Jane Moore - Pants On Fire

The Murdoch press has found itself in a quandary as the week has gone on: their assault on Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson has been shown to be wrong on more or less every level, and the final nail in the coffin was administered by the hated Guardian. What to do? Well, if all those Serious Heavyweight Pundits (tm) can’t make an impression, perhaps it’s time for someone more agreeable to have a go.

And so it came to pass that Sun hack and occasional TV talking head Jane Moore turned her attention to the matter of Watson and the late Leon Brittan, framing the argument as if the MP were some naughty boy making excuses to his Mum and so not really saying sorry, which by the most fortunate of coincidences, the right-leaning press has decided he should do. But it does not take long for her argument to fall apart.

Under the headline “Not weak to admit you’re wrong, Tom”, Ms Moore muses “There’s an age-old adage that you should never ruin an apology with an excuse [there is? But do go on] … Or, as my mother used to interject when I was trying to explain away a misdemeanour ‘There are no “yes buts” about it. You’re in the wrong’”. So there you are, naughty Tom Watson. You just do as Ms Moore tells you!

What, then, has he done wrong (this being the part that is proving so difficult to so many in the press)? “Labour’s ‘attack dog’ Tom Watson is undoubtedly in the wrong [over what? Get on with it] after accusing former Tory Home Secretary Leon Brittan of ‘multiple child rape’, a heinous crime for which the Police found no evidence”. And there you have it: demanding an apology on the basis of something that is totally untrue.

Let’s take this nice and slowly: Watson has not made any accusations, but has passed on others’ allegations to the CPS. So Ms Moore is wrong there. Then comes the more substantial whopper, her claim that “the Police found no evidence”. We do not know what evidence they found, as this matter is still, as far as is known, under investigation. The charge of which Brittan was declared innocent was not that one.

Here’s the Birmingham Post from yesterday: “Watson said that Lord Brittan had been accused of ‘multiple sexual crimes by numerous completely unrelated sources’ … Peter Garsden, of law firm QualitySolicitors Abney Garsden, wrote on his blog: ‘Tom Watson refers to "multiple allegations". The police cannot respond to the suggestion that their investigations are without foundation because they are part way through a case and tactically must keep such detail private’”.

Jane Moore then digs herself in deeper: Watson, she wrongly claims, “continued to publicly besmirch Mr Brittan’s name long after he knew that the Police had decided there was no case to answer”. See above. This exhibition of dishonesty should be borne in mind the next time you see Ms Moore doing her trusted pundit act on the box.

Another Murdoch hack prepared to talk well, and lie badly. What a coincidence.