Time For Tom Watson To Apologize

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:37 pm

And yet another Rowls post doesn't quite go as planned. Got himself in a real tizz about this one though

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:51 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:And yet another Rowls post doesn't quite go as planned. Got himself in a real tizz about this one though

Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion.

Do you imagine I post thinking that everyone will post agreements?

In this instance I posted an article which made some very accurate observations. nil_desperandum then posted an interpretation of the article which was so far devolved from what the article actually had to say that I didn't want to leave it unchallenged.

There is, as nil_desperandum states, often space for interpretation of written word so that two people may differ in their interpretation and yet neither of them is "wrong".

I do not think this is one of those cases.

I've posted why I think nil_desperandum is wrong and I've quoted the article extensively.

nil_desperandum doesn't want to post a repost because, ostensibly, it is Sunday. That is his prerogative and I wish him a peaceful observance of the Sabbath.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:13 pm

Rowls wrote: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.

Exactly. There was a case involving a deceased bishop recently where someone claimed to have been abused by this bishop and was able to give a detailed description of the layout of the house and the rooms where it happened.

It took the police years to establish (mainly because they didn't ask) that the house was extensively remodelled later on, and the detailed reconstruction of what happened when the "victim" was 12 was in a place that didn't exist till he was in his twenties. This is the sort of evidence that should be established early and used to avoid causing unfair distress and extravagant waste of money.

yTib · Post by **yTib** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 6:23 pm

rowls you are a tit.

if you had an ounce of manhood you'd admit you are talking crap.

but you're not that kind of man. you are the worst kind of person; a hypocrite.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 7:49 pm

Rowls wrote: 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

Rowls wrote: 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.

Not according to your first quote which says it’s hard to prove things are false even if they seem ridiculous. Incidentally, as the article shows, the Wiltshire police didn’t drop the first case against the two dead men because they’d proved them false, merely that they couldn’t be corroborated. Beech still received over £20,000 pounds compensation from this case which certainly implies his accusations were not dismissed.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:22 pm

Rowls wrote: nil_desperandum doesn't want to post a repost because, ostensibly, it is Sunday. That is his prerogative and I wish him a peaceful observance of the Sabbath.

Very poor from you that Rowls, and tbh, I would have expected better. I would have been perfectly happy to continue this debate tomorrow but your sarcastic response and lack of respect towards me and my situation is unacceptable.
Like probably the majority of posters on here I have a family and life outside of this forum. As on most Sundays I had arranged to spend time with family, (in this case my grandchildren) this afternoon. It wasn't an excuse not to engage with you.
Maybe your life is so empty that you don't have loved ones to enjoy time with at the weekend. That's maybe not your fault, but v sad. I've had a lovely afternoon and evening with family, and posting on this forum isn't a high priority for me.
I've tried to keep a balanced view about this affair, whilst you began this thread by making a false claim for which you apologised. I agree with your views on this matter to quite a large extent, but I find your jibes about "observing the Sabbath" to be totally inappropriate, misjudged and unnecessarily confrontational.
I generally enjoy "discussing" topics with you, and if others wish to continue this debate with you then fair enough, but I'll opt out at this point, so feel free to be as sarcastic and offensive about me as you wish.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:46 am

martin_p wrote:Not according to your first quote which says it’s hard to prove things are false even if they seem ridiculous. Incidentally, as the article shows, the Wiltshire police didn’t drop the first case against the two dead men because they’d proved them false, merely that they couldn’t be corroborated. Beech still received over £20,000 pounds compensation from this case which certainly implies his accusations were not dismissed.

The only thing you've written here which is correct is that the distinction between "disproven" and uncorroborated is incidental. Wiltshire police dropped their investigation because it was completely and utterly uncorroborated.

They had to obtain a much higher standard of proof to push for a prosecution than they did to make the decision to discontinue their initial investigation.

The fact that Beech received compensation is actually neither here nor there. The Wiltshire police will have given Beech a "crime number" as opposed to an "incident number" essentially to fob him off. The award of compensation will been made by CICB with no additional input from Wiltshire police other than access to their files.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:48 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Very poor from you that Rowls, and tbh, I would have expected better. I would have been perfectly happy to continue this debate tomorrow but your sarcastic response and lack of respect towards me and my situation is unacceptable.
Like probably the majority of posters on here I have a family and life outside of this forum. As on most Sundays I had arranged to spend time with family, (in this case my grandchildren) this afternoon. It wasn't an excuse not to engage with you.
Maybe your life is so empty that you don't have loved ones to enjoy time with at the weekend. That's maybe not your fault, but v sad. I've had a lovely afternoon and evening with family, and posting on this forum isn't a high priority for me.
I've tried to keep a balanced view about this affair, whilst you began this thread by making a false claim for which you apologised. I agree with your views on this matter to quite a large extent, but I find your jibes about "observing the Sabbath" to be totally inappropriate, misjudged and unnecessarily confrontational.
I generally enjoy "discussing" topics with you, and if others wish to continue this debate with you then fair enough, but I'll opt out at this point, so feel free to be as sarcastic and offensive about me as you wish.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way and I did not intend to cause offence.

However, you have completely misread the article in question.

All the best, I'm going to give up on this now.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:58 am

Spijed wrote:Rowls,

Did you think Cyril Smith was guilty of child abuse?

Hi spijed,

Sorry for the delay - I wasn't interested in taking the thread off on this tangent.

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

It's a fair question and the answer is probably not, but it's hypothetical so I couldn't say for sure.

What I can say with a lot more confidence is that if Tom Watson was a Conservative MP and somebody else started this thread, I wouldn't prevaricate, obfuscate and make excuses like so many Labour supporters on here have done.

Tom Watson isn't the only person who has tarnished his reputation on this matter.

Watson and the Met (specifically the officer who described these ludicrous fantasies as "credible and true") are simply the worst of the offenders. There is also the suggestion that Watson's political pressure could have adversely affected the Met's outrageously bad attempts at an "investigation".

As the article I quoted states, "Other MPs, including John Mann, Simon Danczuk, and the Conservative Zac Goldsmith, were also prominent in promoting Beech’s lies" and -yes- I do believe they should ALL apologise publicly to the victims (by which I mean the innocent men who were threatened with being charged and NOT Tom Watson) of Beech's lies.

I have found the response of the partisan Labour supporters on here to be largely pathetic. The fact that they can't simply accept that Watson made a massive error of judgement and was by far the loudest cheerleader for this criminal fraudster and liar is pathetic.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:53 am

I see he has hung his clubs up. 69 and has no longer got enough to compete.

Long, long career.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 6:21 am

You got it down to a tee, Ian.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:33 am

Rowls wrote:Hi spijed,

Sorry for the delay - I wasn't interested in taking the thread off on this tangent.

It's a fair question and the answer is probably not, but it's hypothetical so I couldn't say for sure.

What I can say with a lot more confidence is that if Tom Watson was a Conservative MP and somebody else started this thread, I wouldn't prevaricate, obfuscate and make excuses like so many Labour supporters on here have done.

Tom Watson isn't the only person who has tarnished his reputation on this matter.

Watson and the Met (specifically the officer who described these ludicrous fantasies as "credible and true") are simply the worst of the offenders. There is also the suggestion that Watson's political pressure could have adversely affected the Met's outrageously bad attempts at an "investigation".

As the article I quoted states, "Other MPs, including John Mann, Simon Danczuk, and the Conservative Zac Goldsmith, were also prominent in promoting Beech’s lies" and -yes- I do believe they should ALL apologise publicly to the victims (by which I mean the innocent men who were threatened with being charged and NOT Tom Watson) of Beech's lies.

I have found the response of the partisan Labour supporters on here to be largely pathetic. The fact that they can't simply accept that Watson made a massive error of judgement and was by far the loudest cheerleader for this criminal fraudster and liar is pathetic.

My contribution to this thread has been largely to correct your gross inaccuracies and spinning of the facts, I.e. the use of the word ‘dismiss’ to describe Wiltshire polices response time Beech’s first allegations as if they’d proved them false. They weren’t dismissed, they simply couldn’t take the case any further.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:59 pm

"gross inaccuracies"

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:59 pm

Rowls wrote:This thread is about the public call for Tom Watson to apologize for his involvement in dragging innocent parties into false allegations of paedophilia.

These accusations have had terrible effects on the lives of those who were falsely accused.

You are asking the impossible Rowls. Politicians of ALL parties have two things in common - they lie as if they have a degree in it and they never apologise. I never heard one word of apology from Thatcher after she destroyed the industrial and mining infrastructure of this country whilst taking money from the poor to give to the rich. I waited for years but alas that apology has gone with her to the grave.

Never mind eh?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:10 pm

The Police themselves also look like they will have to face more questions:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49160506" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:19 pm

Questions are "asked" when people are killed in custody and nothing happens. This will be no different.
Nobody cares enough, I'm afraid.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 5:12 pm

Douglas Murray eviscerates James O'Brien over his promotion of Carl Beech.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/j ... itch-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:48 pm

Only took him several weeks to write an article complaining that O'Brien publicly acknowledged that he had been bullshitted by Beech.

Just seems like a pretty desperate hit piece to me. He even conditions his readers in the most obvious way. No surprise then that you swallowed it up like a cheap whore with a drug habit.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:07 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Just seems like a pretty desperate hit piece to me. He even conditions his readers in the most obvious way. No surprise then that you swallowed it up like a cheap whore with a drug habit.

Everything in the Douglas Murray article is true. All of the lies James O’Brien promoted were lies.

This article points this out very clearly and demonstrates how keenly O’Brien was taken in by these self-evident lies.

It’s a shame you appear to have a gripe with such honest and factual reporting.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:40 am

Meanwhile, back in Parliament..............

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:55 am

Rowls wrote:Everything in the Douglas Murray article is true. All of the lies James O’Brien promoted were lies.

This article points this out very clearly and demonstrates how keenly O’Brien was taken in by these self-evident lies.

It’s a shame you appear to have a gripe with such honest and factual reporting.

That's not reporting, you daft ****. It's an opinion article.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:18 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's not reporting, you daft ****. It's an opinion article.

Douglas Murray is usually an eloquent and readable journalist but this article is a slog to read. The reason why? Because he goes out of his way to report vast swathes of carefully transcripted speech from O’Brien.

He will have done this very accurately and very factually. It probably took hours and hours of listening to O’Brien’s shows to get these transcripts.

If he hasn’t reported these quotations accurately then O’Brien will almost certainly sue him. The fact that Murray has reported them in direct quotation form tells you how confident he is here.

You sometimes make half decent observations turtleboy but trying to label this article as an “opinion piece” shows up your bias and ignorance.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:20 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Douglas Murray eviscerates James O'Brien over his promotion of Carl Beech.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/j ... itch-hunt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and part 2.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/j ... buse-lies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:52 am

Breaking news

The Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the Met's incompetent handling of these false allegations, such is the level of failure here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49915366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:15 am

Nice to find a political thread that Rowls is still keen on participated in.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:31 am

Rowls wrote:Breaking news

The Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the Met's incompetent handling of these false allegations, such is the level of failure here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49915366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully the inquiry will also look at those in the media who promoted the allegations.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:41 am

AndyClaret wrote:Hopefully the inquiry will also look at those in the media who promoted the allegations.

Can you provide the rest of us with an example of someone in the media who you think should be investigated and punished for what they said or wrote, and perhaps give a brief explanation why you feel what they said means they shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech.

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:27 am

Rowls wrote:Breaking news

The Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the Met's incompetent handling of these false allegations, such is the level of failure here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49915366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This stinks of Patel crawling to the Party Hierarchy far more than a desire for lessons to be learned. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, of course, but she seems as slimy and opportunistic as they come.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:27 am

I think the News story and pics around Cliff Richards arrest was "a story too far" IT, don't you?-Even if not directly related to the false allegations from Carl Beech

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:42 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Can you provide the rest of us with an example of someone in the media who you think should be investigated and punished for what they said or wrote, and perhaps give a brief explanation why you feel what they said means they shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech.

see post 173.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:10 am

ZizkovClaret wrote:This stinks of Patel crawling to the Party Hierarchy far more than a desire for lessons to be learned. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, of course, but she seems as slimy and opportunistic as they come.

Not at all Zizkov.

This shouldn't be political at all. Tom Watson tried to make it political but it isn't - it just happens to include ex-politicians.

What happened is an utter fantasist made up serious -completely untrue- allegations about prominent people. There were one or two Conservatives but it was exclusively politicians - he named war veterans and other prominent people.

Here is the important thing - his lies were palpably untrue, clearly bullcrap and should have been easily disprovable from the beginning. The Met however, wasted millions of pounds investigating them and n publicly described the lies as "credible and true". It is a shocking piece of police work from start to finish in an investigation that will have been worked on by heaven knows how many police.

Many of them will have smelled the bullcrap long before the investigation collapsed and yet it continued and continued for over two years.

This investigation is warranted and necessary.

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:30 am

I'd like it to be investigated in non-partisan terms but i can't help thinking it just might put off the MET from investigating the elite in the future, which would be a shame.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:37 am

ZizkovClaret wrote:I'd like it to be investigated in non-partisan terms but i can't help thinking it just might put off the MET from investigating the elite in the future, which would be a shame.

I understand your concern here.

I really did think twice about posting on this thread.

But this case is just off the scale in terms of incompetence.

Previously there have been problems with victims coming forward and problems with the police dismissing allegations. But the current system of "victims MUST be believed" is just as bad.

If we do not test for truth then truth has no meaning. Truth and lies did not appear to concern the Met during their investigation and it should have formed the crux of it.

Although I've posted this on a political thread, the investigation is going to be performed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It should not be political in any way whatsoever.

However, it will have to look into whether the Met were influenced by Tom Watson pushing them into investigating the matter. No matter what they find, it will not be their job to pass any verdict on Watson - they will decide how the Met should have responded.

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:04 pm

Rowls wrote:I understand your concern here.

I really did think twice about posting on this thread.

But this case is just off the scale in terms of incompetence.

Previously there have been problems with victims coming forward and problems with the police dismissing allegations. But the current system of "victims MUST be believed" is just as bad.

If we do not test for truth then truth has no meaning. Truth and lies did not appear to concern the Met during their investigation and it should have formed the crux of it.

Although I've posted this on a political thread, the investigation is going to be performed by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It should not be political in any way whatsoever.

However, it will have to look into whether the Met were influenced by Tom Watson pushing them into investigating the matter. No matter what they find, it will not be their job to pass any verdict on Watson - they will decide how the Met should have responded.

Can't disagree, i just fear it pushed the burden of proof for an investigation of anyone high profile so high as to make it "not worth the hassle" and many will be nipped in the bud that maybe shouldn't be

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:40 pm

AndyClaret wrote:see post 173.

So you admit that freedom of the press is to go out the window? lol.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:50 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you admit that freedom of the press is to go out the window? lol.

So what your saying is..... your just a sh!t Cathy Newman !

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:02 pm

AndyClaret wrote:So what your saying is..... your just a sh!t Cathy Newman !

Your fascism is showing.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:26 am

James O'Brien talking about this now.. he's just thrown his mate Tom Watson under a bus.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:37 pm

Latest:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49933843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:38 pm

Tom Watson to stand down as an MP and not contest the election. Says the decision is "personal, not political".
(BBC.)

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:46 pm

At this rate there will be no existing MP's left since Phil Hammond also said he won't be standing.

CleggHall · Post by **CleggHall** » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:51 pm

The centre ground is vanishing before our very eyes for the 2 main political parties. A pity, as politics moves towards the extremes. Compromise and agreeing to differ are quitting the arena.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:35 pm

CleggHall wrote:The centre ground is vanishing before our very eyes for the 2 main political parties. A pity, as politics moves towards the extremes. Compromise and agreeing to differ are quitting the arena.

In normal times the Lib Dems would capitalise on this polarization and hoover up a lot of floating voters,however we are not in normal times,and many leave voters in particular consider their brexit policy as sticking two fingers up to the referendum result,they might make modest gains in remain-leaning seats,but i see slim pickings in the north for the yellow peril,as they'll be squeezed by both left and right.

Our politics is becoming more americanised by the the election,even the campaign launches mimicked a traditional Republican/Democratic rally.

On Watson he was never going to get a major cabinet post in the event of a Corbyn government,and he doesn't strike me as the type to sit quietly on the backbenches,his departure suggests Corbyn is winning the civil war in the Labour party,but it'll annoy many moderate Lanour MP'S.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:45 pm

Very rum this.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:11 am

CleggHall wrote:The centre ground is vanishing before our very eyes for the 2 main political parties. A pity, as politics moves towards the extremes. Compromise and agreeing to differ are quitting the arena.

**** the centre ground. 40 years of right and centre-right governments and look at what it's given us? Gutted services, climate change inaction, war-for-profit and massive wealth inequality. So the centre ground, and the Right along with it, can get to ****.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:24 am

Running away from his part in the Carl Beech affair.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 5:53 am

AndyClaret wrote:Running away from his part in the Carl Beech affair.

lol. ok then.