most important ports in the Far East. Your amusing contention also completely ignores the tensions between Churchill and Australia, the Japanese threat to Australia which Britain did little, effectively, to contain apart from reluctantly sending Spitfires and two Spitfire squadrons, and the huge but largely unsung role of Canada in supporting the Allies, in men, materials, money and resources. Which was the Empire seeking to preserve Britain, not the other way around.

                  In fact Britain probably could not have better engineered their replacement with American influence in the Far East and South West Pacific had they deliberately set out to, hardly an imperative of “preserving the Empire”.

                  But in reality Britain’s role in the Second World War was a continuation of their participation in the First and had nothing whatsoever to do with any notions of preserving Empire, simply because at the outset Empire was not threatened but rather a resource to the strategic folly. One might have thought that having bankrupted the potential of its most gifted youth in 1914-1918 and bankrupted its economic industrial matrix in 1939-1945, both as a result of prioritising Europe rather than Empire, Britain might have been more reticent to be drawn once again into European affairs.

                • HooksLaw

                  Britain was not drawn into European political and economic affairs after the war it did not get involved in the Treaty of Rome.
                  The truth is the UK has always been involved in European wars (and hence politics), it had a small army by continental standards but spent copiously in the defeat of Napoleon
                  British policy has always been to prevent any one nation having hegemony in Europe.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  My comment does not argue that Britain was not involved in European wars prior to the 20th Century but only that her experience might have been expected to deter her from that continuing policy of European involvement and perhaps directed her instead towards the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere and her established relationships and presence in the Far East. It didn’t. The outcome remains to be seen but so far is not looking good.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Also, after defeating Napoleon, the only “European” war that Britain was drawn into was the Crimea, arguably a sideshow within a Middle Eastern context that served at least as the catalyst to reform and modernise her army. Yet during that same period between 1815 and 1914 the Empire rose and withstood challenge after challenge. Britain did not get drawn in to the rise of a unified Germany or the conflicts that arose from that and did not feel the need to defend France in 1870.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You wouldn’t find the likes of him anywhere near a defended beach. The closest he would get even to a barrack room is as the worst kind of barrack room lawyer, with all the answers for everything provided he was never put to the test. And you would never find him in front of you on that beach but instead still cowering in the landing craft, protesting to all and sundry that it was all Thatcher’s fault. His boo hoos then, with the little bees buzzing past, would be genuine.

                • IRISHBOY

                  Indeed so Colonel.
                  Much reading, little learning, as Confucius would have said if he’d ever worn out his mousepad scrolling through the yards of his verbiage that we do.

              • Colonel Mustard

                All rubbish. David Lindsay’s imaginative re-writing of history on behalf of his beloved Labour party.

                • David Lindsay

                  You need to read a book occasionally, rather than those old comics from the 1950s and 1960s. It wasn’t really like that. Just look at the evidence.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  How ignorant you are and how readily you display that ignorance. You have no idea what I read but instead indulge in stupid smears like the obnoxious toad you are defending here. One might think that the deceit of your own insufferable blog and your own opinionated writing might make you a little more reticent to show yourself unable to accept disagreement by responding automatically to it with abuse of the nastiest and most ignorant kind. I have long thought you a poltroon of the worst sort, quite self unaware of how appallingly arrogant and dogmatic your convoluted, turgid and axe-grinding hogwash is. Boo hoo just about sums you up.

                • HooksLaw

                  Stop insulting toads….

                • David Lindsay

                  Point proved.

                  They are not called the Stupid Party for nothing. But it used to be self-parodic, and therefore ironic. It is now just a statement of fact. Angry old men who never read books and who cannot understand why they don’t run the world the way the angry old men who never read books used to do. Or, at least, appeared to do.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Ah, there we go again. The man who talks about evidence and proof but bandies about presumptions without them when it suits. I read books more than occasionally, usually several simultaneously, and I write them too. But I do not live my life by them or judge others by presumptions of what they do or don’t read when I cannot possibly know. Such a peculiar dichotomy, your pretence of intellectualism against your impoverishment of reason.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  How on earth do you know what it was like? By reading books I suppose. Well. it rather depends on which books. What is your opinion of Stalin, by the way?. I take it you appprove. Mao? Pol pot? Your kind of people. Dear me. I hate academics pretending they are tough. Not that you’re much of an academic either, are you?. .

          • http://elfnhappiness.blogspot.com/ eeore

            Not until Pat Glass starts taking their children into care.

        • HooksLaw

          The point is he did not use parliamentary privilege – he simply made the sort of vague accusation that anybody could in public.

          He misused parliament as a bully pulpit.

      • HooksLaw

        Murdoch-Thatcher loyalists? It was Brown who hosted a pyjama party for him.

        • Cyclops

          And Blair – who actually became godfather to one of them!

          • David Lindsay

            Tom Watson would be the last person on earth to defend Tony Blair. Unlike David Cameron, of course.

            • HooksLaw

              Brown was the cosy friend of Murdoch.

              • David Lindsay

                Even if that is true, no one is ever going to believe it now.

                This whole business has shown, not for the first time, that the Right in this country is now a collection of Little Lord Fauntleroys being run rings around by people who came up through trade unions, redbrick student unions, and local government, and who are consequently as hard as nails.

                In short, the Tories are now rubbish at politics, and therefore shouldn’t be in it.

                • HooksLaw

                  Even…?

                • David Lindsay

                  No one is ever going to believe it now. Whether you are right or wrong is entirely beside the point. Give it up.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  The immateriality of right or wrong is the whole point of the Labour movement and you personify it.

                • David Lindsay

                  You are thinking of the Conservative Party back when it was a political force.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  No, I assure you I am thinking of 67 years of the Labour party from personal experience rather than from rose-tinted, romantic tribalism and red-brick student union guff. Attlee wan’t a bad old stick but he had treacherous creeps like Cripps in his court.

                • David Lindsay

                  “Redbrick”? Wash your mouth out! I am a Durham man through and through. We were Hogwarts before there was any Hogwarts, and we were still Brideshead long after there ceased to be any Brideshead. “Redbrick”? The very idea!

                  The Tories simply do not have the political skills that they used to have. Labour still has them. Guess which side is winning. Just look at the difference in coverage between, for example, Harriet Harman and the Paedophile Information Exchange (which was all in my last book, by the way) and the involvement in child abuse of several Thatcher associates, named and unnamed, living and dead.

                  They are both true. But one party’s enemies knows what they are doing. Whereas the other party’s enemies do not, frankly, know their arses from their elbows. They used to. But they don’t now.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Hogwarts, eh? I see.

                • IRISHBOY

                  Or the self-admitted perjurer Nye Bevan.

                • HooksLaw

                  He is as I said either drunk or deranged or both.

                • DavidDP

                  You’ve basically stated that truth is immaterial and what matters is simply political victory.

                  It’s useful to know, as it provides context to your views. It’s not worth reading anything you say going ahead, since its equally likely to be lies written for political purposes. An astounding admission on your part, really.

                • David Lindsay

                  I said that it is important to know when you are beaten, although the views that you attribute to me used to be the very essence of Toryism in the days when its adherents rarely did need to know when they were beaten. You really should have learned how to do it by now, though.

                • DavidDP

                  You’ve said the truth doesn’t matter. If that is a reflection of who you are, it doesn’t do you any credit whatsoever. Nor does it credit the party you claim to support, and plenty of actual supporters that I know would be horrified to be associated with that view.

                  It is a statement from you that I will keep in mind when I see comments from you in the future-in other words, treat all that you say as a lie made up purely for political gain. You’ve destroyed your own credibility. Pitiful.

                • Dimoto

                  I suspect Lindsay (the real one) has a clone.
                  All this Brownite party line stuff is so unlike the verbose witterings of the original.

                • DavidDP

                  Actually, you know what’s worse? Using abused children in order to score political points ( the fact a victim- a victim! – has had to publicly apologise due to all of this is terrible and must be taken tremendous psychological toll on an already damaged person). That’s not pitiful, it’s disgusting and venal, and indicates the personality of someone whose tribal political sensibilities have become all consuming to the beyond any decency.You seem to have no regrets about the damage done to the victim as long as the lies have a political upside for you. It’s horrendous and I hope, heaven forbid that the time comes for me to have to make a similar choice, I’ll take the option of human decency. I suppose the positive is that I’ll have your example to warn me from taking the wrong choice.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Yes, we understand your liking for a one party state. It is in the DNA of you and your kind. Your criteria of “hard as nails” is hilarious though – especially with reference to local government, but of course it is biographical and therefore larded with the same pompous deceit that characterises your facile comments.

                • David Lindsay

                  It is obviously the Tories who want a permanent Labour Government. Why else have they given up politics by refusing to have politicians as MPs?

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Getting desperate now, eh? The wind is visibly falling away from your puffed up sails.

  • In2minds

    Well done Tom Watson for diverting attention from the Margaret Moran case!

    • David Lindsay

      Otherwise on everyone’s lips, of course.

      When is David Laws going to stand trial?

      • HooksLaw

        What did Laws do? He did not commit any fraud. Indeed he saved the taxpayer money.

      • Cyclops

        Has he broken the law? Or do anything worse than Ed Balls? ALL the MPs jailed for expenses fraud have been Labour. It would be FOUR but Margaret Moron has had a mental breakdown. Denis MacShane next in the dock?

        • David Lindsay

          For stealing less than Laws did. This whole business has been shockingly partisan.

          • Cyclops

            Yes, three Labour MPs imprisoned. The THIEVING does seem rather one-sided……………………

            • David Lindsay

              And Laws back attending Cabinet, plus numerous Tories just allowed to retire, with one of the last Tory critics of Israel as one of the very few exceptions, despite the relatively small sums involved.

              So yes. The Tories and their mates have played this as well as they doubtless thought that they had played Hillsborough, and as well as they doubtless thought that they had played the characters with whom Thatcher surrounded herself. So give it time…

              • Cyclops

                Laws is a SAINT next to the Mandelson who had to resign at least three times for corruption of one kind or another.
                Three MPs jailed for expenses fraud, another avoiding jail by pretending to be a loony and another on his way (MacShane). Who says that there’s no justice? Let’s get Blair and Brown to The Hague next!

                • David Lindsay

                  I quite agree with the last point. But Mandelson never stole a penny of public money. Laws stole pots of it. If he had done that in Housing Benefit, then he would have gone to prison. Why hasn’t he?

                • HooksLaw

                  Laws did not steal a penny. The taxpayer was not out of pocket. It is now that Laws must claim for a complete flat and not a half share.

                  This is a variance with Smith who pretended a back bedroom at her sisters was her real home and then used taxpayers money do refurbish her actual real home.

                  Your desperation is matched only by your ignorance and your sliminess. But given the mass exposure of labour corruption I can see why.

                • David Lindsay

                  Where? The only story of which anyone has heard, or ever will hear, is that at least one still-living member of Thatcher’s Cabinet was, like (no one disputes) several living and dead members of her wider entourage, a predatory, probably violent, paedophile. Story of the decade, at least. Nothing else will come close.

                  Expenses? Puh-lease! Ask any member of the general public to name the convicted Labour MPs. You’ll have to do better than that. But you can’t. You’re beaten. Your party was never going to win any of the next three General Elections. At this rate, it will be lucky to contest the third one, possibly even the second.

                • HooksLaw

                  Now I think we know, you are drunk.

                  Chaytor Morley Ilsely Devine Moran. How on earth Smith got away with it I don’t know.

                • David Lindsay

                  And exactly how many normal people have ever heard of any of this?

                • HooksLaw

                  Shame … Such a low opinion of the ordinary people. But again glad to know you are not interested in facts but just propaganda.

                • David Lindsay

                  You know perfectly well that if you asked this at a bus stop or in a pub, then no one would have a clue. But they will all know this name when it comes out. As it surely will soon enough.

                • HooksLaw

                  We are all trembling with anticipation.

                • David Lindsay

                  Your party will more than tremble when it happens. It is now an established fact that one of the perpetrators in the North Wales abuse scandal was a Thatcher Government figure sufficiently high-profile to have been recognised even by his victims. All that we need now is the name. We cannot have very long to wait.

                • HooksLaw

                  ‘It is now an established fact’ … yes there has been a fact you have es
                  tablished but its not very complimentary to you.

                  Even the Staggers says
                  ‘Reading Watson’s words, though, you can’t help but wonder just how far down the rabbit hole he has fallen himself’

                • David Lindsay

                  He might find you if he’s not careful.

                • HooksLaw

                  ho ho… you have a list do you.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Then we can look forward to being governed by the likes of you. What joy.

                • David Lindsay

                  The party and I parted company years ago, and I have no intention of ever going back. If I had been in better health, then I would have stood as an Independent in 2010.

                  But, whereas no party, as such, stood for any of the following things
                  then, it is now only Ed Miliband’s Labour that advocates the Union as a
                  first principle, and within that any concept of English identity. A
                  universal postal service bound up with the monarchy. The Queen’s
                  Highways, rather than toll roads owned by faraway and unstable
                  petrostates.

                  Her Majesty’s Constabulary, rather than the British KGB that is the
                  impending “National Crime Agency”. Labour’s own 1997 manifesto
                  commitment to renationalise the railways. The National Health Service,
                  rather than piecemeal privatised provision. Keeping Sunday at least as
                  special as the last Conservative Government left it.

                  The restoration both of energy independence and of the economic basis of paternal authority, including through the reopening of the mines promised by Ed Miliband to one hundred thousand people at the 2012 Durham Miners’ Gala. The historic regimental system. Aircraft carriers with aircraft on them. No Falkland Islands oil to Argentina.

                  The State action necessary in order to maintain the work of charities and of churches. The State action necessary in order to maintain a large and thriving middle class. A referendum on continued membership of the EU. A real terms reduction in the British financial contribution to it. A free vote on the redefinition of legal marriage.

                  And very, very, very many other things besides.

                  The exposure of the true character of the Thatcher court is just a bonus.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Yes, we’ve read the Gospel according to Chairman Lindsay many times before. Any merit in its message is entirely lost in the vindictiveness with which you cling to the past and the abuse which you hurl at those who dare to question any aspect of it. And yet strangely you profess to judge the effectiveness of the politics of others. You do realise that if it were a choice between David Lindsay and the Monster Raving Looney Party I should have no hesitation and that, sadly, with the benefit of not being ill disposed towards some of the values you express. Persuasion is always more effective than antagonism when pursuing a cause.

  • http://elfnhappiness.blogspot.com/ eeore

    It’s pretty clear who is paying Watson to do all this.

    • David Lindsay

      Not to me, it isn’t. Do tell.

      • http://elfnhappiness.blogspot.com/ eeore

        Here’s some clues.

        He has recently started buying large amounts of gold. He is heavily invested in numerous blogs and websites – as well as propping up loss making media organizations. He is very interested in restricting web freedom.

  • retundario

    He’s just a fat Phillip Schofield

  • Troika21

    Watson’s muck-raking, scandalous reporting and overblown rhetoric is shameful.

    You’d think he worked for Murdock.

    • David Lindsay

      The biter, bit.

      • Cyclops

        “The biter bit’, you cretin.

        • David Lindsay

          The biter bit what?

          • Cyclops

            The biter bit by me is you.

            • David Lindsay

              English is not your first language, is it?

              • Cyclops

                Your tenuous grasp of the language makes your observation understandable to those of us who know how to use a comma. ‘The biter, bit’? WTF?

                • David Lindsay

                  English is not your first language, is it?

  • retundario

    “I fully respect your motives”

    I genuinely do not understand how anyone can respect that stupid fat populist idiot’s motives. He is a really unpleasant individual. Forever whipping up populist moral witch-hunts, yet simultaneously plots to smear political rivals with sexual allegations. He is genuinely a despicable scumbag.

    • HooksLaw

      He probably had his fingers crossed when he wrote it and is clearly a master of irony.

    • hexton

      Respect = comprehend = see through. Possibly.

  • TELL THE TRUTH

    Someone should ask Tom Watson why he has ignored the high level terrorist informant he mentioned in conjunction with Milly Dowler in the House of Commons. Whats all that about?

  • David Lindsay

    The view, by no means without foundation, that Thatcher maintained a court of nonces is now firmly entrenched. Job done.

    • MikeBrighton

      Where? Name them? Steve Messham has just publicly apologised.

      • David Lindsay

        Too late now.

        And anyway, there is no doubt about Morrison, nor about “a senior figure” recognisable by children’s home residents, which McAlpine never was. The only two arrests arising out of the Savile case have been of her strong supporters and generous donors, categories into which Jonathan King also fell. Then there is Savile himself, while she was also mesmerised by Laurens van der Post. Doubtless, there is more to come.

        Even in death, she will never live this down.

        • HooksLaw

          The Staggers point out that in fact Watson asserted ‘that the man concerned was not the late Peter Morrison, as many had guessed, and implied that the guilty man was still alive.’

          Thus Watson was it seems pretty clear was trying to smear McAlpine. the truth looks like Watson cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

          Well actually, the truth is all these horrible acts were carried out by masked lizard headed aliens from Pluto. Its all over the internet so it must be true.

          • David Lindsay

            Morrison and McAlpine, neither of whom would have been recognised by almost anyone never mind institutionalised children, were not the only people to whom she ever gave positions.

            This and Hillsborough will be the sum total of her record in the public mind. Like Blair and Iraq.

            • HooksLaw

              By your own account ‘the ordinary people’ cannot recognise anything, not least the noses on the end of their faces.

              You have minimal grasp on reality.
              You should remember that the expenses business was started by a Labour MP piping up from the backbenches trying to smear a toriy The result 5 labour MPs in clourt and the then Home Secretary expose as a liar and fraud.
              The way these things work, watson will end up with fewer friends

              • David Lindsay

                He has already destroyed Murdoch, which will soon involve destroying Cameron through Brooks. He is in the process of destroying Thatcher’s reputation even before she is dead. “Fewer friends”? Hardly! You don’t quite seem to realise that he is not a Tory.

                • HooksLaw

                  Sky, NewsCorp profits up. Some destruction.

                  Ah, Mr Lindsay you are a sad hysteric. It does make a change though, from the rascist banter of Wilhelm.

                • David Lindsay

                  Just wait for Leveson, and for the verdicts in the current trial.

                  My bet is that Sky, because it provides so many people’s television services, will be saved by nationalisation. For nothing, on the grounds that the impending withdrawal of its license unless it said yes rendered its shares worthless.

                • http://twitter.com/danieljohnson85 Daniel Johnson

                  Your straitjacket is lonely.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “Job done”. Yes, maybe, in a McBride II smear the opposition with lies for party political gain sort of way. Proud of that are you? Why am I not surprised.

      There is truth and justice.

      Then there is the Labour party.

      • David Lindsay

        If you are no good a politics, then don’t get involved in it.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Politics, is that what you call it. I can think of something else.

          • David Lindsay

            Proving my point.

            The Tories used to be the masters of this sort of thing. But they are not now.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Not a commendation. We need a new type of politics not a more artful and conniving variant of the old kind, thank you.

              • David Lindsay

                But we don’t have it. I wouldn’t hold your breath for it.

                And when it comes to what we do have, Tom Watson is now the master. A title which always used to be held by a Tory.

                If the Tories were still any good at it, then everyone would know about Harriet Harman and the Paedophile Information Exchange. But they don’t, so they don’t.

    • Colonel Mustard

      As if she was not already the target for a litany of hatred, smears, exaggeration and demonisation emanating from your friends of the left. You conflate politics with mischief.

      • David Lindsay

        It is her supporters who believe a wholly fantastical version of her record. Just wait for what even the right-wing papers say about her once her funeral is out the way.

        The Single European Act, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Children Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the replacement of O-levels with GCSEs, the destruction of the economic basis of paternal authority, the rise of Political Correctness, the erosion of Sunday trading restrictions, the legalisation of abortion up to birth, the attempts to end Christian collective worship and Christian Religious Education in schools, the massive loss of sovereignty as a result of privatisation…

        In order to say these things in print, the writers on the Tory papers are itching for her to die even more than the relatives of the Hillsborough dead are.

        • HooksLaw

          Risible – Risible that is that writers have to wait until after a death to criticize any politician.
          I have to say obsessing about Hillsborough seems a bit sick.

          • David Lindsay

            Not to the families and the city involved, it doesn’t.

            I, of course, most certainly do not wait until people are dead. But then, I am not facing the backlash from right-wing newspapers’ readers, advertisers or proprietors when I write about Margaret Thatcher.

    • http://twitter.com/danieljohnson85 Daniel Johnson

      Everything you need to know about the Labour Party summed up in a single sentence. Job done.

  • IRISHBOY

    And his searches into Labour party members has thrown up which names . . . . . ?
    And does he think that statements from thirty odd years ago by Harman and Hewitt contributed at all to an environment and sub-culture where such ghastly behaviour was thought acceptable?
    Rob Wilson might respect his motives, but I don’t.

    • Andy

      I don’t respect his motives. He is an evil Brownite thug. All he is interested in doing is smearing Conservatives.

      There are far too many paedophiles in the ranks of the Labour Party. Let him look there for a change.

      • HooksLaw

        I do not respect his motives either, and in so far has he links this issue to politics then his prime responsibility is to activities within his own party.

        It strikes me that the so called crusade he has started is as likely to rebound on his own party as much as elsewhere.

        I am not sure Watson is as clever as he thinks he us.

        • telemachus

          Tom Watson is Fat
          Never trust a fat man

          • Fergus Pickering

            Come sir. Churchill was fat. Ludwig Erhardt. Germany’s best Chancellor, was fat. Teddy Roosevelt was fat. Lots of good men were and are fat. Tom Watson is a slimeball, a quite different thing.

        • 2trueblue

          I think your assessment of Watson may be right. He enjoys the limelight too much, and may forget what the point is in the end, apart form attacking the Conservatives.

    • David Lindsay

      Tom Watson’s destruction of Rupert Murdoch is coming along nicely before the courts.

      Tom Watson’s destruction of Margaret Thatcher for her habit of surrounding herself with paedophiles has now begun in earnest.

      But the prize scalp of them all is that of Tony Blair. Once that had been taken, then even our courtier media, currently squealing about the threat to the “freedom” of which they show little or no sign outside their own fantasy world, might feel able to state out loud that Blair’s understudy as Prime Minister was adulterously involved with one of the defendants in the Murdoch trial.

      Tom Watson, over to you.

      • MikeBrighton

        Tom Wason is little more than a political thug. He was very close and part of the circle with Daiman McBride to smear Tory politicians with utter lies, this pussy cat does not change his spots. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/11/damian-mcbride-forced-to-quit

        I suspect he’s arrogant and getting out of his depth and will suffer some a serious come-uppance. I do hope his lawyers are good for when McAlpine’s come calling. Twitter is not covered by parlimentary priviledge….

        • David Lindsay

          What you mean is that he is a more effective politician than your lot. Boo, Hoo.

          • Cyclops

            What an imbecile you are. The supposed victim has apologised to Lord McAlpine as moronic inbreds such as yourself are having a field day on blatant lies. Yet you insist it happened. I accuse YOU of being the kiddy fiddler and using this scandal to cover your tracks. Your ‘more effective’ politicians were kicked out of number 10 and at least three jailed for expenses fraud, one currently in the dock for expenses and another soon to follow. You are for the gutter. Leave our children alone and stay away from our schools and children’s play areas!

            • David Lindsay

              Boo, Hoo.

              • Cyclops

                It’s ‘boo hoo’, you raving imbecile!

          • MikeBrighton

            Well I guess If you feel that taking part in a cricle that set out to smear the wife of a senior Tory politician with false allegations of extra-marital sex whilst she herself was suffering post natal depression and another senior Tory politicial with false allegations that he had contracted an STD from a prostitute makes him a more effective politician then your lefty politics are very very different from mine.

            You are a very small man.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Man? Please don’t demean the word by applying it to him.

              • David Lindsay

                It makes me sound too old for Colonel Mustard.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I see what you did there. Low, even for you, who pretends to be so gifted in faculty, discernment and reason.

                • David Lindsay

                  Sufficiently gifted in faculty, discernment and reason to know that they are not incompatible with the skills at which the Tories used to e so adept back in the days when they were any good at politics.

                  If you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Not being able to take it is different to recognising it for what it is. You should discern that difference and apply your vaunted reason to it.

            • David Lindsay

              There are no lies here. The Murdoch lot are ON TRIAL. That one of the North Wales abusers was a very high-profile Thatcher Minister is now a matter of record; we just need to find out which one. The hints dropped by the entire media over Cameron and Brooks would be hilarious if they were not so pathetic.

              • MikeBrighton

                Murdoch lot? You mean Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell and ex-NI Tom Baldwin? You seem to imply only the Tories were pally with NI. It wasn’t many years ago New Liebour prostituted itself to Murdoch for good coverage.
                Which Thatcher minister? You need to send up your allegations or they are just schoolboy smears

                • HooksLaw

                  There was no Thatcher minister. Its in dispute that even the other mistaken identity person is the right guy.
                  Since Watson specifically excluded another known (& dead) tory person whose name’s been bandied about (according to the Staggers) then Watson looks increasingly like a great tit.

                  Given the Law of Unintended Consequences I think we can be absolutely certain that a Labour name, at least one, will come out of all this. As another poster has noted there are a lot of labour LA councillor scandals to see such that this is entirely possible.

                • David Lindsay

                  A Thatcher Minister will be found. Probably a dead one, in order to remove the cloud from over the living ones. Not pretty, but a reminder of the never pretty, ruthlessly effective Conservative Party machine in which they served.

                • Telemachus te Teletubby

                  So, just like the Labour party, remember David Kelly. Don’t think even the Tories would go tht low. Trouble with you labour supporters, you’re hypocrites, just like the party you follow

              • Sarge

                A matter of which ‘record’ The one the BBC are now retracting? the one dismembered by the Guardian? or Tom Watson’s innuendo based crusade,or perhaps David Icke’s musings?

                If you are so certain, feel free to put the ‘facts’ in writing,as no-one else seems to be keen. Then engage a good lawyer.

        • Dimoto

          I agree, but don’t know why you put that in the past tense.

          They haven’t gone away you know. The Labour sleaze machine under Balls is still in place and still busy.

          But Fraser Nelson finds McBride “engaging”, so that is all right then. Jesus wept.

          • 2trueblue

            Even the devil can be engaging I hear.

            I agree that the Liebore sleaze machine is alive and well. There was a Panorama program aired years ago at 1am showing Brown, Balls, McBride up to their tricks days after Liebores victory gloating about putting one over the Bank of England.

      • HooksLaw

        Its a sign of the sad decline in press standards that this odious post is allowed daylight.

        • David Lindsay

          Once the Coby result is in, expect Cameron’s own party to pay a lot more attention to his horse-riding activities.

          • HooksLaw

            http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-night-tony-blair-was-crossfertilised-by-pr-guru-freud-7080296.html

            ‘Before the party on Wednesday night – as his wife Cherie was flying to
            Rome to deliver a speech – Mr Blair joined Rebekah Wade, editor of The
            Sun and a close friend of Freud, for a cosy supper at Cecconi’s
            restaurant in Mayfair.’

            • David Lindsay

              Blair, for all his many faults, never rode the horse.

              • Telemachus the Teletubby

                But he lied to the people in such a terrible way, and sent soldiers to die for that lie. That is far worse than riding a news horse

          • Dimoto

            It is interesting that the Labour trolls on here, so free with innuendo about Lord McAlpine for most of this week, have suddenly gone to ground.
            Probably checking to see whether their legal liabilities will be covered by their controllers.
            I wonder if the Spectator, which allowed this, might also be liable ?

            • David Lindsay

              I for one have never said a word about Lord McAlpine, whom it obviously could not have been, since it was avowedly a well-known figure, recognisable even by the residents of a children’s home. The question now is, “Who was it?” Expect someone dead to be made to carry the can.

              • Dimoto

                So, basically you are admitting to being a Labour troll ?
                Well I never.

      • http://www.facebook.com/andy.walsh.1426 Andy Walsh

        The person who initially made the allegations has now withdrawn them with an apology.
        Is it your claim that you know more about the abuse he suffered than he does?
        Or are you just a moron?

        • David Lindsay

          He has only said that it wasn’t this man. On the contrary, as he has always said, it was well-known figure, which McAlpine has never been.

          • http://www.facebook.com/andy.walsh.1426 Andy Walsh

            Oh OK. So when shown the picture he said” No it wasn’t this well known figure, it was that one” ?
            Ok.
            What are you going to do? Traduce every Tory politician from those days and then issue a blanket apology or apologise as you go along?
            Still, if it distracts you from writing those awful 5000 word posts then some good has come of it.

            • David Lindsay

              McAlpine was never well-known at all. He was the Party Treasurer, that’s all. It can’t have been him, and the victim never alleged that it was. So, who was it? I think we should be told. And I think that we very soon will be.

              • Cyclops

                The victim has specifically apologised to him, you half-witted buffoon!

                • David Lindsay

                  Because it wasn’t him. Whoever said that it was? It was a member of that Government whom even a resident of a children’s home could recognise. And who is still alive. Watch that space.

                • Cyclops

                  I firmly believe that you were there at the time so I will.

                • http://www.facebook.com/andy.walsh.1426 Andy Walsh

                  You really are a prick.
                  I hear Tom Watson is a fat child abuser.
                  Disprove that.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Must have been young Ed Balls in his nazi suit. Or possibly Keir Hardie. Everybody knows about Keir Hardie. Scotland is riddled with peadophiles. I expect, with your name, you know all about it, Lindsay..

                • Fergus Pickerinhg

                  Sorry about that. Peedofiles.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Apparently not if you had actually bothered to read the substance of the allegations rather than just parrot the febrile smears of your fat friend. But strange that criminality in the highest offices of the Labour party is never a burden to the acts.

                • Sarge

                  Oh dear -the accuser has now backed down as well – where does that leave you?

      • Colonel Mustard

        A horrible comment, even for you, but illuminating in the extent of malevolence and unhinged obsession it reveals.

        • David Lindsay

          Boo, Hoo.

          • Cyclops

            It’s ‘boo hoo’, you raving imbecile!

      • HooksLaw
      • IRISHBOY

        Prat

    • mammal

      Don’t ever be poor, don’t ever be sick, don’t ever be unemployed and most of all, don’t ever, never ever be in childcare…. That was Thatcher’s great legacy.

      • MikeBrighton

        All smears, please substantiate the innuendo with some evidence.

      • IRISHBOY

        The poor are condemned to a life time of penury and dependence, the sick are condemned to lying in their own faeces in our envy-of-the-world NHS, the unemployed will remain so because of cheaper better educated immigrant labour, and social workers will go through every court in the land to abduct your child at the very moment of its birth if they don’t like your very thoughts.

        • Cyclops

          13 years of Labour. Terminal decline the result.

          • 2trueblue

            Absolutely, including the killing of aspiration they offered to all those they supposedly helped.

        • experiate

          The Labour Party set themselves up as the party of the poor and vulnerable. This means to win General Elections they need as many poor and vulnerable people as possible. Aspiration gets in the way of that.

    • M Davis
    • 2trueblue

      The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

      • Cyclops

        Most of that road is paved with evil intentions disguised as good………..

    • Ostrich (occasionally)

      What searches?

      • IRISHBOY

        Quite.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here