Questions for Tom Watson

Questions for Tom Watson, who is speaking at a Labour ‘meet and greet’ at New York Stadium tonight. Any other questions? Please leave them as a comment.

From a comment by Parsonage:

“Westminster/celebrity sex abuse of boys and girls as a diversion.”

Which is precisely what the likes of Watson have been doing – creating a diversion.

Always seemed rather a coincidence that the VIP/celeb abuse fest started some months after the Rochdale 3rd group/gang grooming trial of May 2012 meant that the lid had been lifted on the Pakistani group/gang CSE epidemic.

The public was starting to get an inkling of the nature and extent of the abuse.
So a major diversion was required, and quickly.

Every time the issue of Rochdale and then Rotherham was brought up there were the parrot cries of “what about Savile?” As if Savile was by himself the equivalence of a massive grooming, rape, trafficking, torture, pimping epidemic.
Of course you can only go so far with a handful of ancient/dead celebs.

To create the necessary climate of false equivalence something a lot more lurid was required.

“On 24 October 2012, Watson suggested in the House of Commons that a paedophile network may have existed in the past at a high level, protected by connections to Parliament and involving a close aide to a former Prime Minister; neither the aide nor the former Prime Minister were named……….. “powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10″..”

So we come to “Nick” and “Darren” eg:

“1980 – at a residential house in central London. “Nick” was driven by car to an address in the Pimlico/Belgravia area where a second boy (the victim) was also collected in the same vehicle. Both boys, aged approximately 12-years-old, were driven to another similar central London address. MR PROCTOR was present with another male. Both boys were led to the back of the house. MR PROCTOR then stripped the victim, and tied him to a table.

He then produced a large kitchen knife and stabbed the child through the arm and other parts of the body over a period of 40 minutes. A short time later MR PROCTOR untied the victim and anally raped him on the table. The other male stripped “Nick” and anally raped him over the table. MR PROCTOR then strangled the victim with his hands until the boy’s body went limp. Both males then left the room. Later, MR PROCTOR returned and led “Nick” out of the house and into a waiting car.”

“At a press conference on Tuesday, Proctor added that he had been accused of being part of a child sexual abuse ring along with the late prime minister Edward Heath, ex-home secretary Leon Brittan and former heads of MI5 and MI6. The allegations were based on the testimony of an anonymous witness that Scotland Yard had previously described as being “credible and true”.”

It’s increasingly apparent that these claims are neither credible nor true.

The “campaigning” Watson was also quick off the mark in the alleged Staffordshire VIP abuse ring.

“MP Tom Watson today called for a ‘comprehensive investigation’. Staffordshire Police said they had already interviewed Ms Baker and would continue doing so this week.
Ms Baker described the political figure, who does not come from Staffordshire, as: “One of the core members. He was there quite often – I was one of his favourites. I know every inch of his face.” Of the police officers she added: “I got the feeling very much that they were protecting somebody, that they were with one of the men.
“One of them (police officers) I knew from church. There were a few occasions where they would be in uniform and I learned that when they were in uniform it was going to be a rough night. On occasion they would sort of join in.”

If it is eventually admitted that Ms Baker’s claims have the same level of credibility as Nick and Darren’s that won’t be a surprise.

Cannock Chase is of course nearer to Watson’s constituency than is Westminster.
But when it comes reports that have emerged over the last year or so(dragged out of WMP by FOI) that Watson’s very own area bears “significant similarities to Rotherham” the portly campaigning hero has emulated the Trappist monk’s vow of silence.

This is a repeated pattern.

The explanation is not hard to seek – a vile combination of Labour vote grubbing graft and its politically correct emotional investment in diversity and multi-culti – the victims were just the wrong kind of victims and the perpetrators the wrong kind of abusers.

The left was long in denial about the reality of the grooming epidemic, for instance this crass effort by this Guardian writer here,
“The efforts of the Times to stand up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or misquoting some groups, and inventing a category of “on-street grooming” that does not exist in law and was not recognised by any of the agencies I spoke to. It is also worth asking how responsible it is to provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists already active in these areas on such flawed evidence.”

The Times was of course entirely correct, as nobody can now deny.

But it seems that the politically correct brigade went from denial to conspiratorial diversion; spinning a web of lies and deceit and false accusations from fantasists and consorting for the purpose with the most dubious people(eg Exaro).

Meanwhile the wrong type of victims continue to suffer, and they continue to be denied justice. And pigs wedge their snouts in the trough ever deeper.


See also:

This piece  is referred to by Parsonage in their latest comment:


12 thoughts on “Questions for Tom Watson

  1. Hi,

    Tom Watson’s PMQ (Oct 1012) referred to specific allegation from an extremely reliable source. When Peter Righton’s home was raided, police found a great deal of written correspondence between Peter Righton and other PIE members. This correspondence was read by an experienced social worker at the request of the police. Among other things, the correspondence contained a letter from a fellow PIE member which boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get hold of indecent images of children. This information was/is extremely credible.

    The police under Operation Fairbank located this evidence following Tom Watson’s PMQ. 7 boxes of evidence from a repository in Leicestershire. I’ve no idea if that particular investigation continues, if not one reason why it may not have continued is that the police could not corroborate the PIE members boast. Regardless of how extremely credible the boast was, it is not evidence enough that the former aide to the PM had actually committed a crime.

    It is understandable that people might mistakenly assume that Tom Watson’s PMQ is connected in some way to subsequent allegations reported in the media. They are not connected in any way as far as I can tell. The former aide to the PM referred to in the PMQ has never been connected to any reported allegation about Establishment/VIP paedophiles that have been reported in the media.

    Tom Watson gave a little more information about his PMQ at the time. It can be found here >

    I hope this helps.


    • “It is understandable that people might mistakenly assume that Tom Watson’s PMQ is connected in some way to subsequent allegations reported in the media”

      Cameron was rather confused about Watson’s meaning when he responded to his PMQ

      Watson did in fact pass on allegations about Heath in 2012

      “Mr Watson, who has been a prominent campaigner against abuse, said he had passed on that claim, and one he received subsequently, to the police.”

      “At least one of those allegations is being investigated and taken seriously,” he said.

      – See more at:

      The earlier allegations involving Heath, Proctor, Brittain etc have fallen apart(Operation Midland)

      Similarly the later allegations(nineties) of the “witness” called Darren(Operation Millpond) have been sunk without trace by the awkward revelations that he is a serial fantasist and convicted criminal

      And yet Watson has backed him to the hilt

      “Darren has told me that he fears for his safety,” Mr Watson told Exaro in January, “Were he to be attacked, I will personally make sure everyone who needs to know will know who these people are.”

      Mr Watson added: “Darren’s story is very similar to others. I hope that all his allegations will be thoroughly investigated by the police”

      Watson has been continually stirring the pot and the question is why has he been doing so and giving credibility to “Darren” and latterly Esther Baker whilst completely and utterly ignoring the “Rotherham model” CSE which the redacted WMP report showed has been occurring for years in his own area – the Black Country, Birmingham and the West Midlands more widely. When it is reported by both the Times and the Birmingham Mail that this information was suppressed by the police on “community cohesion” grounds why has Watson remained silent?

      Can you please throw any light on his strange sense of priority here, gojam?


      • I’ll try but I’m not his spokesman.

        Following the PMQ in 2012, Tom Watson received a huge number of contacts from survivors of CSA and CSE. When it was possible and with permission he would have passed those allegations on to the police. One of those allegations concerned Ted Heath but note that the press never ask Tom Watson, “Did you pass an allegation against Joe Bloggs to police?” If there is a bias it is a media bias which affects what is reported and therefore what comes to our attention. The majority of survivors who approached Tom Watson (or indeed any MP) would not have been abused by a VIP or celebrity.

        Similarly, I would imagine that Tom Watson tries his best to support all survivors that come to him. It must be very difficult given that he’s had no extra resources than any other MP to cope with hundreds of survivors from across the country, not just his constituency, coming to him.

        Once again the press aren’t interested in reporting that Jane Doe has Tom Watson’s support, Again there is a media bias which affects our perception of the situation but I’d be fairly certain that Tom Watson has helped survivors of CSA and CSE from his constituency and local area when they’ve gone to them, it’s just we don’t here about it and why should we when it is a confidential issue between MP and constituent ?


  2. When will the Labour Party have finished the investigations into former Rotherham Councillors Jahangir Akhtar and Roger Stone and current Rotherham Councillor Shaukat Ali?

    They have been suspended for a year now – why has it taken so long to undertake the investigation/s?

    Cllr Gwendoline Russell was reinstated to the Labour Party in July so presume some investigations have been started

    Why is Cllr Ali still shown as a Labour Party Councillor on the Council’s website when he is suspended? (see )


  3. “Once again the press aren’t interested in reporting that Jane Doe has Tom Watson’s support, Again there is a media bias which affects our perception of the situation but I’d be fairly certain that Tom Watson has helped survivors of CSA and CSE from his constituency and local area when they’ve gone to them, it’s just we don’t here about it and why should we when it is a confidential issue between MP and constituent ?”

    There has only been one prosecution and conviction of an “Asian” grooming gang in Birmingham

    There has never been a successful group’gang prosecution in the Black Country – Watson’s home area

    You talk of media bias gojam but the only reason that we know that the situation in the West Midlands bears “significant similarities to Rotherham” is because of the genuine campaigning efforts of the Birmingham Mail – who have dragged the relevant information out of a very reluctant authority by FOI.

    Check out the links I provided on the “A morally defective line” post, and you will see that it is very reminiscent of Rotherham – the same predominant “Asian” group/gang CSE model, the same predominant victim target group; the same institutional failings and cover ups as regards as police, council social services and children’s homes.

    As with Rotherham this was first suppressed a very long time ago

    So when you get stuff like this coming into the public domain

    “A report to Sandwell Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) last year drew on an official West Midlands Police ‘profile’ – an in-depth intelligence-based report on Child Sexual Exploitation which revealed how the Asian gangs were targeting white girls with on-street grooming.”

    “Parks, hotels and taxis: The terrifying truth about child exploitation in the Black Country”

    you would have thought that the most prominent local MP and child abuse campaigner of noted national renown would have been up like a jack-in-a-box at PMQs demanding answers and urgent action.

    Not a bit of it. Far as I can tell he has made no public pronouncements whatsoever – even Ed Miliband had something to say on a visit to Brierley Hill

    It is a fair bet that if Jay had gone into Birmingham and Sandwell Councils she would have found the situation in Rotherham paralleled pretty much exactly

    Your conjecture that Watson was too busy to flag up and demand action on horrific child abuse and institutional cover in his own backyard because he was overwhelmed by the spin off from the increasingly chimerical Westminster allegations does not stack up. How could he have helped grooming gang victims in his own constituency without lifting the lid on the local institutions that had systematically failed them anyway- notably the plods?

    As with Rotherham there has been a conspiracy of silence here – and it is blatantly obvious that Watson is part of the problem; not the solution.

    When one considers that in a year or so’s time he might be Leader of the Labour Party and then possibly Prime Minister himself, this is not a comforting thought.


    • I am so glad that the Labour Party has elected Jeremy and his leftie friends, to lead this once great party into oblivion. Now that the New Labour/New Tories/New Cons, supposed support didn’t materialise, couldn’t even get 4000 votes. While for the last 2 decades we’ve had one currupt elite, the other side of the coin will show its face now.

      Those on the left, who espouse Multiculturalism and equality, but when it applies to their core voters children, somehow never knew anything was going on. Those Blairites, who knew what was happening, but again they were prepared to sacrifice children in the persuit of electoral success, and therefore power, at any cost.

      Don’t worry about Tom Watson, his day will come in regards to CSE in the midlands and his role or non role in stopping it. It alright running off your mouth in parliament and while the press, and most people thought of him of little consequence, now his Depury Leader, it’s open season. There’s one thing our glorious press are good at , in fact the best, is digging up the dirt on our so call pious politicians.


  4. David Aaronovitch seems to have got Watson’s number, although he hasn’t, as yet, commented on Watson’s West Midland’s omerta

    “Only now are police admitting they were wrong to describe lurid allegations of VIP sex abuse as “credible and true”

    Finally, somebody else said it. That man on the horse riding down the street preceded by flags and followed by drums? The one whose wonderful attire they’re all loudly acclaiming? Stark naked. Not a stitch on. That’s what former Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton told The Times yesterday.

    Nearly three years have passed since the Savile scandal broke and — in its wake — the MP Tom Watson (now Labour’s deputy leader) stood up in the House of Commons and asked David Cameron to ensure that the police “investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10”. In that time, the idea of a Westminster paedophile ring has entered the popular folklore of British politics. It has been deployed by social media partisans in the Scottish referendum campaign, in support of Ukip, and by just about anyone short of a stick to beat politicians with.

    A few of us (at the beginning, very few of us) watched this process with alarm. From Watson’s acorn — or alleged acorn because, of course, no names were named and no cases detailed — grew a forest of lusty oaks. A phenomenon arose akin to a latterday McCarthyism, a general assertion that has relied on its own vigour to grow, rather than on anything as footling as evidence.
    This minor witch-hunt has had no figurehead. There has been no single interrogator and many of those involved seem to have been motivated by conscience and a sense of the public good. But then, aren’t they always? Newspapers, BBC journalists, online press agencies that sell stories by the yard, politicians such as Zac Goldsmith, John Mann and Simon Danczuk, authors, victims’ groups and others have together created an impression of certainty that there was once, and maybe still is, a conspiracy to commit and then to cover up the most appalling crimes against children by some of the most powerful in the land.

    Whatever it was Watson had in mind when he stood up and made the claim (and he has never publicly detailed it) what has bubbled out in the years since has been almost impossible to keep up with and evaluate. In the same way that Savile begat Operation Yewtree and thousands of claims of historical child abuse by celebrities — some of them upheld in courts, some not and some never proceeded with — so the Watson statement was followed by claims of politician abuse.

    For the first time, wider credence was given to claims previously confined to the margins of the internet. A list, purporting to be of visitors to a guest house where paedophile parties allegedly took place, gave rise to Operation Fernbridge. In pursuit of which, claimed the press agency Exaro more than a year ago, a former cabinet minister would shortly be arrested.

    People began to come forward and a rubric developed. If anyone made an allegation of anything involving a claim of child abuse, then the police would have to say they were taking it seriously and investigating it. At this point the very fact that it was being investigated would be used as an argument for the existence of crime itself. After all, why would the police waste their time investigating something that hadn’t happened?

    One claim led to another. The logical extension of this was “Nick”. “Nick” was the man who appeared in silhouette a year ago on an item that led the BBC Six O’Clock News. He claimed he had been abused as a boy by leading politicians in the 1980s. In a week Nick had gone from claiming to have witnessed not one murder by the Westminster gang, but three. Those politicians were not named by the police (who infamously agreed that his account was “credible and true”) but their supposed identities were nevertheless the common stuff of internet legend. And then one or two other people came forward and claimed that they had been abused in the same way by the same perpetrators.

    Since Savile it has been obvious that the police and the DPP, scarred by the (often justified) claims that they failed to take abused children seriously, and apprehensive about future inquiries, have been falling over themselves to avoid offending the Abuse Lobby. We’ve all felt it. Those of us who looked at what was being alleged, trawled the online sites, listened hard and stuck to the Golden Question — where is the evidence? — nevertheless felt real pressure not to question what was going on. Who wants to be called, as I have been, the paedophile’s friend, the shill of the establishment?

    So it grew. The accusations became widespread enough for some papers to feel that they could just print any claims on the front page under a banner headline, without doing even the most basic research on the credibility of their informants. It became open season on dead Tory politicians. Keith Joseph? Rhodes Boyson? Michael Havers? Leon Brittan? Who, apart from their families, would care enough to defend their reputations? Open season too on live but anonymous politicians, whose good names could not be defended without their defenders themselves repeating a libel.

    And then it came out that “Nick” had accused Ted Heath. And the former MP Harvey Proctor — so far as I know the only living accusee in this particular case — came forward and made public the accusations. Nick had not only witnessed three killings but, at a sex-and-murder party in Dolphin Square, Proctor had supposedly threatened to cut his genitals with a knife, and had been saved by the squeamish Heath. Proctor had given the knife to the boy who kept it, had given it to the police, who now showed it to Proctor.

    Like Senator McCarthy in 1954, when he went after supposed Communists in the US Army, the accusations had over-reached. How could such totally implausible and uncorroborated stuff be regarded as “true”? And if it couldn’t, what about the rest? If there had been murders, where were the bodies? Why, after more than a year had Operation Midland come up with nothing?
    How did we allow this madness to take hold? How much damage has it done to the reputations of the innocent — and to the cause of genuine victims? For the moment let’s just note our lamentable tendency as a society to swing the pendulum an unnecessary full arc from negligence to hysteria without ever stopping at common sense.


  5. The issues Parsonage outlines are only too true.
    However the problems go far deeper than he has outlined. We currently have a situation where the DPP has decreed that victims MUST be believed. In the light of Rotherham it is easy to see how we have been knee-jerked into this predicament. However it is a predicament where the requirement for evidence has been thrown away with the bathwater.
    Believing victims when there is no evidence results in the worst kinds of witch hunts and creates new victims and is an insult to those who have already been let down by the authorities that should have helped them.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.