Despite this week’s evidence showing that not only had Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson done nothing wrong, but also that the Police were already investigating the late Leon Brittan before they received Watson’s letter bringing their attention to further allegations against him, the right-leaning part of the press is keeping up its attack on Watson, digging itself in deeper and therefore looking yet more foolish.
Credibility, Guv? Nah, you put traps down for that, innit?!?
And nowhere is this foolishness more evident than in the far-flung North London enclave that is Vero Beach, Florida, from where the Daily Mail’s talentless and unfunny churnalist Richard Littlejohn has fired off yet another reason why his legendarily foul mouthed editor is paying out rather more money than his not-really-star-pundit is worth. “Stop this insane VIP abuse inquiry before it costs us £120million (plus VAT)! Nothing credible has been unearthed - so why on earth is it continuing” he pleads.
Do go on: “More than a month has passed since it was revealed that detectives had failed to find a shred of evidence to suggest that there was a VIP paedophile and murder ring operating in the Seventies and Eighties … These lurid allegations have been at the centre of an outrageous attempt by Nonce Finder General Tom Watson to smear leading Conservatives, notably Leon Brittan, as child molesters and worse”.
Dicky Windbag even manages to pass adverse comment on nominally Labour MP Simon Danczuk, which might start the alarm bells ringing in north-east Manchester. But this attack can be dealt with directly: what the Police may or may not have found, they are not telling, because their investigation continues, and as a result they are not about to tell the likes of Littlejohn. And Watson is still not “smearing” anyone.
Even when the signs suggest that Watson may not be as wrong as so many obedient pundits tried to suggest, Littlejohn would not take the hint. “Surprisingly, criticism of Labour’s Deputy Leader has been strangely muted at Westminster this week, save for the redoubtable Nicholas Soames and London’s mayor Boris Johnson”, he observed.
“You might have expected at least some mention of Watson’s deranged witch-hunt against Brittan to surface during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions … But no. Nothing, zilch … Has the order to keep stumm gone out to Conservative MPs. And if so, why? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist myself, could it be because Home Secretary Theresa May still has some questions of her own to answer?” He’s guessing.
What has clearly passed Richard Littlejohn by - probably by going way over his head - is that last weekend’s wave of abuse and bile has failed to budge Tom Watson, it is becoming clear that there is more to come, and as a result, many on the Government benches are, shall we say, re-evaluating their position. Sadly for Littlejohn, he is too wilful and clueless to detect this change in the wind direction.
Still, when he’s generating so much hot air of his own, that’s all too understandable.
9 comments:
What a "funny" coincidence.
Nicholas Soames and Bozo de Piffle both went to Eton and then Oxford.
Odd, that.
Or perhaps not..........
While his efforts probably don't quite live up to Alistair Cooke's Letters from America (after all he was writing about things happening on his doorstep so had a better grasp of what was going on) it's nice to know he's still thinking of us from way over there and disturbing his lifestyle to concoct a little story about life over here. (caveat - a bit of diplomatic tabloid type top spinning there)
Still doesn't make me want to read it though, given his past history of scribing.
(tempting fate for Tim to inform me in hushed tones "he's over here again")
Zelo St is really being desperate on this matter & to make the false claim Watson has not smeared anyone really is disgraceful. You ain't just being partisan in the case of the odious Watson you are being bloody untruthful.
@3
You are welcome to back that claim up, but I doubt that you will.
Oh really?.
How many articles would you like linked to to show Watson has not used the media to promote his "VIP pedo ring" ?. And if he was taken out of context you in turn may be bale to show proof that his words were being misused.
But I doubt you will be able to ..and I doubt you will.
Here is just one tale posted about Watson & reported 'faithfully' by the now ghastly Mirror .
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cabinet-minister-lured-woman-flat-3558919
Watson is quoted as though the story is true and the "minister" guilty (knowing full well social media was abuzz with Brittan's name and has said the claimant is "credible".
You insult readers Fenton if you try to infer that using the word "credible" is not tricky language for imposing guilt.
Watson has not claimed that he was misquoted at any time.
As I say : how much proof do you need to demonstrate Tom Watson has fanned a media witch hunt and never asked for moderation in reporting but used that media hysteria to full advantage?. I'm happy to provide it. Watson has been no different to Geoffrey Dickens except, Dickens was regarded as a nutter where Watson retained credibility.
Sad that many Labour supporters are now hysterically supporting Watson despite his ability to put his foot in it.
@ Anon
Dickens wasn't considered a complete "nutter".
From The Guardian in 2014 "his use of parliamentary privilege to denounce diplomat Sir Peter Hayman was vindicated when Hayman was jailed in 1984 for paedophilia."
And "credible". Well some people think most of what the tabloid press print is credible. Whether what they print is true or not is another matter altogether.
One man's hysteria or witch hunt over a possible VIP paedophile network is another man's hysteria or witch hunt over immigration policy. Take your pick from tabloid hysteria (there's a new one every week - it sells papers we are led to believe).
@ Anonymous at 03:48.
That's an odd interpretation or two you have there.
What the Mirror - or any other newspaper - says is a matter for each of them. Watson doesn't control their contents or opinions.
Watson also has a better grasp of English than you. The Concise Oxford Dictionary ninth edition defines "credible" as "...believable or worthy of belief." It even goes on to point out the dangers of mistaking that adjective for "credulous."
Watson has done absolutely the right thing in telling the House of Commons to examine its conscience. Do you want a list of additional matters that support his opinion?
If anybody should be shamed its the gang of econofascists and neocon liars that comprise the tories, New Labour and the LibDems. Who, frankly, it looks like you're defending by attacking Watson. If we can't trust mainstream media to investigate itself, how can we possibly trust the Establishment to investigate itself?
Organised paedophilia, if it exists as suspected, is a logical conclusion of the kind of hatred manufactured by neocons, perverts and their apologists. That it has come to this doesn't surprise me in the least.
@ Anon 10:20
Hear, hear!
Post a Comment