Tom Watson Vindicated AGAIN

Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson, together with officers from the Metropolitan Police, appeared before the Commons’ Home Affairs Select Committee this afternoon, although for some reason there was to be no grilling for Tory MPs Tim Loughton and Zac Goldsmith, while Watson was to be accused of being partisan, something that was lost on chairman Keith Vaz, who the last time I looked was in the same party as Watson.

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”.

Tom Watson, it is becoming more and more clear over time, has done no more than his job. Keith Vaz should quit grandstanding and appreciate this. And the likes of Goldsmith, Loughton - and yes, Simon Danczuk - should get the same grilling. That would be most revealing. Now all we have to do is to wait for the inevitable press spin.