Effort 
Zac Goldsmith is facing questions from a former Conservative MP and the brother of Lord Brittan after he refused to withdraw claims made in parliament about an alleged paedophile ring in his constituency.
The Conservative mayoral candidate for London has been accused of repeating unfounded allegations of abuse by VIPs in Richmond, south-west London, that were apparently based on testimony from a convicted fraudster.
Goldsmith told MPs in November there had been a cover-up of abuse at Elm Guest House, involving establishment figures including a former cabinet minister, whom he did not name, but who was identified on social media as Leon Brittan. A spokesperson for Goldsmith said the MP had “rightly” asserted that child sex abuse should be taken seriously.
How come this wasn’t also on the news report tonight alongside Watson?
Originally posted by @Intiniki
How come this wasn’t also on the news report tonight alongside Watson?
Wasn’t in the Panorama report either. Private Eye drew attention to the lack of balance in today’s issue.
Am I the only one who thinks that any claim of sexual abuse of a minor should be investigated, regardless of who the accused is? Isn’t that kind of the normal thing to do?
Watson did make an error in bringing this to the public forum and should have acted a little more discretely. However, the police have dragged their feet on other cases similar to this, so in making this public Watson has spurred them into action a bit more. Whether he was right to do so, I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
The underlying clamour, is of course, that Watson’s actions were politically motivated. Maybe that’ll be proven, but what is certain is that theirs are, and some of the detail is really quite worrying. How exactly does a whole Panorama documentary get made about Watson without mentioning Zac Goldsmith, who made pretty much the same claims?
Panorama has done its once-decent reputation no favours in recent weeks, less the wide view it espouses to be, and more an vehicle for focused attacks. First Corbyn, then Watson. How wide is that lens if they fail to pick up on stuff in the public domain, like Zac Goldsmith correctly highlighting the same issue?
To answer your original question, it should not matter who the accused is, but it does, unfortunately. That’s part of the problem. I don’t actually think it’s that difficult to solve. There just needs to be zero prejudice about who gets charged. The legal framework is in place. It just hasn’t being applied, and I’m starting to sense what ottery predicted a while back. The establishment will start to cover up or misdirect. That’s happening now.
To me though, Super Michael, if you wanted to crystallise “everything that is wrong with this country”, you could use this as an example. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, efforts are focused on trying to publicly eviscerate one of the people trying to drag this darkness into the light.
What a hostile fucking environment for whistle blowers we have.
Where is Ottery?
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Where is Ottery?
Dunno, I’ve got his email, but don’t want to be stalkery or owt. Can you check in via less stalkery means?
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Where is Ottery?
Dunno, I’ve got his email, but don’t want to be stalkery or owt. Can you check in via less stalkery means?
I’ll send a drone.
Originally posted by Verbal on TSW
So it was all bull**** after all. Not a good day for numbskull conspiracy ‘theorists’ and pitchfork wielders on here (or no longer here). Or Tom Watson.
Move along. Nothing to see here. Source; Verbal, self-appointed champion of people alleged to be establishment nonces.
I thought the official statement was that they could not disprove any of the claims of abuse, but nor could they produce evidence to pursue a prosecution.
That is quite different to being cleared, and they have left the missing person enquiry open so it hasn’t quite gone away yet…
Basically.
How many TSWers do you reckon will read beyond the introductory bollocks though?
My understanding is that the case has fallen down because most of the people named are now dead, officially at least.
Sir Clement Freud has just been exposed as a serial abuser.
EDIT : Removed “Not a politician” after Sussex schooled me
He was a liberal politician.
Cunt
Yeah, saw this on the news last night, what was more condemning/concerning was his wife’s quote which seemed to suggest she knew what was going on!
Lady Freud said: “This is a very sad day for me. I was married to Clement for 58 years and loved him dearly. I am shocked, deeply saddened and profoundly sorry for what has happened to these women. I sincerely hope they will now have some peace.”
Originally posted by @BTripz
Yeah, saw this on the news last night, what was more condemning/converning was his wife’s quote which seemed to suggest she knew what was going on!
Lady Freud said: “This is a very sad day for me. I was married to Clement for 58 years and loved him dearly. I am shocked, deeply saddened and profoundly sorry for what has happened to these women. I sincerely hope they will now have some peace.”
It’s a far cry from the usual denials, so she deserves some credit for recognising it. It does make you wonder how much was known by the family though. They are very well connected. One of his kids is married to one of Murdoch’s.
Oh and what a “innocent” little remark hidden amongst the Telegraph article.
A picture of Maddie McCann with the strap line “Madeleine McCann went missing from Praia da Luz where Freud had a villa”!!
A Murdoch connection to a sex offender MP who needed his activity kept out of the media?
Mmmmmm.
Originally posted by @Rallyboy
A Murdoch connection to a sex offender MP who needed his activity kept out of the media?
Mmmmmm.
Careful now. Sally Bercow got sued for suggesting less. Inexplicably.