I’m indebted to my good friend Peter Jukes for Tweeting proceedings: much of what follows comes from his analysis. The cops went first: “DAC Rodhouse denies there was ‘blind panic’ after Watson's letter to DPP: the review began before”. Another fox shot. “People seem to have failed to grasp this: an early Brittan interview could have exonerated him more quickly”. And then came a conspiracy theory buster.
“‘At no point till last week did the police force put the name of Brittan into the public domain’ says DAC Patricia Gallan”. James Doleman stressed “The police being very clear that there remain outstanding allegations of sexual misconduct against Leon Brittain”. So he’s NOT been cleared. And “DAC Rodhouse says ‘absolutely’ they would have reviewed a rape case after complainant whether it was Brittan or not”.
Vaz did not distinguish himself: “‘This all could have been done so much quicker’ says Vaz, seemingly ignoring the fact a Brittan interview would have done that”. And again: “‘She felt very let down’ says Watson of Jane. ‘So you believed her story’ asks Vaz. Watson denies this, but wanted proper handling”. Quite. Moreover, “an interview was required was what the complainant put to Watson and he passed on to CPS”.
Then Vaz seems to have lost it: “Watson explains his parliamentary intervention led directly to conviction of Charles Napier (and others) - rapidly cut off by Vaz”. Why? Had Watson been partisan? “I have passed on allegations related to all three political parties... I have commented on Rotherham and Janner”. So that’s a No, then. And there was more: “Watson says he passed 299 allegations to police. 55 the police wanted to know more”.
Should he have told them all to shove off? Still more came to light: “Despite conspiracy theory, it was Jane not @tom_watson who passed on his CPS letter to @ExaroNews”. Watson defended his actions: “I don't accept I was trying to micromanage a police inquiry, only to amplify the voices of those who have come forward … I think I did the right thing with the best intentions.. and there are others in the house that take this seriously”.
Tim Loughton, who escaped questioning, did not fare well with one clumsy intervention. “.@timloughton: ‘I hope they will be dealt better in the future’ … @tom_watson: ‘That would depend on the police’”. Watson told that “‘I very much hope we can create the policy space where victims of sexual crime’ can believe they were taken seriously”. And to cap a bad day for Watson bashers, “DPP Alison Saunders says @tom_watson letter had absolutely no effect on her decision at all”.
I wouldn't trust Vaz to hold a door open. Far too slippery, too far up himself. An opportunist slimeball until he proves otherwise.
I am glad to say Watson did brilliantly. Which means of course a redoubling of Murdoch/Dacre hatred, to say nothing of The Friends at Vauxhall Cross and their "intelligence activities."
I hope Watson keeps on keeping on. If he digs much deeper he'll cause more than just a few bowel movements among the shitheads who run this country. Good luck to him.
Not what was mostly reported by The Hate Mail and even the BBC. How can we ever trust them again to tell us the truth again. And we are supposed to make an informed decision on whether to leave the EU of not?
The country could have done with a Tom Watson type figure back in the 60s given the Kray and Boothby revelations. The spooks knew about it then and even allowed a libel case to be won by Boothby v The Sunday Mirror.
How far would they go today to protect similar miscreants in the Establishment?
And would it take another fifty years, too late to protect the innocent victims?
Post a Comment