Should Tom Watson Resign?

[Deskdiary]

Should Tom Watson resign over his disgraceful actions in the 'VIP Paedophile' witch hunt?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7565499/Victorian-priest-poet-Cardinal-Newman-canonised-historic-ceremony-Vatican.html

Supplementary question - am I wrong in thinking he's disgusting in considering himself a victim?

[fiction-factory]

I think your previous link was still on your clipboard, D.

[retrocop]

No. I don't think you are incorrect. Sad to say I believe he is the sanest between Corbyn and Mc Donnell and Abbot.That's not a wonderful endorsement is it ? :-)

[Deskdiary]

Oops.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7564935/Tom-Watson-says-genuinely-sorry-role-fantasist-Nick-VIP-paedophile-scandal.html

[woofgang]

no I don't think he should resign, I think he should be expelled

[Old_Geezer]

I think everyone and everyone is entitled to feel they are a victim. Others are entitled to disagree.

[Spicerack]

No, he should be locked up.

[Theland]

Wasn't he duped like the police, so therefore a victim?

[THECORBYLOON]

Where has he claimed to be a victim?

[Deskdiary]

^^^Seriously?

He's said it on more than one occasion.

He feels because he was duped by Walter Mitty that he is also a victim of Beech.

Google is a wonderful tool.

[woofgang]

Allegedly he passed information to Carl Beech about one of the places in london where CB alleged abuse had taken place.

[andy-hughes]

He should resign, but he won't.

Making himself into a 'victim' simply excuses him from taking responsibility for his actions.

It's what children do - and he thinks and acts like a child.

[New Judge]

//Wasn't he duped like the police, so therefore a victim?//

The police were not duped. The were subject to their ridiculous philosophy that all alleged victims must be believed. In the case of Carl Beech, not only did they believe tales that were so obviously incredible but they went on to announce publicly that he was a credible witness who was telling the truth (a task for the CPS and ultimately the courts to determine).

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Wasn't he duped like the police, so therefore a victim? //

Being duped does not make him a 'victim', it makes him a gullible idiot.

Someone in his position, with the power he has to make the waves that he did, and let the police surf them on a wave of head-nodding and hand-wringing, instead of actually looking for evidence and finding none at all, makes him s a dangerous gullible idiot.

Clearly there were more than enough of those involved from the Met, without his grandstanding nonsense inflaming the whole dreadful situation

[Mozz71]

He was a victim insomuch that he was duped by a fantasist, but its hardly comparable to anyone who had their name and reputation dragged through the mud.

Locked up Spicerack? Are you just being facetious or do you have a genuine reason for thinking that?

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // He was a victim insomuch that he was duped by a fantasist … //

I take your point, in the true grammatical sense of the term 'victim', Mr Watson actually is a victim, but because of the emotive use of the term in the context of damaged individuals, perhaps we should try and look for another adjective for Mr Watson which in no way aligns him with the people who actually suffered in this whole disgraceful situation.

I can think of a few adjectives for Mr Watson, I'll see if I can find one that actually fits in this instance, and doesn't sent the AB censor software into overdrive!

[jno]

what exactly has he done that was wrong?

[andy-hughes]

jno - // what exactly has he done that was wrong? //

Mr Watson has used his position as a senior politician to add weight to the nonsense of a fantasist who was believed by the police on the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever, which in turn led to protracted police investigations which added to lurid media attention, and resulted in the serious damage to lives and professions of wholly innocent public figures, at least one of whom died without being exonerated from accusations.

As a senior politician, and someone whose opinions carry additional gravitas on the basis of his station in society, it is beholden on Mr Watson to ensure that he is endorsing a crime victim on the basis of collected evidence, and not simply his own inflated sense of self-importance leading him to hitch his influence to a situation with no actual merit, and ongoing devastating consequences for innocent people.

[jno]

andy, I would like to know exactly what he did. For an MP to urge the police to get on with solving a crime is fairly standard - it's an MP's normal duty to constituents. So I'm wondering just what he did that was unreasonable.

[woofgang]

Allegedly he met with the man and supported him in his claims. Allegedly he put particular pressure on the police over this man's claims. Allegedly he gave the man information about Dolphin Square which he used when he fabricated his allegations. If Tom Watson had made general representations to the police regarding how such allegations should be treated, although I understand that he may have had a hand in the "all allegations should be believed unconditionally" policy, then he might have been put down as misguided. In my view, from what I have read, he made a favourite of this man and by doing so many innocent people had their lives destroyed. That, to me argues, at the very least, a degree of stupidity that should have no place in politics.

[jno]

thanks, woofgang. Yes, he may be a clot, though I don't suppose he's the first person, or even the first MP, ever to fall for a conman. I just wondered what he did that had gone beyond the pale. News reports I've seen haven't spelt it out. (I don't know if Beech was one of his constituents.)

Believing all allegations is daft but no more so than the previous policy of not believing any of them: we're still at the appalling position where only 3% of rape claims in London end in a conviction, so I don't know that the old policy has ever gone away. But it's clearly an over-correction.