Time For Tom Watson To Apologize

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:17 am

Rowls, would you have started this thread if Tom Watson was a Conservative MP?

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:44 pm

Thw morw I read sbout this case the more I realize the police were utterly useless. That of course does not exonerate Watson who drove this along. He is an absolute disgrace if he doesnt apilogize for helping to blivht innocent peoples lives usinf parliamentary privilege to do it. He ought to resign.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 2:58 pm

Stayingup wrote:Thw morw I read sbout this case the more I realize the police were utterly useless. That of course does not exonerate Watson who drove this along. He is an absolute disgrace if he doesnt apilogize for helping to blivht innocent peoples lives usinf parliamentary privilege to do it. He ought to resign.

Read the thread! Even Rowls has admitted he was mistaken in accusing him of using parliamentary privilege.

Cryssys · Post by **Cryssys** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:47 pm

Erasmus wrote:Rowls, would you have started this thread if Tom Watson was a Conservative MP?

What a silly question. Next!

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:05 pm

Watson was trying to boost his career , but a shocking misjudgment ,nearly as bad as losing weight which has made him look bloody awful . There was a “serious” documentary on tv about this case and some guy sounded so preposterous it was still taken as gospel when he said he was in a room with Heath ,Savile, Cyril Smith ,Proctor ,Leon Britton etc etc .How in holy hell TW swallowed that Shiite , only he knows

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:08 pm

Erasmus wrote:Rowls, would you have started this thread if Tom Watson was a Conservative MP?

Is that what it's come to? It isn't fair to castigate a Labour politician for publicising vile lies about a man four days after his death, because there hasn't yet been a Tory to criticise who has done the same thing?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:13 pm

dsr wrote:Is that what it's come to? It isn't fair to castigate a Labour politician for publicising vile lies about a man four days after his death, because there hasn't yet been a Tory to criticise who has done the same thing?

Actually, there was.

But no, that's not what it's come to, and you know that. Erasmus was demonstrating Rowls' hypocrisy because as everyone knows, and only some of us will acknowledge, Rowls is ONLY interested in this because he can criticise a Labour MP.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:22 pm

dsr wrote:Is that what it's come to? It isn't fair to castigate a Labour politician for publicising vile lies about a man four days after his death, because there hasn't yet been a Tory to criticise who has done the same thing?

Well that's part of the issue. There was a Tory, Zac Goldsmith, but Rowls doesn't seem too fussed by him. Could just be coincidence of course.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:39 pm

aggi wrote:Well that's part of the issue. There was a Tory, Zac Goldsmith, but Rowls doesn't seem too fussed by him. Could just be coincidence of course.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:11 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:Watson was trying to boost his career , but a shocking misjudgment ,nearly as bad as losing weight which has made him look bloody awful . There was a “serious” documentary on tv about this case and some guy sounded so preposterous it was still taken as gospel when he said he was in a room with Heath ,Savile, Cyril Smith ,Proctor ,Leon Britton etc etc .How in holy hell TW swallowed that Shiite , only he knows

Let's just be clear, Watson lost loads of weight because of potential serious health issues. More people should do it.
In respect of Watson's involvement in this case: as others have said the atmosphere was febrile after the Saville case, and if Watson had failed to pursue this with the Met, and there had been substance in it, then his political career would undoubtedly have been over. Hindsight is a fine thing.
He did not name anyone in Parliament as was suggested at the outset in this thread.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:44 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Let's just be clear, Watson lost loads of weight because of potential serious health issues. More people should do it.
In respect of Watson's involvement in this case: as others have said the atmosphere was febrile after the Saville case, and if Watson had failed to pursue this with the Met, and there had been substance in it, then his political career would undoubtedly have been over. Hindsight is a fine thing.
He did not name anyone in Parliament as was suggested at the outset in this thread.

It isn't his pursuit with the Met that was most offensive. If he genuinely believed that this porn ring was going on, then obviously he had to chase the police with it. It isn't particularly his fault that the police were so incredibly stupid that they couldn't see the lies.

But four days after Leon Brittan died, Watson published a statement to say that Brittan was a serial child rapist and that he was one of the most evil men that ever lived. Unless he still believes that to be true, then he ought to apologise. It doesn't mean he has to say he did anything wrong in going to the police, just that he was wrong about Brittan, who was an innocent man.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:47 pm

dsr wrote:It isn't his pursuit with the Met that was most offensive. If he genuinely believed that this porn ring was going on, then obviously he had to chase the police with it. It isn't particularly his fault that the police were so incredibly stupid that they couldn't see the lies.

But four days after Leon Brittan died, Watson published a statement to say that Brittan was a serial child rapist and that he was one of the most evil men that ever lived. Unless he still believes that to be true, then he ought to apologise. It doesn't mean he has to say he did anything wrong in going to the police, just that he was wrong about Brittan, who was an innocent man.

He apologised for that in 2015, did he not?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:He apologised for that in 2015, did he not?

No, he apologised for using the phrase "“as close to evil as any human could get”. He didn't apologise for accusing him of the crimes, of which he was of course innocent.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:13 pm

dsr wrote:No, he apologised for using the phrase "“as close to evil as any human could get”. He didn't apologise for accusing him of the crimes, of which he was of course innocent.

It was someone else accusing him of the crimes not Watson.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:32 pm

martin_p wrote:It was someone else accusing him of the crimes not Watson.

I'll respond to this one on behalf of the right.

"Yeah. But..."

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:06 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'll respond to this one on behalf of the right.

"Yeah. But..."

Funny thing is that is exactly what you and others have been doing on this thread.

Look over there - see Rowls made a mistake. Dsr used the wrong turn of phrase. Nar nar na nar nar. (Echoes of the antisemitism threads where the substance is ignored and deflected as the wrong bad people are highlighting it).

It was a vile, cynical attempt at political gain by Watson. He was noticeably much less interested when the allegations about Labour's Janner came out. What Watson did to the people falsely accused and their families is disgusting, especially the Brittan family with his statement that he believed the allegations. He should not have done it and his apologies should have been faster and more fulsome.

"Yeah, but …"

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:33 am

The difficulty I have with these threads is that I don't know the full details of this case or of Watson's motives. Android, I don't think one can say with any certainty that he did this just for party political reasons; that may be the case but it may not.

I don't have time to research it fully, but it is apparent that posters such as yourself and Rowls have a political motivation behind your strident assertions. You at least had the honesty to admit that, Rowls doesn't but it is quite obvious. Hence when either of you makes a contribution, I am not sure I can trust what you say because it seems very likely that you will be inclined to present the 'facts' in a tendentious manner rather than having truth and ethics as the primary motivation.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:39 am

Good golfer but past his prime.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

I think Peter Allis should apologize first.

"And they're expecting the anniversary of their fourth child at the sixth hole"

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:11 pm

Erasmus - surely it has not escaped your notice that virtually every poster on the political threads is politically motivated. We are all more interested in highlighting the flaws of the other side rather than our own. I am no less interested in truth and ethics than anyone else.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:39 pm

android wrote:Funny thing is that is exactly what you and others have been doing on this thread.

Look over there - see Rowls made a mistake. Dsr used the wrong turn of phrase. Nar nar na nar nar. (Echoes of the antisemitism threads where the substance is ignored and deflected as the wrong bad people are highlighting it).

It was a vile, cynical attempt at political gain by Watson. He was noticeably much less interested when the allegations about Labour's Janner came out. What Watson did to the people falsely accused and their families is disgusting, especially the Brittan family with his statement that he believed the allegations. He should not have done it and his apologies should have been faster and more fulsome.

"Yeah, but …"

Rowls' "mistake" was fundamental. His mistake was the exact reason he was demanding Watson apologise. That IS the substance. The entire substance of his demand for an apology was the "mistake" you're complaining that we're pointing out.

There's no reason for Watson to apologise for anything. He called for an investigation, that's all. He's not responsible for how that investigation was conducted, or for it's outcome, and he should not apologise for demanding an investigation into child abuse claims. And anyone who thinks child abuse claims shouldn't be investigated is suspicious as **** and should probably apologise themselves for being a deplorable piece of ****.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:48 pm

android wrote:Erasmus - surely it has not escaped your notice that virtually every poster on the political threads is politically motivated. We are all more interested in highlighting the flaws of the other side rather than our own. I am no less interested in truth and ethics than anyone else.

I think what you wrote underlines a tendency not shared by everyone. Highlighting the flaws of the other side rather than highlighting the achievements of your own is negative. Especially as in Rowls’ case where his “side” is in government. I tend to see what he writes as distractions from the failings of the last nine years of ineptitude. But as I don’t agree with him, this should be expected.

If I were to suggest some guidelines on political debate they would be:

1. Take terms such as left wing and right wing (and any that arise to replace them) out of debate. They’re meaningless, and only serve as standards around which people flock without thinking. Same with just parroting a party position on something. All our eyes might be opened a little more with nuance or personal perspective.

2. Playing the idea and not the person.

3. Talking straight.

4. Reading what other people have written before posting yourself.

I’m sure there could be more.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:56 pm

There's no point continuing any argument. We all know what Watson said, or if we don't it is linked here. He has apologised for the single phrase "as close to evil as any human can get" but has consistently stood by the rest of the article.

So anyone who thinks that his comments are fair and reasonable about an innocent man, then obviously they will feel that he has no need to apologise. Anyone who thinks the comments are not fair and reasonable, will feel that he ought to apologise. That's all there is to it. We can each decide for ourselves if Watson's article here, with the benefit of hindsight, still stands as fair and reasonable.

(For the record, think it is outrageous that he stands by it. Others on this thread would disagree.)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/t ... ld-5038130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:12 pm

AndrewJB wrote:I think what you wrote underlines a tendency not shared by everyone. Highlighting the flaws of the other side rather than highlighting the achievements of your own is negative. Especially as in Rowls’ case where his “side” is in government. I tend to see what he writes as distractions from the failings of the last nine years of ineptitude. But as I don’t agree with him, this should be expected.

If I were to suggest some guidelines on political debate they would be:

1. Take terms such as left wing and right wing (and any that arise to replace them) out of debate. They’re meaningless, and only serve as standards around which people flock without thinking. Same with just parroting a party position on something. All our eyes might be opened a little more with nuance or personal perspective.

2. Playing the idea and not the person.

3. Talking straight.

4. Reading what other people have written before posting yourself.

I’m sure there could be more.

Could I add:

5. Spend 30 seconds checking what you’re saying is correct and not just ‘something you heard’.

android · Post by **android** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:25 pm

Come off it Andrew, most of the board is taken up with tit for tat negative point scoring from left, right and centre! I commend you for making more positive arguments than most, but we all do the negative stuff and it is not true to suggest that I am an outlier in that respect.

As dsr has said (to be ignored by the usual suspects who cannot accept anything he says) there is more substance to the argument against Watson than the parliamentary privilege point (whether you agree with it or not). And no-one is suggesting that child abuse allegations are not investigated (even those as ludicrous sounding as the Carl Beech ones) - that is just silly dramatising.

The flip side of "negative" campaigning is positive! We want dangerous people out of power for the good of the nation/world. Look at Turtle and Trump for an example that you lefties (sorry Andrew) can identify with. Constant negativity from Turtle. But surely Turtle genuinely believes Trump to be a nasty piece of work and removing him would be good for the world. So why not use the negative stuff against Trump as long as it is the truth (I reckon Turtle probably sticks to the truth most of the time)! Just like other posters, I point out negative truths about politicians I see as a threat to our country. Apparently I'm supposed to be ashamed of that!

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:30 pm

android wrote:Come off it Andrew, most of the board is taken up with tit for tat negative point scoring from left, right and centre! I commend you for making more positive arguments than most, but we all do the negative stuff and it is not true to suggest that I am an outlier in that respect.

As dsr has said (to be ignored by the usual suspects who cannot accept anything he says) there is more substance to the argument against Watson than the parliamentary privilege point (whether you agree with it or not). And no-one is suggesting that child abuse allegations are not investigated (even those as ludicrous sounding as the Carl Beech ones) - that is just silly dramatising.

The flip side of "negative" campaigning is positive! We want dangerous people out of power for the good of the nation/world. Look at Turtle and Trump for an example that you lefties (sorry Andrew) can identify with. Constant negativity from Turtle. But surely Turtle genuinely believes Trump to be a nasty piece of work and removing him would be good for the world. So why not use the negative stuff against Trump as long as it is the truth (I reckon Turtle probably sticks to the truth most of the time)! Just like other posters, I point out negative truths about politicians I see as a threat to our country. Apparently I'm supposed to be ashamed of that!

I think quite a lot of threads have a lot of negative tit for tat (on football and non football threads), and I have a feeling that more people might post, if this weren't as much. I wouldn't at all try to suggest posts like this get moderated (no more than they are for all the standard reasons), and I wrote what I thought might be useful guidelines with the idea people might use them for themselves rather than holding other people to them.

I would love to see fewer labels used (left & right, etc), because I've seen this a few times in the past, and it's interesting how much more agreement people come to without them. That is, when people consider an issue themselves (often blind to the position held by their preferred political party) they tend toward interesting and pragmatic solutions.

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:23 pm

Android, the trouble is that you can't have a sensible debate about an issue when people are just using the discussion to defame the other side. The real issues inevitably get sidelined and then we sink even lower into the realm of personal abuse.

In this case, there is an important issue about revealing the names of people accused of child abuse. It seems that victims are more likely to come out and name abusers like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris when their names are made public, but at the same time if they are proved to be innocent then they will have had to endure terrible suffering because of the accusation. This is a complex issue and one on which I would like to hear others' ideas. But when you can see that the contributors aren't really interested in that issue and are just using it to smear another faction, then we lose sight of the real issue.

And if you want to keep people you regard as dangerous out of power, then have a debate about those people and explain why you think they are dangerous. Then others who don't share that view can explain their position. In that way we can all learn a little bit and get to think more deeply about it. Surely this is better than using discussions on other issues as a means of factional defamation.

This thread is virtually useless because it is not about the real issues, which are important, but just a way Conservative supporters can show Labour in a bad light and Labour supporters defend their man. Same with the anti-semitism thread.

android · Post by **android** » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:39 pm

I agree about avoiding smears and defamation.

In fact, my contribution to this thread is based on my strong objection to Tom Watson smearing and defaming Brittan and others based on untested allegations (stemming in large part from an obvious fantasist telling ludicrous tales).

And I agree that there is no need to smear or defame Corbyn. The facts on the antisemitism threads are there for people to see - some complex some straightforward. I have debated his policies at times but right now I am out of time. I appreciate your contributions.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 2:44 pm

martin_p wrote:Read the thread! Even Rowls has admitted he was mistaken in accusing him of using parliamentary privilege.

Never mind that. He, Watson, described the innocent Leon Brittan as 'As close to evil ss a human being could get'. I rhink Watson is evil and should resign. I slso think that anyone who could excuse him for whatever reason has either got a screw loose or does not understand what evil is.

I think that Watson now championing antisemitism in the Party shows what a hypocrit he is. I hope JC kicks him out of the party.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:19 pm

Stayingup wrote:Never mind that. He, Watson, described the innocent Leon Brittan as 'As close to evil ss a human being could get'. I rhink Watson is evil and should resign. I slso think that anyone who could excuse him for whatever reason has either got a screw loose or does not understand what evil is.

I think that Watson now championing antisemitism in the Party shows what a hypocrit he is. I hope JC kicks him out of the party.

It's wrong to call people evil.

Also...

"I think Tom Watson is evil and should resign."

******* clown. You even have the audacity to call HIM a "hypocrite".

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's wrong to call people evil.

Also...

"I think Tom Watson is evil and should resign."

******* clown. You even have the audacity to call HIM a "hypocrite".

I think once again you have misunderstood. Staying up said that it was wrong to call Leon Brittan evil; that is different from saying that it is wrong to call anyone in the world evil.

Have you ever considered reading these things twice before posting?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:07 pm

dsr wrote:I think once again you have misunderstood. Staying up said that it was wrong to call Leon Brittan evil; that is different from saying that it is wrong to call anyone in the world evil.

Have you ever considered reading these things twice before posting?

Desperate.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:14 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Desperate.

Don't be. Just be a bit more careful.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:01 pm

I don’t have a political agenda. Tom Watson has tried to uncover stories of sexual abuse within Westminster. All parties have skeletons when it comes to historical sexual abuse. Watson in his eagerness to uncover more sensational stories has chosen to believe someone that should not have been believed. He should apologise for any mistakes in this particular case, but carry on with his political agenda of exposing paedophiles and other sexual offenders within Westminster or any other seemingly privileged and protected areas of society.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:17 pm

Stayingup wrote: I think that Watson now championing antisemitism in the Party shows what a hypocrit he is. I hope JC kicks him out of the party.

Eh?
That's exactly the opposite of what he's been doing isn't it? He's been highly critical of Corbyn and his circle for not cracking down sufficiently on anti-semitism within the Labour Party, and this is entirely consistent with his campaign to expose paedophile rings etc. in the past.
He may have been incorrect in the case we are discussing, but this doesn't mean that his "crusade" was fundamentally wrong - particularly as this was contemporaneous with the Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and other revelations.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:24 pm

dsr wrote:Don't be. Just be a bit more careful.

Right-wing comedy, everyone.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:09 am

[quote="Imploding Turtle"]It's wrong to call people evil.

Also...

"I think Tom Watson is evil and should resign."

******* clown. You even have the audacity to call HIM a "hypocrite".[/quote

You really are a ++++++ t!t who needs deleting from more than this site. No talking to a numb b@stard like you.

Stayingup · Post by **Stayingup** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:20 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Eh?
That's exactly the opposite of what he's been doing isn't it? He's been highly critical of Corbyn and his circle for not cracking down sufficiently on anti-semitism within the Labour Party, and this is entirely consistent with his campaign to expose paedophile rings etc. in the past.
He may have been incorrect in the case we are discussing, but this doesn't mean that his "crusade" was fundamentally wrong - particularly as this was contemporaneous with the Saville, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and other revelations.

Hes a hypocrite. He was wrong to champion this 'moral' campaign and if people like you cant understand the damage hes done to inconnent people and their families then you are ill. Total cr@p it was contemperanous with other cases. He Watson took this on and pushed it for it was worth in his pathetic little mind to push himself forward. Fortunatley he has a leader who will hopefully get rid of him. But most he needs to apologize for the harm he has caused and also have the decency to resign. The Labour party doesnt need this twerps baggage.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:34 am

Stayingup wrote:
You really are a ++++++ t!t who needs deleting from more than this site. No talking to a numb b@stard like you.

Is this another one of you lot wanting me dead?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:58 am

Well written article here detailing this monstrous affair.

https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-ma ... arl-beech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:29 am

Some very worrying views on Capital Punishment in the comments section but the world of suspicious/hard to believe allegations has always divided opinion.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:30 am

Rowls wrote:Well written article here detailing this monstrous affair.

https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-ma ... arl-beech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is indeed a good detailed article, and seems well balanced to me. It has some criticism of Watson and others involved but doesn't challenge the fact that at the time Beech appeared to be very credible - indeed sufficiently credible for experienced senior Met investigators to take him seriously.
In the aftermath of Saville etc., it's really no surprise that a number of MPs, not just Watson, got involved.
It would have been incorrect (IMO) for Watson and others to have ignored Beech when he came forward.
In my view allegations of child sexual abuse should always be taken seriously and thus have to be investigated. A few posts above "Stayingup" suggests that I am "ill" for holding such a view. I hope that this sickness is contagious.
It's a monstrous affair, as Rowls says, but it's Beech that's the monster here, and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim to some extent.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:44 am

nil_desperandum wrote:This is indeed a good detailed article, and seems well balanced to me. It has some criticism of Watson and others involved but doesn't challenge the fact that at the time Beech appeared to be very credible - indeed sufficiently credible for experienced senior Met investigators to take him seriously.
In the aftermath of Saville etc., it's really no surprise that a number of MPs, not just Watson, got involved.
It would have been incorrect (IMO) for Watson and others to have ignored Beech when he came forward.
In my view allegations of child sexual abuse should always be taken seriously and thus have to be investigated. A few posts above "Stayingup" suggests that I am "ill" for holding such a view. I hope that this sickness is contagious.
It's a monstrous affair, as Rowls says, but it's Beech that's the monster here, and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim to some extent.

This whole affair has only demonstrated how important it is to not **** with anonymity of those accuse of crimes like this until they have been convicted. I wonder, if i spend time going through this thread and seeing those posters critical of Watson, how much overlap i'll see between them and the posters who decried Tommy Robinson's conviction for his attempts to name people yet to be convicted.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:51 am

A fair point.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:34 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:This is indeed a good detailed article, and seems well balanced to me. It has some criticism of Watson and others involved but doesn't challenge the fact that at the time Beech appeared to be very credible - indeed sufficiently credible for experienced senior Met investigators to take him seriously.

The article does the opposite of what you claim. It asserts time after time that the accusations were ludicrous, fantastical and should have been treated as such:

From The Article wrote:"Over the course of the next six years, his claims developed until he was describing a kind of debauchery among Britain’s ruling class reminiscent of the court of the Emperor Caligula."

"Even though the only two people Beech had named were dead, the Wiltshire Police did their best to corroborate his claims. When they were unable to do so, the inquiry was dropped."

"(A few years later, Wiltshire Police were to draw upon this experience of investigating dead men with a far more high profile and expensive investigation into the even more comprehensively dead Sir Edward Heath, with exactly the same result.)"

" “Nick,” as Beech became known in Exaro‘s reports, was the shiny, gleaming thoroughbred in their stable of “survivors,” although they promoted other equally implausible eccentrics and chancers."

"journalist Mark Conrad would show Beech pictures of famous people, and Beech would announce whether the person he was looking at had abused him or not. Exaro described this ludicrous procedure as “a picture test.” "

"Conrad then wrote up whatever Beech told him, and toned down the most ridiculous parts (such as Beech’s claim that former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath had intervened to prevent Conservative MP Harvey Proctor from castrating him with a fruit knife)"

"Instead of investigating Beech’s claims, as might have been expected, the Met went out of its way to promote them."

"It never became entirely clear if McDonald actually believed this or if he was dutifully reciting the official policy that “victims must be believed” no matter how implausible their stories."

"And the more absurd Beech’s allegations became, the more ready people were to believe, enable, and encourage him."

"It was Proctor, in the end, who would finally turn the tables on Beech in August 2015, by the simple expedient of holding a news conference, declaring himself innocent, and revealing the full absurdity of Beech’s allegations."

"Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, took Carl Beech seriously from the moment they met in 2014. Watson described Beech’s allegations as “truly shocking” and was, as Beech would later testify, “part of the little group supporting me and putting my information out there to encourage other people to come forward.” In this, Watson was successful. He did indeed encourage other fantasists and chancers to come forward, and he used his parliamentary voice and privilege to promote Beech’s claims within mainstream political debate."

What the article does state, which I think is why you have misread it as claiming that Beech was somehow a "credible" witness, is that whilst Beech was never credible, it is one thing to understand that but another to prove it conclusively:

From The Article wrote:It was only after meticulous investigation of Beech’s story, interviews with his schoolmates and family, a review of his surviving school records, forensic examination of his computers, and even a medical examination for signs of past injuries or broken bones (there were none), that it could be conclusively proved that Carl Beech was a liar.

The article is nothing but damning in its excoriation of people (from the Met to Tom Watson) who were taken in by these evident lies. It says nothing that excuses them in the way you have misinterpreted it.

Finally:

nil_desperandum wrote:It's a monstrous affair, as Rowls says, but it's Beech that's the monster here, and everyone else is either a pawn or a victim to some extent.

Once again, you may believe this, but the article says the opposite:

From The Article wrote:Watson now believes that he was one of Beech’s victims, although this requires a rather capacious definition of victimhood.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:41 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:In my view allegations of child sexual abuse should always be taken seriously and thus have to be investigated.

Again, this is another viewpoint which is ridiculed in the article.

Of course allegations of child sexual abuse should always be investigated. (Has anyone claimed otherwise?)

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:43 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This whole affair has only demonstrated how important it is to not **** with anonymity of those accuse of crimes like this until they have been convicted.

Without poking fun at the tendentiousness of "until they have been convicted" ... Just what is this "anonymity" of which you speak?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:53 pm

Sorry Rowls, I think that it is a far more balanced article than you make out. I could probably do the same as you and selectively pull out quotes to support my alternate view of it, but I've better things to d on a Sunday afternoon.
I didn't mis-read it, but we both interpreted it differently - which is fair enough, but I still think that your interpretation is agenda driven, whilst I've tried to sit somewhere in the middle.
Incidentally, I don't understand your post 146, in which you appear to agree with me, but then say that this is ridiculed in the article. I would say that - correctly this position is questioned / examined in the article - not ridiculed.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:06 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Sorry Rowls, I think that it is a far more balanced article than you make out. I could probably do the same as you and selectively pull out quotes to support my alternate view of it, but I've better things to d on a Sunday afternoon.
I didn't mis-read it, but we both interpreted it differently - which is fair enough, but I still think that your interpretation is agenda driven, whilst I've tried to sit somewhere in the middle.

Well, it's an interesting take on it nil_desperandum and your opinion of the article (that it supports what you already thought) is -in some schools of relativist thought- equally as valid as any other opinion on the article.

We can all find different things within the written word. Whether they were intended by the author is then up for debate. Some might find for example, that deep, deep within the article is a coded proof that Prince Philip is an lizard alien who wears the skin of the earthling we refer to as "Prince Philip" and is up to all sorts of lizard like wickedness.

And you *might* be able to pull out quotes which do in fact back up your very own interpretation of the article (although you're choosing not to do so because today happens to be a Sunday).

However, I do not ascribe to this manner of thinking. I also believe that the article in question was written by a criminal barrister with great alacrity and precision and that you have mis-comprehended it entirely.

I've posted quotes that back up my opinion. You are free to think otherwise.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:16 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Incidentally, I don't understand your post 146, in which you appear to agree with me, but then say that this is ridiculed in the article. I would say that - correctly this position is questioned / examined in the article - not ridiculed.

Loathe as I am to take up your time on a Sunday nil_desperandum, I thought it might be obvious as to what point I was making.

So allow me to clarify.

You expressed two opinions:

1. Child sex abuse allegations should always be investigated
2. Child sex abuse allegations should always be treated seriously

I affirmed my belief in point 1 (they should always be investigated)

I deliberately left out any reference to point 2 to make a rhetorical point about it. I'd refer you back to the article to ascertain my opinion on point 2 but I fear you might mis-read the article again.

So I'll make it explicit:

The article points out that a swift examination of facts can ascertain very quickly if allegations are verifiable or have any corroborating evidence.

Of course all allegations of child sex abuse are serious, but that does not make them true and nor does it mean that any allegations made by fantasists or liars (either maliciously or for any other reason) always require full-scale, expansive investigations.

When allegations are absurd, ridiculous and implausible from the off and they have no corroborating evidence to back them up, a proper police investigation should be able to dismiss them swiftly. As the Wiltshire Police did.

This was the point the article made.