Posts
Exclusive: Newsnight "Revelations" Mr Crick Wrong
How can it be that poor little blogger and stringer me knows exactly who dobbed Ivan Lewis in for his unfortunate moments of madness with his adventures in text-uendo? And yet Michael Crick continues to speculate that it was somehow Gordon Brown and Number 10 who caused this story to emerge. Might look like that. Might look like that on purpose. I couldn't possibly comment.
But I am quite frankly amazed that serious media commentators with excellent networks into our political parties can be so wrong. Some of these characters believe and report almost anything they are told by anyone. And then the next day the opposite. Without a thought for the whys and wherefores.
My own MP Tony Lloyd, Chair of the PLP, teased Mr Paxman for his affected naff naif confusion and put his finger on the problem when he poked gentle fun at the "towering combined IQ of our great British press" OWTTE.
Clearly Ruth Kelly is not enjoying life at the office just now. Those 18 hour days stack up. She has a fight on her hands against the unpleasant - she's a Tory isn't she? - but at times effective Susan Fildes Williams in Bolton West. And she has given birth to an unprecedented four young Kellys in 11 years in parliament. Why should she not take a career break at this point? When would have been a good time to rule oneself out from a government job in the next round?
And, returning to my theme of who is and is not in the know, how is it that a goodly number of Labour rank and filers of my acquaintance had more than an inkling of this development too? Whereas star blogging junior transport minister Tom Harris hadn't a clue? And still they haven't uncovered a smoking gun?
14 comments:
As you are the self-appoinyted Pervfinder General, I am amazed that you haven't devored more electrons to the Ivan Lewis story.
If the allegations are correct (although that never seems to particularly bother you), this Minister pestered and harrassed a young woman eho was effectively in his employ.
She had to move jobs and ended up with a demotion. Lewis keeps his job.
Your main concern in all this? Who grassed him up? What wonderful priorities you have.
Given that 95% of what you "know" to be true usually turns out to be wrong, I would back the judgement, knowledge and contacts of the Political Editor of the BBC over yours any day of the week.
But then quite a few people have told me that you are a Crick-teaser. At least, I think that's what they said.
Ivan Lewis has obviously been a fool on this matter. Moments of madness. Inappropriate. Stupid.
As is bloody obvious from what I've written Dave I neither condone or condemn him. He's no longer with his wife. He's single. And he gets infatuated with or at least flirtatious with an attractive girl at the office. Sounds like he deserves a slapped wrist for that. He's had one. He's apologised.
And he's back to seeing how jaw droppingly bad adult care services are in Rochdale under Dale Meldrew - I cannot believe it! My view is that he's a bloody good minister. The esteem in which he's held by the NHS and voluntary and private sector people in adult care is fantastic. As his his passion for dealing with his portfolio and improving lives. Even in Rochdale where it is an uphill struggle with a really shoddy Council and MP in situ.
The exclusive story here is that while the MSM are blaming Number 10 for breaking the story that that is categorically untrue and could not in fact be more wrong. I'm clearly writing about the media, and the story around the story, not about the story itself.
All this blether about priorities is pretty ridiculous coming from you Dave. And well done, not, on sticking with the no anonymous posting, no drunken posting etc pledges.
It seems you believe an extraordinarily badly designed, unused, unofficial and unvisited Rochdale Labour website that happens to have a mischievious picture of Milipede D (as well as Gordon and Sarah if you delve) is a suitable riposte to the toxic reality of Sir Cyril Smith and the impotent standing by to this train crash from your boss Rowen?
While you cheer the old bastard on. Stop now. Your "help" is digging him deeper. He knows that.
Sir Cyril didn't send those young apprentices a misjudged saucy text or even a score of texts now did he? He beat their bare asses with his bare hands we're told, which David Steel apparently endorsed jokingly. And he intimidated them to allow his clammy paws to hold their ball bags and he had them cough like he was playing doctors and nurses.
Does he have a secret medical qualification? To go with the understanding of the epidemology of fine mineral fibres with a worldwide trail of death and dying following them around.
But I digress. And we're told he even went to their rooms in his hell hole hostel to ease their smacked arses with his wet sponge.
And you talk to me about priorities? You're a good catholic boy Dave. Surely you have a better line on predatory sex beasts than this?
And John Prescott?
Remind me again what health minister Ivan Lewis did for sacked nurse Karen Reissmann?
Sorry Miles.
I have absolutely no idea what he was asked to do and/or by whom. What if anything he actually did. And whether the request was within his power to respond to in any case. I do know, as I imagine that you do, that I raised the matter via the local Labour Party and have made it clear that we should have no truck on tactical sackings which are wrongful dismissal and are not even loosely legal or reasonable.
The matter is subject of legal process as we tap is it not?
But perhaps you could advise if you do have any such information about what Ivan was asked to do, what he did, and if not why not?
That would be helpful, thanks. Stick it all on your blog and I'll link to it if you wish.
Is John Prescott an asbestos apologist or a kiddy fiddler anon? Or just someone that once had an affair with his secretary and punched a twat that had egged him?
Nearly right. He's both of those, but not 'just' those, as you say.
He did have an affair with his secretary. To be honest, that's bewtween him and his wife to sort out. He isn't the first and he won't be the last, although I do notice that Piss Crawl makes unflattering sideswipe comments about non-Labour politicians who have done the same. There are also one or two aspects of the affaie that leave questions to be answered.
And yes, he was the twat who punched somebody who egged him. Fair enough, say I. Totally provoked and the recipient of the punch can have no real complaint.
If that was all there was in his history then I wouldn't have commented. I'm not sure I would anyway except to show up the hypocrisy on show here.
Dozens of eyewitness reports say that Precott committed several acts of sexual menace and bullying against a host of women - pushing himself aggressively against one in a hallway pinning her to a wall, shoving his hand up a skirt and lifting it etc etc. Several others have made allegations of a similar nature.
Just after all these came to light, Prescott was stripped of the super-ministry that had been put together for him and given the invented title of 'Envoy to the Far East'. This meant he was able to keep his huge ministerial salary and his grace and favour homes but not to be answerable to Parliament.
So let's have a whole spate of nudge nudge wink wink comments about Prescott.
OK, let's not.
No, let's make a start shall we. With that famous "reverse smear" of yours:
He did have an affair with his secretary. To be honest, that's bewtween him and his wife to sort out. He isn't the first and he won't be the last, although I do notice that Piss Crawl makes unflattering sideswipe comments about non-Labour politicians who have done the same.
Obviously everyone calls Paddy, er, Pantsdown, but perhaps you'd like to quantify this reverse sweep smear of yours with some other examples in my 3,000 or so blog posts rather than your fevered imagination?
And perhaps you'd like to get your own blog if you want to write on the butt ugly affairs and passes of the political classes of whichever party and whichever orientation.
By and large we're not interested in this here at LOL. Get your own blog instead of making these spurious pathetic non sequitor "but what about XYZ".
And do cut down on the sauce, there's a love.
You go on yada yada yada:
There are also one or two aspects of the affaie that leave questions to be answered.
And yes, he was the twat who punched somebody who egged him. Fair enough, say I. Totally provoked and the recipient of the punch can have no real complaint.
If that was all there was in his history then I wouldn't have commented. I'm not sure I would anyway except to show up the hypocrisy on show here.
Dozens of eyewitness reports say that Precott committed several acts of sexual menace and bullying against a host of women - pushing himself aggressively against one in a hallway pinning her to a wall, shoving his hand up a skirt and lifting it etc etc. Several others have made allegations of a similar nature.
"Dozens", reduced to "several others", given the old generic "etc", and two alleged incidents.
No links to media coverage which is no doubt more serious and more precise, or at least careful than this. Get your own blog. Cover what you want. Despite what you ridiculously claim we don't specialise in marital infidelity or sex beastery here.
But we are interested in sexual abuse of minors by local heroes and also possibly related climbing into the pocket of local corporate killers as "Sir" Cyril Smith - your hero - has managed to get away with.
Just after all these came to light, Prescott was stripped of the super-ministry that had been put together for him and given the invented title of 'Envoy to the Far East'.
Now it's "all these". Whatever. That's something though don't you think. Some sort of action-reaction thing going on there? Man gets caught in affair and alleged sleaze. Loses career.
This meant he was able to keep his huge ministerial salary and his grace and favour homes but not to be answerable to Parliament.
I'm not sure any of these allusions is quite accurate. But to be honest it's your blog comment you do what you want.
So let's have a whole spate of nudge nudge wink wink comments about Prescott.
No, let's stick with ON TOPIC with the dirty tricks of some other Labour insiders and Media ineptitude in looking the wrong way, and let's have some answers on why a man with an already bulging file of sex abuse on youngsters going through the hands of the police, DPP and special branch - chucked out by Rochdale Labour over this sleaze and unanswered questions about party cash too - should then be adopted as Liberal candidate, become an MP, become a Chief Whip, cause untold damage in league with masonic Tories, egg on a famous miscarriage of justice, and get nominated and receive for a bloody honour albeit a K not a big P.
Or, as you say, let's not.
Classic bullshit, Chris. Pick out a few individual words from the case against Prescott and argue about phrasing rather than address any of the central issues.
My whole point is that you are quite happy throwing around allegations about non-Labour politicians but are quite willing to whitewash any from your own side.
After all, "John will be John."
I didn't really understand your last main paragraph, which was even more than normally incoherent, but let's see if I've got the basic idea.
You only want to discuss stories that involve sex abuse, masons, miscarriages of justice and people being promoted beyond what any decent person would say was right.
Well I've got one for you. The only problem is that it doesn't include your main criterion - there is absolutely no connection with Eochdale. So I expect you will either dismiss it as an irrelevance or, more likely, invent a connection.
But what the hell?
Several years ago the US police uncovered an internet paedophile network operating out of (I think) Texas. In it they uncovered the bank records of several hundred British subscribers to these sites and sent them to the UK police for them to track down.
Many reliable sources here suggested that two then current and two former Labour ministers were identified in this operation. I am not going to name them because thse are only allegations, however serious.
The story then ran in respected newspapers that the press were prevented from publishing these names by the Labour government issuing a D Notice - although some sources say that editors came to a joint and voluntary decision under imminent threat of such a crackdown.
And the reason thery were given for Labour not wanting these names in the public domain? This was in the middle of the Iraqi War and one of the accused was a senior member of the 'War Room'. Apparently, to have released the name would have been to 'demoralise our troops on the front line'. Every cloud, eh, Chris?
So those are the basic details. Get digging. Do you mind if I don't bate my breath?
FFS you complete and utter bonono. Get a blog if you want to do John Prescott ot others who won't even name. There are lechers and adulterers in all parties and JP may be one. But I'm not in the habit of getting exercised about such stories affecting any party.
Rape and child abuse however - if there is evidence - is a different matter.
Have no idea the SP on Operation Ore (or whatever this one was) but I do understand that, way back when, Jeremy Thorpe and Cyril Smith were among those protected by the good old D notice and the rest. X and Y were protected by inter-party pairing deals.
Times up for Cyril. Get a blog and take on whoever you wish. Publisher's prerogative. But please don't expect me to be an encyclopaedic alternative to reuters. Time and tide requires priorities.
Exposing Lib Dems from Rochdale is currently top of my list. And if one 1,000th of the sleaze and harm and greed associated with Saint Cyril is every attached to JP I'd be very surprised.
If it ever is I'll certainly take an interest. But never mind Hull, first let's clean up Rochdale.
Of course you're not interested in the sorry tale I brought to your attention. It involves Labour politicians, all of whom are still active on the political stage, some in very senior positions. So why would that interest you?
You have proved my whole point quite effectively. You pass this off as 'lechery' and 'adultery'.
In much the same way that you have excused homophobia as long as it is being practiced by the Labour Party you now do the same for child abuse.
Becuase that's what these original allegations were about. Pornographic and sometimes horrific images of violence against children being accessed and bought by people in this country.
Anyway, it's good to know that you do have standards, Chris, and it would seem that yours are double that of most decent people.
Dearest EHC
1. The stories you refer to seem to me to have all the authority of smears, with no evidence whatsoever.
2. We're both against smears, right? And for evidence? And for open questioning to arrive at evidence?
3. Bring on some evidence. Affidavits for example, as were collected in the sad tale of Cyril the Sponge, and we'll be very interested indeed. Irrespective of party. But we're guessing you have none.
4. I don't condone and never have condoned homophobia. It is utterly indefensible. How dare you say I do? Ditto child abuse. This is no more and no less than smearing.
5. I do occasionally allow myself to doubt the word of Lib Dems - being as there is such a culture of smears, and lies and reverse smears - and have found this generally stands me in good stead.
6. I also find myself supporting due legal process. You know, allowing appeals (aka retrials) of summary magistrates' decisions, stuff like that. When the law decides that in a particular instance the Lib Dems are telling the truth not once but twice then that's that. It must happen.
7. As I understand it, questions have been put and answered in the negative in case(s) to which you refer here rather cryptically. Guilty people have been charged and sentenced I understand. Others have not. The answer in some cases was NCtA and NFA as I understand it. But I am not party to the detail. Are you? Why not start a blog and tell us all about it? We may come over and comment on it.
8. Perhaps then you can show us the evidence that world police have failed to uncover? And world prosecutors have failed to get to court? That would be more useful than unevidenced, anonymous blether.
9. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, it is unacceptable for predatory men or women to make passes at unwilling co-workers. Such people, usually men, must be disciplined. According to the severity of the behaviour and depending on your ethical stance arguably on the motive and state of mind too.
10. Moving the women - unless they request that or they are in an assignment role and move regularly - is not a reasonable solution in the worst cases. Again you have me and the press at a disadvantage as you seem to know all the facts but will not share them?
(Though I may have you at a disadvantage in having professional experience of employment policy, law and practice, with particular regard for stamping out prejudicial practices.)
11. But obviously, OBVIOUSLY, offences against vulnerable young men and women and children - in captivity - are far far more serious than stupid behaviour among adults. This is why you're rightly so concerned about Operation Ore. Child pornography is not a victimless crime by any means.
12. Arguably the viewing of even the worst images - of sadism, say: ritual humiliation, genital groping, wet sponging would be a for instance that judges would frown, perhaps class at level 5 if distributed as porn - but is this in the same ballpark as carrying out such behaviour on terrified, blackmailed victims.
13. Victims who, rather like the asbestos dead and dying of Rochdale, are encouraged to blame themselves by the monster who failed to protect them and/or actively harmed them.
Let's call it Spotland Syndrome shall we?
Please stick to the point EHC or I will regrettably have no choice but to censor your repetitious, malicious and add-nothing posts.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Cyril was selected for advancement, backed and protected BECAUSE of his sordid behaviour. Is that correct Dave?
Behave now you all
Best w
Chris P
I was going to respond to your arguments point by point, but by the time I got to number 5 realised that I would be repeating myself over and over. It’s actually a point you made yourself and the happened/chose to forget/avoid.
Due process. Spot on, Chris. Due process indeed. The story about the Labour Ministers is not just one of whether they are guilty or not. I don’t know, have no way of knowing and that’s why I am loath to reveal their identities. But it would seem that due process was not followed.
A D-Notice was either issued or a threat to issue one was made, not on any matter relating to the allegations but on the grounds of national security – by a Labour government on ‘behalf’ of a Labour Minister. In the middle of a war it was thought that our troops would be demoralised if they discovered that a member of the ‘War Room’ was even suspected of procuring paedophile material. So, no due process.
In the Smith case it would seem that the opposite was true. According to your very own site and to those who are trying to accuse Smith it would seem that there were investigations by both the police and the DPP.
Perversely this has been used to maintain that he is guilty. The theory going that he was investigated but not even charged, therefore it must all be one big conspiracy. Other people might come to the more rational and less paranoid conclusion that there was either NCtA or NFA should be taken.
And here’s a strange thing. Search the web for the details of the Smith story and you will find four references to it – two from you on your own site, one from you on another and one anonymously on a site that you often refer to on Love of Labour.
This latter mention is couched in very similar language to your own – in fact some paragraphs are almost identical to ones you have posted yourself here. How odd.
It seems that the only person parading this garbage around is your good self.
But the really strange thing is that they were made in response to a story about a Labour politician who is alleged to have been part of covering up a child sex-ring that he was himself part of. It’s the very story that I have referred to and thus the same one that you deny all knowledge of – although in your own reply (Point 7_ you appear to know the verdicts that have been arrived at in cases you know nothing about). Oh, and at the very top of the blog page in question there is a photograph of the Minister himself. If you want more info then just let me know.
If you support this government then you most certainly do not support due process – making a mockery of Habeus Corpus, attempting to scrap jury trial, introducing double jeopardy and retrospective legislation etc.
Luv & kisses
Post a Comment