This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/oct/13/tories-gunning-for-tom-watson-forget-ignored-sexual-abuse-muckraking

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tories gunning for Tom Watson forget their years of ignored muckraking Tories gunning for Tom Watson forget their years of ignored muckraking
(35 minutes later)
Tory MPs and outraged tabloids, now gunning for Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, over allegations of sexual abuse directed at the late Leon Brittan, might like to ponder the fact that Tory MPs and tabloids have shown similar enthusiasm for such stories down the years. People in glass houses should be careful throwing bricks. Tory MPs and outraged tabloids, now gunning for Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, over the allegations of sexual abuse he directed at the late Leon Brittan, might like to ponder the fact that Tory MPs and tabloids have shown similar enthusiasm for such stories down the years. People in glass houses should be careful throwing bricks.
As I have reported here before, the first whisper of child molestation I heard against Brittan at Westminster was at least 30 years ago when he was briefly home secretary (1983-85). It came, not from Tom Watson who was a teenager at the time, but from a well-known rightwing Tory MP, also now dead. I thought the specific allegation implausible then and still do. As I have reported here before, the first whisper of child molestation I heard against Brittan at Westminster was at least 30 years ago when he was briefly home secretary (1983-85). It came not from Tom Watson, who was a teenager at the time, but from a well-known rightwing Tory MP, also now dead. I thought the specific allegation implausible then, and still do.
Much less posh, another Tory MP, the late Geoffrey Dickens, spent a lot of time in the 80s peddling paedophile cover-up conspiracy stories which the tabloids hoovered up enthusiastically. In the Peter Hayman case, Dickens was right, but in some allegations he wasn’t. Fearless muckraker, Tam Dalyell, thought him a publicity hound and took no part in it. Much less posh, another Tory MP, the late Geoffrey Dickens, spent a lot of time in the 80s peddling paedophile cover-up conspiracy stories which the tabloids hoovered up enthusiastically. In the Peter Hayman case, Dickens was right, but in some allegations he wasn’t. Fearless muckraker Tam Dalyell thought him a publicity hound and took no part in it.
That all goes with the territory, too, as Watson is discovering. Not every such allegation is true, but nor are they all untrue. There is still much more to be resolved, either by Judge Goddard, or by the police. Brittan’s name may still be in the frame, despite this week’s belated police apology over what they now say was a false historic allegation of rape by a woman. That all goes with the territory, too, as Watson is discovering. Not every such allegation is true; nor are they all untrue. There is still much more to be resolved, either by Judge Goddard, or by the police. Brittan’s name may still be in the frame, despite this week’s belated police apology over what they now say was a false historic allegation of rape by a woman.
It’s also true – I wrote at length about it here – that Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Her aide, Peter Morrison MP, was probably protected, albeit not by her. Yet the mid-80s allegations against Brittan peddled to me by my Tory MP chum were later investigated by Private Eye’s redoubtable Paul Foot (no Tory) who decided they were an MI5 smear planted to damage the then home secretary. I’ve heard that, too. Smoke and mirrors, isn’t it? It’s also true – I wrote at length about it here – that Margaret Thatcher ignored warnings not to give Jimmy Savile a knighthood. Her aide, Peter Morrison MP, was probably protected, albeit not by her. Yet the mid-80s allegations against Brittan peddled to me by my Tory MP chum were later investigated by Private Eye’s redoubtable Paul Foot (no Tory), who decided they were an MI5 smear planted to damage the then home secretary. I’ve heard that, too. Smoke and mirrors, isn’t it?
In the Commons yesterday, gallant Sir Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill and a rare survivor of aristocratic political attitudes in the modern Commons, called on Watson to apologise for “vilely traducing the late Lord Brittan”.In the Commons yesterday, gallant Sir Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill and a rare survivor of aristocratic political attitudes in the modern Commons, called on Watson to apologise for “vilely traducing the late Lord Brittan”.
As you can see, tough guy Watson, the man who took on Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, rejected the invitation, along with David Cameron’s suggestion on LBC Radio that he “examine his conscience” about the way he handled the information which came his way in 2012. Given the mess we have made of child sexual abuse in this country – “abused, ignored, dismissed”, Watson said – “we all need to examine our consciences”. Fair point. Soames, who is a decent man, was not satisfied. Nor is the Brittan family or the Daily Mail. As you can see, tough guy Watson, the man who took on Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, rejected the invitation, along with David Cameron’s suggestion on LBC Radio that he “examine his conscience” about the way he handled the information which came his way in 2012. Given the mess we have made of child sexual abuse in this country – “abused, ignored, dismissed”, Watson said – “we all need to examine our consciences”. Fair point. Soames, who is a decent man, was not satisfied. Nor are the Brittan family or the Daily Mail.
But hang on. As recently as last November the mighty Mail was enthusiastically running paedophile cover-up stories like this one by Guy Adams, a smart operator, in which Watson and fellow accusers are respectfully treated. The Mail has a track record of being quick to accuse, then to turn on false accusers as if the paper had never given their claims any coverage. Cot deaths, anyone? But hang on. As recently as last November, the mighty Mail was enthusiastically running paedophile cover-up stories like this one by Guy Adams, a smart operator, in which Watson and fellow accusers are respectfully treated. The Mail has a track record of being quick to accuse, then to turn on false accusers as if the paper had never given their claims any coverage. Cot deaths, anyone?
I’m conflicted on this one, naturally sceptical about some of the more exotic allegations being promoted by Exaro and others with assorted axes to grind – remember Harvey Proctor’s dignified statement in August – but aware that many of us were too complacent when the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye made allegations against Cyril Smith. “If it was true, they’d arrest him.” Not necessarily.I’m conflicted on this one, naturally sceptical about some of the more exotic allegations being promoted by Exaro and others with assorted axes to grind – remember Harvey Proctor’s dignified statement in August – but aware that many of us were too complacent when the Rochdale Free Press and Private Eye made allegations against Cyril Smith. “If it was true, they’d arrest him.” Not necessarily.
So the best way to proceed, as in so much else, is with an open mind and a cautious use of language.So the best way to proceed, as in so much else, is with an open mind and a cautious use of language.
I’m conflicted a bit about Tom Watson, too. Plenty of good people, including likely allies, warn me off him, as divisive and sectarian, not to be trusted. I hope they are wrong because the Corbyn-led Labour leadership needs the stability and deal-making pragmatism a trade union fixer like Watson has in his bones. We’ll know soon enough if he can hold it together. I’m conflicted a bit about Tom Watson, too. Plenty of good people, including likely allies, warn me off him, as divisive and sectarian, not to be trusted. I hope they are wrong, because the Corbyn-led Labour leadership needs the stability and deal-making pragmatism a trade union fixer like Watson has in his bones. We’ll know soon enough if he can hold it together.
Myself, I’ve always instinctively liked Tom and have been given no reason to disbelieve what he tells me when we occasionally chat. It includes his claim that he and Gordon Brown only watched TV’s Postman Pat with their children when Tom visited Gordon at home before the abortive coup to oust Tony Blair in the autumn of 2006. I was mocked at the time, but it might be true for reasons I won’t go into. A former engineering union official (the AEEU later merged to become Unite), Watson resigned (he is a serial resigner) before he was sacked, but Blair lasted only a year. Myself, I’ve always instinctively liked Tom and have been given no reason to disbelieve what he tells me when we occasionally chat. It includes his claim that he and Gordon Brown simply watched Postman Pat with their children when Tom visited Gordon at home before the abortive coup to oust Tony Blair in the autumn of 2006. I was mocked at the time, but it might be true for reasons I won’t go into. A former engineering union official (the AEEU later merged to become Unite), Watson resigned (he is a serial resigner) before he was sacked, but Blair lasted only a year.
In this case it looks as if some of the allegations Watson made may not stick and that some of the words he used may prove unwise. It is always so, even at the Mail. But things are not quite as his accusers say. Consider the first such intervention he made during PMQs on 24 October 2012 – scroll down quite a long way here – his language is circumspect, as is David Cameron’s reply. In this case, it looks as if some of the allegations Watson made may not stick, and that some of the words he used may prove unwise. It is always so, even at the Mail. But things are not quite as his accusers say. Consider the first such intervention he made during PMQs on 24 October 2012 – scroll down quite a long way here – his language is circumspect, as is David Cameron’s reply.
At that stage ( here’s his account ) Watson hadn’t heard anything about Brittan, let alone those Dolphin Square “orgies”. It was Jimmy Hood MP, who used a debate on the 1984-5 miners strike two weeks later to drag in Brittan. Some miners’ families will never forgive anyone connected with their historic defeat. At that stage ( here’s his account), Watson hadn’t heard anything about Brittan, let alone those Dolphin Square “orgies”. It was Jimmy Hood MP, who used a debate on the 1984-5 miners strike two weeks later to drag in Brittan. Some miners’ families will never forgive anyone connected with their historic defeat.
Struggling to catch up after years of Savile-style failure (how much did assorted police forces and tabloids really know about him?), the cops asked Watson to reassure potential victims they would be taken seriously: he did. More information flowed in. He explained it on his blog (now discontinued?). Again, I think you will find the tone reasonable, cautiously thoughtful even. There are enough “mays” and “coulds” in it to constitute prudence. Struggling to catch up after years of Savile-style failure (how much did assorted police forces and tabloids really know about him?), the cops asked Watson to reassure potential victims that they would be taken seriously: he did. More information flowed in. He explained it on his blog (now discontinued?). Again, I think you will find the tone reasonable, cautiously thoughtful even. There are enough “mays” and “coulds” in it to constitute prudence.
Of course, things got rapidly more lurid after the ailing Brittan died in January and the Met police were at fault in not telling him there was no real evidence in the rape allegation. In January Watson weighed in, identifying Brittan as the senior politician he had not previously named. A lot of other accused were put in the frame, including Lord Bramall, a distinguished former chief of the defence staff. His home was searched and he was interviewed by Operation Midland officers (most cops like to form a view after interviewing an accused) in March. Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard have both been given the treatment: cops and media in concert. All have denied the various allegations. Of course, things got rapidly more lurid after the ailing Brittan died in January and the Met police were at fault in not telling him there was no real evidence in the rape allegation. In January Watson weighed in, identifying Brittan as the senior politician he had not previously named. A lot of others were put in the frame, including Lord Bramall, a distinguished former chief of the defence staff. His home was searched and he was interviewed by Operation Midland officers (most cops like to form a view after interviewing a suspect) in March. Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard have both been given the treatment: cops and media in concert. All have denied the various allegations.
It sounds like madness and in most cases it may well be. But not all. That is, I suspect, why Watson refused to accept Soames’s invitation to recant yesterday. This sordid business, consuming so much police time years after it should have been tackled head on, isn’t over yet. Which is why thoughtful Tory pundits like Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson might sensibly hold some of their scornful fire, likewise the Observer’s Nick Cohen.It sounds like madness and in most cases it may well be. But not all. That is, I suspect, why Watson refused to accept Soames’s invitation to recant yesterday. This sordid business, consuming so much police time years after it should have been tackled head on, isn’t over yet. Which is why thoughtful Tory pundits like Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson might sensibly hold some of their scornful fire, likewise the Observer’s Nick Cohen.
After all, did not Bishop Peter Ball, convicted the other day of indecent assault years ago, have some powerful backers and protection by the church? Has Thatcher’s biographer, Moore, not forgotten her Savile knighthood against advice? No, he wrote about it. Are they not all making the same mistake they (and most of us) made years ago when we disbelieved all we were told?After all, did not Bishop Peter Ball, convicted the other day of indecent assault years ago, have some powerful backers and protection by the church? Has Thatcher’s biographer, Moore, not forgotten her Savile knighthood against advice? No, he wrote about it. Are they not all making the same mistake they (and most of us) made years ago when we disbelieved all we were told?
Critics say that Watson has used the campaign to promote his political career. The poor chap is now Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, so he is suffering for his ambition. But the same charge of ulterior motive can be laid against most people in public life. There are easier ways to advancement than attacking Rupert Murdoch and making allegations against other powerful people. In any case, some attackers have ulterior motives, too: as Murdoch’s nemesis, Watson is deemed an enemy of the oligarch free press, a sort of friend of Corbyn, too. That’s two more reasons to get stuck in.Critics say that Watson has used the campaign to promote his political career. The poor chap is now Jeremy Corbyn’s deputy, so he is suffering for his ambition. But the same charge of ulterior motive can be laid against most people in public life. There are easier ways to advancement than attacking Rupert Murdoch and making allegations against other powerful people. In any case, some attackers have ulterior motives, too: as Murdoch’s nemesis, Watson is deemed an enemy of the oligarch free press, a sort of friend of Corbyn, too. That’s two more reasons to get stuck in.
I cannot vouch for this law firm or its motives, ulterior or otherwise, but it is clearly experienced in this field. What it says today is this: it isn’t over yet. Plenty of time for the Mail to change sides again I cannot vouch for this law firm or its motives, ulterior or otherwise, but it is clearly experienced in this field. What it says today is this: it isn’t over yet. Plenty of time for the Mail to change sides again.