The names are:Imploding Turtle wrote:Whose names did he drag through the mud? And when?
These are basic questions I expect you to be able to answer if you're demanding that someone apologise for doing this.
And he was the one who exposed those names, was he? Bear in mind you've already said he didn't.Rowls wrote:The names are:
Lord Janner
Leon Brittan
Havery Proctor
Sir Roland Gibbs
Ted Heath
Sir Hugh Beach
Sir Michael Hanley
Sir Maurice Oldfield
The timescales are available on the BBC article which I shall link for a third time:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tom Watson was the politician who pressured the Met to investigate these false claims and brought this ludicrous and disgusting fantasy to public prominence.Imploding Turtle wrote:And he was the one who exposed those names, was he? Bear in mind you've already said he didn't.
So, should the claims not have been investigated?Rowls wrote:Tom Watson was the politician who pressured the Met to investigate these false claims and brought this ludicrous and disgusting fantasy to public prominence.
How do you know they're false?Rowls wrote:Tom Watson was the politician who pressured the Met to investigate these false claims and brought this ludicrous and disgusting fantasy to public prominence.
Here you are, for the fourth or fifth time (I've lost count)Imploding Turtle wrote:How do you know they're false?
Not true.NottsClaret wrote:Especially as it turns out the brave whistleblower was a lying nonce who touches kids.
So they had to be investigated to be found false then!Rowls wrote:Here you are, for the fourth or fifth time (I've lost count)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They've been found to be false in a court of law.
If you think there's been a error of judgement you're free to state so.
But the evidence against Beech is overwhelming.
He came to prominence during the phone hacking scandal.Rowls wrote:It brought him personal political gain because it brought him into public prominence. He was not a well known figure before this.
He was later elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party on the back of his new found prominence.
Martin, this is getting very circular; I've already answered this question:martin_p wrote:So, should the claims not have been investigated?
I've bolded and underlined the important bit for you.Rowls wrote:The Wiltshire Police's investigation was cursory because they performed theirs properly and dismissed these fantastical claims almost instantly.
The most basic of proper investigations would have dismissed this in an afternoon or two at most.
But then contradicted himself entirely by publicly stating that he "believed the people who say he [Leon Brittan] raped them" and calling Leon Brittan "evil".martin_p wrote:[*]
No, he said of the allegations ‘ It’s not for me to judge whether the claims made against Brittan are true. It’s for the police to investigate these claims as they continue to do so.‘
But in the next paragraph of the BBC article:martin_p wrote:[*]
No, he said of the allegations ‘ It’s not for me to judge whether the claims made against Brittan are true. It’s for the police to investigate these claims as they continue to do so.‘
If you read the OP you'll realise why this is a silly thing for you to have posted.ksrclaret wrote:When Tom Watson logs on to read this message board I'm sure he'll succumb to your wishes, Rowls
Rowls wrote:Here you are, for the fourth or fifth time (I've lost count)
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
They've been found to be false in a court of law.
If you think there's been a error of judgement you're free to state so.
But the evidence against Beech is overwhelming.
Very true.Hipper wrote:Whether there was any political motive in Watson's activities it's easy to accuse but harder to judge.
Don't concern yourself with whether I've read the OP.Rowls wrote:If you read the OP you'll realise why this is a silly thing for you to have posted.
edit - or maybe you won't?
Rowls,Rowls wrote:You didn't understand.
To the best Deputy Leader of the Labour party in the land, Rowls says this:Rowls wrote:You didn't understand.
I’d love Tom Watson to resign from the Labour Party. He’s a ignorant Blairite who doesn’t represent the views of his party.Rowls wrote:Having publicly named people under Parliamentary privilege it is time for Tom Watson to now publicly apologize and consider resigning.
His lack of judgement in this case is shocking.
A few posters on here might also want to consider publicly retracting their false beliefs and take cautionary counsel about declaring who is and isn't a child-abusing paedophile.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tories are evil and any lies said about them are justified in the wake of their cruelty and greed.
Rowls wrote:Having publicly named people under Parliamentary privilege it is time for Tom Watson to now publicly apologize and consider resigning.
His lack of judgement in this case is shocking.
A few posters on here might also want to consider publicly retracting their false beliefs and take cautionary counsel about declaring who is and isn't a child-abusing paedophile.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He did push for the investigation very much so and being a politician, even if not much of one , (actually in common with about 300 currently seeving MP''s) it was politically motivated. But as I said the police are very culpublsbe in this for lack of proper initial ibvestigationImploding Turtle wrote:What did he actually do? Did he expose Beech's victims? Did he push for an investigation, and if he did then what's wrong with that?
I don't care a whole lot if people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It was the right thing to call for an investigation.Stayingup wrote:He did push for the incestigation very much so and being a politician, even if not much of one , (actually in common with about 300 currently seeving MP''s) it was politically motivated. But as I said the police are very culpublsbe in this for lack of proper initial ibvestigation
I respect what you say but Watson was definitely political motivation. Why else would he do it ? Hes not one of tge Sams you know.Hipper wrote:But in the next paragraph of the BBC article:
'But, the following month, he tweeted: "I think I have made my position on Leon Brittan perfectly clear. I believe the people who say he raped them."
Undoubtedly Tom Watson has over stepped the mark but at the time with all the anger over Saville particularly, but others more surprising like Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, I don't think he was alone in wondering what the hell was going on. It seemed like the whole establishment - BBC, politicians (Cyril Smith) etc. was either guilty of abusing people or hiding the abuse of others.
Whether there was any political motive in Watson's activities it's easy to accuse but harder to judge.
Its obviously got to him. He's not half the man he was!!!Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't care a whole lot if people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It was the right thing to call for an investigation.
For being a prize pr!cK would be good enough. Seriously do you read a newspaper?evensteadiereddie wrote:Tell him the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and their readers on here absolutely insist that he should apologise. For what, nobody seems quite sure but he should do so anyway.
Stayingup wrote:For being a prize pr!cK would be good enough. Seriously do you read a newspaper?
The Enclosure wrote:I will be seeing Tom tomorrow at Royal Lytham.he is playing in the Seniors Open Championship...I will have a quiet word in his ear.
Well, I would mind. I would mind very strongly. But there may well be people on here who wouldn't mind a bit if their late father was abused that way, and wouldn't expect an apology.Wokingclaret wrote:or yours
Whereas if you came on here and said that someone else was saying that someone’s dad had raped numerous little boys and you thought it should be investigated by the police and then named them after it had been in the paper, it’d be a different matter because you wouldn’t be wrong.dsr wrote:Why should he apologise? He accused a dead man of vile child abuse, and he was wrong. So he should apologise for traducing the reputation of a dead man.
It's scarcely relevant whether he believed the allegations or not. He made a vile accusation, he was wrong, and he should apologise.
If I posted loud and clear on here that [random poster name]'s late father had raped numerous little boys, and it turned out I was wrong, would it not be fair to [random poster] to apologise? Maybe not. Maybe it's all fair comment. Maybe you wouldn't mind even if it was your father.
Sorry Greenmile but I just can't take you seriously. If I were going to discuss what may or may not constitute libel it would most likely be in relation to you spouting nonsense rather than anything here. Especially anything I've written.Greenmile wrote:So when is Rowls going to apologise for libelling Tom Watson?
I've corrected the statement later in the thread because I'm unashamed of the simple error I made.Imploding Turtle wrote:Why have you not even corrected your opening post?
And since the basis for him needing to apologise is not true, what's the point of this thread even?
See dsr's response.evensteadiereddie wrote:Tell him the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and their readers on here absolutely insist that he should apologise. For what, nobody seems quite sure but he should do so anyway.
It's progressing exactly as would be expected.Bordeauxclaret wrote:Well, I don’t think this thread went the way Rowls hoped
I don't think that's the best composed sentence you've ever written martin but more importantly: This is not comparable to what Tom Watson did.martin_p wrote:Whereas if you came on here and said that someone else was saying that someone’s dad had raped numerous little boys and you thought it should be investigated by the police and then named them after it had been in the paper, it’d be a different matter because you wouldn’t be wrong.
Rowls wrote:I don't think that's the best composed sentence you've ever written martin but more importantly: This is not comparable to what Tom Watson did.
If we were to make a comparable it might go something like this:
"Whereas if you were an MP with considerable political clout and you went to the police to report an utterly ridiculous, unbelievable and entirely made-up allegation that someone's dad had raped numerous boys and you thought -because of your own lack of judgement- that it should be investigated by the police, and then you used your political clout to pressurize the police into investigating, and then you named one of them in a national newspaper (because that one had died and you knew you couldn't be committing libel even if you were wrong) and then because you named one of the falsely accused, one of the other falsely accused felt the need to publicly admit he was also being "investigated" (having lost his house and job because of the false claims) because the list of people being investigated was, although not public knowledge, readily being spread via gossip and hearsay particularly amongst journalists, MPs, civil servants and other Westminster wonks, and then they were named in the paper, then *THAT* would be a different matter because you wouldn't be wrong."
I'm very sorry for the numerous twists, turns, ungrammatical somersaults and belly-flops that sentence mis-performs but I think that it now more properly reflects the actions that Tom Watson took better than your original.
I’ll agree with you on the sentence compositionRowls wrote:I don't think that's the best composed sentence you've ever written martin but more importantly: This is not comparable to what Tom Watson did.
If we were to make a comparable it might go something like this:
"Whereas if you were an MP with considerable political clout and you went to the police to report an utterly ridiculous, unbelievable and entirely made-up allegation that someone's dad had raped numerous boys and you thought -because of your own lack of judgement- that it should be investigated by the police, and then you used your political clout to pressurize the police into investigating, and then you named one of them in a national newspaper (because that one had died and you knew you couldn't be committing libel even if you were wrong) and then because you named one of the falsely accused, one of the other falsely accused felt the need to publicly admit he was also being "investigated" (having lost his house and job because of the false claims) because the list of people being investigated was, although not public knowledge, readily being spread via gossip and hearsay particularly amongst journalists, MPs, civil servants and other Westminster wonks, and then they were named in the paper, then *THAT* would be a different matter because you wouldn't be wrong."
I'm very sorry for the numerous twists, turns, ungrammatical somersaults and belly-flops that sentence mis-performs but I think that it now more properly reflects the actions that Tom Watson took better than your original.