Latest Tom Watson Smear Busted

That there is an organised campaign to target Labour deputy leader Tom Watson has been demonstrated today by the Mail On Sunday, which has chosen to run a poorly reasoned and terribly thin hatchet job on its front page, rather than the much more substantial story on bullying in the Tory Party, which Zelo Street exclusively previewed yesterday. The attack falls apart easily - and there is a twist in the tail, too.

Here is the nub of the MoS story: “Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader accused of leading a child abuse ‘witch hunt’, is related to a paedophile scoutmaster, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The politician’s uncle was last year jailed for indecently assaulting a nine-year-old Cub Scout five decades ago, in what was described as a ‘gross abuse of his position of trust’”. So what is the reality?

One, the indecent assault, for which Peter Halliwell was jailed, happened before Watson was born, so there’s not too much he could have done about it. Two, the MoS concedes “Watson’s mother, Linda, now 72, married Halliwell’s brother, Edwin Barry Halliwell, in 1997”. Three, Halliwell has confirmed he and Watson did not meet until that time. And four, Halliwell was not charged with any offence until last year.

What was Watson supposed to do, challenge his mother to have her prospective new extended family grilled for any possible crimes they might have committed and which they might get nicked for, some years into the future? He has said of Helliwell “His victim deserved justice and I’m glad he got it”. And then the MoS, by its own admission, demonstrates that it is engaging in rank hypocrisy.

The paper claims Watson “used the fact that an innocent Tory MP had a paedophile relative to bolster his claims”, before going on “he was referring to Paedophile Information Exchange treasurer Charles Napier, whose half-brother is John Whittingdale, who was once Margaret Thatcher’s political secretary. Months after Watson’s speech, Napier was arrested and last year he jailed for 13 years for sex abuse at a boarding school”.

So why does Whittingdale not get the same front page treatment? But that wouldn’t be to the MoS’ liking, not with a headline like “BBC BASHING WHITTO’S BROTHER IS CHILD ABUSER”. No Sirree, John Whittingdale does not get the treatment - and on that count the press is right. He can’t be held responsible for what Charles Napier got up to. And nor can Tom Watson be held responsible for the actions of a relative he didn’t know at the time.

But then, one might not have expected the highest of principles from the MoS, after looking at the names on the by-line. As one Zelo Street regular has pointed out to me, Simon Murphy and Ross Slater are two of the three hacks who blagged food from a food bank in order to enable the paper to run a hit job (you can see Roy Greenslade’s Guardian piece on this episode right HERE). They’ve got no room to call out others.

In the meantime, let me end with this thought: what was Tom Watson to do when claims of sex abuse were brought to his attention - refer them to the Police and also publicise the matter, to avoid a cover-up, or ignore them? That is the kind of hard choice that MPs face every day of their careers. The press enjoys the luxury of not having to do so.