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;

Nothing much to see here...just Rowls' usual , Labour bad , Tory good chanting.

Both sides of this human tragedy are awful. Naming those who have done nothing wrong will not stop some not accepting what has gone before as false and those genuine victims of abuse who are not believed or who do not see any justice are in a similar situation. I bet Cliff Richard now has doubters just because of the crass way his arrest was aired.
I personally think it is an abuse of parliamentary privilege to behave the way Tom Watson behaved and his statement last night that he had nothing to apologise for makes him as arrogant as anyone in arroganteville (to paraphrase SD)

fatboy47 wrote:Nothing much to see here...just Rowls' usual , Labour bad , Tory good chanting.

Politician names falsely accused paedophiles under Parliamentary privilege and you claim there is "nothing much to see"?

Do you know what happened to Harvey Proctor?

How would you feel if that happened to you? Or a close friend? Or a family member?

Do you know what the other falsely accused victims (and they are real victims, not fantasists) had to go through?

You can ignore it if you like fatboy, by all means, but you cannot dismiss it.

I think it is time for Tom Watson to apologize - and for him to do it as publicly and widely as he repeated the lies which he spread.

fatboy47 wrote:Nothing much to see here...just Rowls' usual , Labour bad , Tory good chanting.

Not Labour bad Tory good but Tom Watson bad some Tories (and Lord Jenner) dragged through the mud although Lord Jenner did have a legal case against him- but not sure if this was also down to Carl Beech

Never ignored issues like this Rowls, but unlike you I don't have an utterly one-sided view of life.

Corrupt politicians from all sides make me want to vomit.....not just the Labour ones.

Tom Watson didn’t name anyone in Parliament did he?

Zac Goldsmith has also been criticised by Proctor for his involvement but you haven’t mentioned that.

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;

Just another reason why people accused of paedophilia should be allowed a fair trial, not compromised by prejudices or by violations of court orders.

Rowls wrote: 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;

Name them, or we're just going to assume you're making it up that some people might want have expressed beliefs that need retracting.

martin_p wrote:Tom Watson didn’t name anyone in Parliament did he?

Zac Goldsmith has also been criticised by Proctor for his involvement but you haven’t mentioned that.

Shhhhhh. This is about the Labour party. If you want to start a thread about non-Labour party members who should apologise for nothing then start your own thread. This one is for Rowls to use victims of paedophilia for partisanship.

martin_p wrote:Tom Watson didn’t name anyone in Parliament did he?

Zac Goldsmith has also been criticised by Proctor for his involvement but you haven’t mentioned that.

Rowls doesn't think Zac Goldsmith is racist btw!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Name them, or we're just going to assume you're making it up that some people might want have expressed beliefs that need retracting.

I'm not going to name them.

They'll know who they are. Maybe some of them have already posted.

It's not really important that any posters on here retract posts that are now so old the old thread appears to have been archived.

But I think it's right that we reflect when we get things wrong. Particularly matters as important and life-destroying as this. People all too often leap to conclusions and then post them on the internet.

Nobody, myself included, is completely immune to this but this case was a stark incident of the practice.

Spijed wrote:Rowls doesn't think Zac Goldsmith is racist btw!

That is correct.

I heard him after Lowrys win on Sunday and he was very complimentary. Fine player he was also.

martin_p wrote:Tom Watson didn’t name anyone in Parliament did he?

Zac Goldsmith has also been criticised by Proctor for his involvement but you haven’t mentioned that.

I believe he may have done and it was he who effectively campaigned for the police to investigate this sham. Read the BBC article to see his involvement in this case.

I'm not very aware of what Zac Goldsmith did in relation to this shameful episode but I'll happily call for him to apologise too. He isn't mentioned in the BBC article. Tom Watson and his actions are referenced repeatedly.

Here it is again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle wrote:Shhhhhh. This is about the Labour party. If you want to start a thread about non-Labour party members who should apologise for nothing then start your own thread. This one is for Rowls to use victims of paedophilia for partisanship.

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.

martin_p wrote:Tom Watson didn’t name anyone in Parliament did he?

Zac Goldsmith has also been criticised by Proctor for his involvement but you haven’t mentioned that.

He named Leon Brittain.

BTW: I'd like to say that I doubt very much that Tom Watson acted in bad faith, but I do think he acted with a complete disregard for the true victims of the lies which he spread and that he acted with a complete lack of judgement.

I also think that if he fails to publicly apologize for his actions then he will be shown to be completely without any honour whatsoever.

In vernacular speech - he screwed up as massively as is possible. It's time for him to say sorry. If he doesn't then he's a pr:ck.

Rowls wrote:I believe he may have done and it was he who effectively campaigned for the police to investigate this sham. Read the BBC article to see his involvement in this case.

I'm not very aware of what Zac Goldsmith did in relation to this shameful episode but I'll happily call for him to apologise too. He isn't mentioned in the BBC article. Tom Watson and his actions are referenced repeatedly.

Here it is again:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes he campaigned for the police to investigate historic sex abuse cases, including this one, which incidentally has led to three convictions, but you specifically accused him of using parliamentary privilege to name people in parliament. Your BBC article doesn’t say he did that so I assumed you must have some other evidence in order to make the accusation. Proctor revealed that he was being investigated himself https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dail ... enies.html

AndyClaret wrote:He named Leon Brittain.

No, that was the Sunday People.

Rowls wrote:I'm not going to name them.

They'll know who they are. Maybe some of them have already posted.

It's not really important that any posters on here retract posts that are now so old the old thread appears to have been archived.

But I think it's right that we reflect when we get things wrong. Particularly matters as important and life-destroying as this. People all too often leap to conclusions and then post them on the internet.

Nobody, myself included, is completely immune to this but this case was a stark incident of the practice.

So, you made it up.

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.

Please explain the way Tom Watson dragged innocent parties into these false allegations.

(spoiler: he won't explain)

fatboy47 wrote:Nothing much to see here...just Rowls' usual , Labour bad , Tory good chanting.

Oops not liking it at all.

You ought to get real . This displayed gross misjudgment from this idiot Watson who went at it with such gusto. He is a prize pr!ck. He thought they were all Tories. Well its backfired and he had a shred of decency he would resign.

Stayingup wrote:Oops not liking it at all.

You ought to get real . This displayed gross misjudgment from this idiot Watson who went at it with such gusto. He is a prize pr!ck. He thought they were all Tories. Well its backfired and he had a shred of decency he would resign.

So do you think serious sexual abuse allegations should be ignored by the police?

martin_p wrote:So do you think serious sexual abuse allegations should be ignored by the police?

I think it depends.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... llegations

Here’s the Zac Goldsmith story from a few years ago

Hopefully the nonce who wasted the millions on the investigation ends up doing a good long stretch

Imploding Turtle wrote:I think it depends.

On what?

Imploding Turtle wrote:

So, you made it up.

Incorrect.

Perhaps some of the posters who were wrong about this first time round might post and admit it but I shan't think anything if they don't. They don't have any obligation to do so.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Please explain the way Tom Watson dragged innocent parties into these false allegations.

(spoiler: he won't explain)

It's already explained in the BBC article for those who want to find out.

edit - Here it is again https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49048972" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle wrote:Please explain the way Tom Watson dragged innocent parties into these false allegations.

(spoiler: he won't explain)

Watson told MP's he new of clear intelligence - clear note - of a paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10. Wow. He pursued it with the police, But, but to be fair the police did not carry out basic checks that would have proved this Beech was lying. But the point is Watson thought he saw politcal gain and he was wrong. He should do the decent thing now and resign. JC would welcome that I am sure.

martin_p wrote:So do you think serious sexual abuse allegations should be ignored by the police?

No don't be silly. But as we know this was not true. Watson sought to gain a politcal coup against the tories but as explained further down the police were remiss in not making basic checks. Of course the police just love these types of enquiries dont they? Cliff Richard aomes to mind. So pleased he sued and won against the BBC.

I’d like those who have a problem with what Watson did to explain what they’d have done in similar circumstances. Ignore allegations of serious sexual abuse and murder? Should he have dropped his whole campaign, meaning of course the three men found guilty of sexual abuse would have walked free?

martin_p wrote:So do you think serious sexual abuse allegations should be ignored by the police?

Ignoring the numerous failing of the Met police in their shambolic "investigation" I think that people who have no charges brought against them should not have their names dragged through the mud by serving MPs.

This is what Tom Watson did, having pressured the Met into carrying out their investigation, and having spoken publicly about it.

Stayingup wrote:No don't be silly. But as we know this was not true.

Did you know it wasn’t true when you he allegations were first made? The police investigation was undoubtedly poor, but a police investigation was needed.

Stayingup wrote:Watson told MP's he new of clear intelligence - clear note - of a paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10. Wow. He pursued it with the police, But, but to be fair the police did not carry out basic checks that would have proved this Beech was lying. But the point is Watson thought he saw politcal gain and he was wrong. He should do the decent thing now and resign. JC would welcome that I am sure.

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?

Rowls wrote:Ignoring the numerous failing of the Met police in their shambolic "investigation" I think that people who have no charges brought against them should not have their names dragged through the mud by serving MPs.

This is what Tom Watson did, having pressured the Met into carrying out their investigation, and having spoken publicly about it.

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.

Rowls wrote:Ignoring the numerous failing of the Met police in their shambolic "investigation" I think that people who have no charges brought against them should not have their names dragged through the mud by serving MPs.

This is what Tom Watson did, having pressured the Met into carrying out their investigation, and having spoken publicly about it.

As I’ve already pointed out it was Harvey Proctor who revealed he was being investigated, Tom Watson named no one (although you’re still alleging he did using parliamentary privilege to do so).

martin_p wrote:As I’ve already pointed out it was Harvey Proctor who revealed he was being investigated, Tom Watson named no one (although you’re still alleging he did using parliamentary privilege to do so).

Maybe Rowls should apologise for lying about Tom Watson.

I quite like Tom Watson but didn’t know he’d named people in parliament with what was a case so trumped up it truly did beggar belief . The old bill and their near hysterical witch hunt in the wake of Savile was so staggeringly incompetent in treating “ every claim “ as beyond doubt. I think TW was setting himself up as a “ witch finder general “ type ,possibly in good faith .

Ironically the only people they nailed were a mate of Saviles, multi convicted n0nce Chris Denning and they only just got Glitter ffs !after a quite bizzare 2 yr “ did glitter touch you” type campaign and even then they struggled ,but talk about fish in a barrel .They did get the rancid horrible Max Clifford though ,but even then they turned a “dodgy casting couch” type trial into a “yewtree” trial by shoe horning a possibly underage charge in.

The vast bulk of yewtree was a fetid corrupt ego trip from the cps down

AlargeClaret wrote:I quite like Tom Watson but didn’t know he’d named people in parliament with what was a case so trumped up it truly did beggar belief . The old bill and their near hysterical witch hunt in the wake of Savile was so staggeringly incompetent in treating “ every claim “ as beyond doubt. I think TW was setting himself up as a “ witch finder general “ type ,possibly in good faith .

Ironically the only people they nailed were a mate of Saviles, multi convicted n0nce Chris Denning and they only just got Glitter ffs !after a quite bizzare 2 yr “ did glitter touch you” type campaign and even then they struggled ,but talk about fish in a barrel .They did get the rancid horrible Max Clifford though ,but even then they turned a “dodgy casting couch” type trial into a “yewtree” trial by shoe horning a possibly underage charge in.

The vast bulk of yewtree was a fetid corrupt ego trip from the cps down

I don’t think he did name people in Parliament (unless someone can provide me some evidence I’m mistaken)

martin_p wrote:Did you know it wasn’t true when you he allegations were first made? The police investigation was undoubtedly poor, but a police investigation was needed.

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.

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.

I don’t disagree, but that’s the police’s job not Tom Watson’s.

martin_p wrote:I don’t disagree, but that’s the police’s job not Tom Watson’s.

That's my point - he should not have been exerting political pressure on a non-political organisation and trying to make political gain out of it.

This is one of the things he should be apologizing for.

Rowls wrote:That's my point - he should not have been exerting political pressure on a non-political organisation and trying to make political gain out of it.

This is one of the things he should be apologizing for.

What political gain has he made out of it? And that’s not what you wanted him to apologise for in your original post.

Have you found any basis for your claim that he used parliamentary privilege to name people yet or are you going to admit you’re wrong?

martin_p wrote:I don’t think he did name people in Parliament (unless someone can provide me some evidence I’m mistaken)

No, I was wrong to say that he named people in Parliament.

He did, however, name Leon Brittan whilst his corpse was still warm and his widow grieving. He went further than naming Leon Brittan; he public said that he fully believed the false allegations against him.

It also brought these wider allegations into the public domain and started a whispering process in the press and media.*

* edit - which resulted in Harvey Proctor feeling the need to make the accusations against him public.

Just to prove a point about being non-partisan, playing the ball etc.. I think Rowls has a point on this one.

There were plenty - and no Charlie, I'm not going to waste the hottest day of the year trawling the archives for names - who were revelling in the idea of some top level Tory paedo ring. Pitchfork carrying morons on football message boards can be forgiven that, but Tom Watson should know better.

Especially as it turns out the brave whistleblower was a lying nonce who touches kids.

martin_p wrote:What political gain has he made out of it?

Have you found any basis for your claim that he used parliamentary privilege to name people yet or are you going to admit you’re wrong?

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.

See above for my retraction on him using Parliamentary privilege.

Rowls wrote:No, I was wrong to say that he named people in Parliament.

We know. You don't get points for admitting you are wrong though. That's a basic requirement.

He did, however, name Leon Brittan whilst his corpse was still warm and his widow grieving. He went further than naming Leon Brittan; he public said that he fully believed the false allegations against him.

It also brought these wider allegations into the public domain and started a whispering process in the press and media.

Ah yes, there we are. From one lie to another.

As has been pointed out repeatedly already, Tom Watson wasn't who named Brittan.

So, by your own admission, the basis on which you demand Watson apologise and resign (or maybe it was someone else who wants him to resign) is false. But I bet you still want him to apologise for it though, don't you?

[*]

Rowls wrote:No, I was wrong to say that he named people in Parliament.

He did, however, name Leon Brittan whilst his corpse was still warm and his widow grieving. He went further than naming Leon Brittan; he public said that he fully believed the false allegations against him.

It also brought these wider allegations into the public domain and started a whispering process in the press and media.*

* edit - which resulted in Harvey Proctor feeling the need to make the accusations against him public.

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.‘