The Metropolitan Police Service stands ashamed after yet another of its number admitted a multitude of sex crimes, dating back more than a decade.
Here’s the report:
“Bastard Dave” joins other Metropolitan Police officers who have been disgraced over recent years – guilty of 49 sex crimes including 24 rapes.
Other Met officers who have “devastated women’s lives” nclude Wayne Couzens, who kidnapped, raped and murdered Sarah Everard, and burned the body to evade detection; and Francois Olwage, who was found guilty of three child sex offences in April last year.
But it gets worse. According to the BBC,
The Met Police is investigating 1,000 sexual and domestic abuse claims involving about 800 of its officers.
Sir Mark Rowley announced all 45,000 Met officers and staff would be rechecked for previously missed offending.
The spokeswoman who faced the press admitted having missed opportunities to identify a pattern of abusive behaviour; one would have thought having the nickname “Bastard Dave” might have been a bit of a clue.
One is led to believe that the Met is actually trolling us; that these prolific sex offenders are flaunting their behaviour.
No wonder so many people call them “the filth”.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Carrie Johnson: it seems she demanded that The Times keep its big mouth shut but if she had done that, there might not have been a story in the first place.
Remember Carriegate? The claim that a Times story about Boris Johnson trying to get his then-lover (now wife) Carrie Symonds (as was) a high-paying Foreign Office job, back when he was Foreign Secretary, was removed from the paper and deleted from the World Wide Web because of interference from Downing Street?
Now, Private Eye has claimed that the woman now known as Mrs Johnson had demanded the story’s removal out of a fear that the more salacious details of her relationship with Johnson would be trotted out.
(This is probably baseless; The Times may be a Murdoch rag but it isn’t The Sun or the News of the World.)
But now we know anyway, because Private Eye has told us that another member of Parliament walked in on Johnson and (now) Johnson just as she was attending to his important little places in an intimate way:
The Friday night attack of the ab-dabs was caused by a baseless fear that the Times might be more specific about the compromising situation [those of a timid disposition should look away now] by adding that the MP walked in while Carrie was giving Boris oral sex on the sofa.”
This raises serious questions:
Yes, blackmail – because the MP who burst in on such an act could demand elevation in return for his silence. Some have suggested that Gavin (now Lord) Williamson may have been that person, because he has subsequently done very well for himself despite being utterly incompetent;
Presumably, former chief whip Gavin Williamson got his ridiculous knighthood for keeping schtum about the extra-marital blow job that is now public knowledge anyway. What an utterly appalling shambles our country has become.
There are also concerns about misconduct in public office.
Firstly, it may be misconduct if the sex act “renders the public office holder vulnerable to misjudgement” – such as trying to get the provider of said act a job worth more than £100,000 a year? Note that Johnson has ‘form’ in this respect as he funnelled more than £100K to Jennifer Arcuri, who alleges a similar relationship with him.
Alternatively, if the act occurred when the public office holder was “on duty” – that dereliction of duty/unprofessionalism attends the conduct and it could be seen to undermine trust in the office holder.
It’s alleged that Johnson was interrupted in his office by a colleague wishing to discuss work with him, and could have easily been interrupted by any number of other foreign office officials or government staff.
They may have used it as kompromat – compromising information collected for use in blackmailing, discrediting, or manipulating someone, typically for political purposes – as has been (humorously?) suggested of Gavin Williamson. Junior or female staff may have seen it as sexual harassment.
So, in withdrawing the article, it seems The Times did us all a favour and revealed that the man who is now our prime minister may have casually – and possibly habitually – put himself in the kind of compromising situations that may endanger the security of the United Kingdom.
As Yorkshire Bylinessuggests, this is a matter for investigation – possibly by the Metropolitan Police, possibly by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. Personally, I would add that the security services might also wish to become involved.
Whoever takes in the task (if anyone does in Johnson’s corrupt UK dystopia), This Writer can only agree with the final sentiment of the Bylines piece:
Let’s hope for their sake there’s no photographic evidence.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Police have arrested yet another Conservative MP for sex crimes.
The Tory Parliamentarian, who has not been named, had his collar felt by the long arm of the law after an investigation lasting no fewer than two years.
As a result, he now stands accused of indecent assault, sexual assault, rape, abuse of position of trust and misconduct in public office – all between 2002 and 2009.
The latter two accusations suggest that this is someone who may have used his position as a member of Parliament in order to commit the crimes.
The arrest follows the resignation of another Tory MP, Neil Parish, after he admitted having watched pornography in the Commons chamber.
And that came after yet another Conservative MP, Imran Ahmad Khan, resigned after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy. His victim said that he had alerted the Conservative Party before Khan had been elected – but his warnings had fallen on deaf ears.
Prior to that, three cabinet ministers were among 56 MPs said to have been accused of sexual misconduct and referred to Parliamentary watchdog the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.
On This Site, I questioned whether those 56 names included some of those on a list known to the Tory whips during Theresa May’s leadership – and asked why these people, if they were known to have committed offences, had been allowed to continue as MPs for years when they should have been arrested.
Leaving sexual offences behind, Conservative MPs have been at the centre of a string of corruption allegations. Remember Owen Paterson?
Guilty or not, this accusation leaves another grubby mark on the Conservative Party’s reputation.
This is an organisation that claims to be fit to run the United Kingdom, for the benefit of everybody, yet its members – possibly including people in the highest offices in the land – seem determined to act on their own basest instincts to harm others.
And the party’s leaders seem completely unconcerned.
Why do we let these creatures govern the country when experience shows they can’t even govern themselves?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Warburton: he’s accused of sexual improprieties and drug abuse – as apparently suggested by this image (although what the white lines really were has yet to be determined).
I wouldn’t want to cast suspicion on a person who has been admitted to hospital, allegedly suffering from stress.
That’s what we’re being told about David Warburton, after he was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party amid a torrent of allegations about inappropriate sexual behaviour and cocaine abuse:
On Sunday, he was admitted to hospital suffering from “severe shock and stress”, according to his wife Harriet, who is also his office manager.
Government whips … have told the MP to stay away from Westminster while the investigation is ongoing, although they have no power to ban him from the parliamentary estate.
But isn’t that exactly what a person accused of such offences might do, if he was trying to curry sympathy?
We mustn’t pre-judge – especially not with Warburton’s Somerton and Frome constituency being a key battleground in next months local government elections, with elections for every seat on the county council.
No, we mustn’t pre-judge.
But we can ask why we were told he’s gone into hospital. He could have simply stepped back from politics until the investigation was completed – whether in hospital or not. Why tell us this?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Photographic evidence? Suspended Tory MP David Warburton is pictured next to what appears to be lines of cocaine. If all is as it seems, he could be in serious trouble.
Did the people of Somerton and Frome elect a sex-crazed drugs beast to be their MP?
Well, we don’t know yet because an investigation has yet to happen.
Here’s what we’re all hearing, though:
David Warburton… is understood to be facing allegations from three women, while a photo has emerged of the MP allegedly sitting alongside lines of cocaine. The picture of Warburton… is said to date from February. It is claimed it was taken at the home of a younger woman who he met through politics.
Accusations from two other women have been handed to the new parliamentary harassment watchdog, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS). A spokesperson on behalf of the whips’ office said: “David Warburton MP has had the Conservative party whip removed while the investigation is ongoing.”
Warburton, 56, is a married father of two and former businessman. It is alleged … that he asked for the drug to be purchased, before saying the price was “quite good actually”. The woman involved claimed she had been drunk, but began to feel uncomfortable about being alone with the MP as she became less intoxicated. She said that she retreated to her bedroom, but that he climbed into bed with her, naked.
She said she did not ask him to leave or push him away because she was fearful about how he might react. She said she gave repeated warnings that she did not want to have sex with him, but alleged that he ground his body against her and groped her breasts. The woman is said not to have made a complaint to the police or any other authority, saying she wanted to forget about the incident.
The MP has previously condemned the exploitation of young people involved in the drugs trade, including the “intimidation, violence and criminal incentives” involved.
It must be remembered that these are only allegations.
If they turn out to be accurate, though, we may be looking at another by-election to replace a disgraced Tory.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Settlement: Prince Andrew (the accused) and Victoria Giuffre (the accuser). To the right (trimmed out of this version of the image) is Ghislaine Maxwell, now convicted of trafficking underage children to Jeffrey Epstein for sexual abuse. Andrew now says he “regrets” his association with Epstein. It has been claimed – but not proved – that the image is a fake.
Prince Andrew has reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Giuffre that will end her abuse claim against him – but will leave questions about his own conduct hanging in the air.
Ms Giuffre had brought a case of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Prince.
It was claimed she was trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and others to Andrew, who was alleged to have sexually abused her when she was under the age of 18. Court documents referred to three separate occasions in which Ms Giuffre accused him of sexual misconduct.
She had claimed the Prince had sex with her against her will at Ghislaine Maxwell’s London home.
She also alleged he forced her to engage in sex acts against her will at Epstein’s mansion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
And he was also alleged to have sexually abused Giuffre during a visit to Epstein’s private island, Little St James.
Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed but it appears to involve substantial sums of money including a large donation to Ms Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights. This amount may be revealed when the charity’s annual reports are released.
He has stated that he accepts that she suffered, both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks.
The Prince has not admitted any guilt or apologised for any of his behaviour.
But he has acknowledged that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked “countless” young girls over many years and has said he “regrets” his association with that man.
To demonstrate this regret, he has pledged to support the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and to support its victims.
There appears to be nothing in the settlement – no non-disclosure agreement – stopping Ms Giuffre from publishing her claims in the future.
International lawyers have said they think Andrew’s lawyers were left with little option other than to make a deal, considering the weakness of his legal position and fears over his performance in the witness stand.
They have said the settlement may cost him at least £10 million, in line with settlements of previous cases involving wealthy individuals.
The agreement raises more questions than it answers.
Most obviously, Prince Andrew’s personal reputation has not just been dragged through, but has arguably been drowned in the mud – as has that of the UK’s Royal Family, by association.
Adverse publicity has already led to Andrew being stripped of all his royal patronages and military affiliations, with the Queen’s approval. He has also agreed to stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity.
It had been feared that a court case would overshadow the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebrations this year, with details of the Prince’s personal life examined and his denials of ever meeting Ms Giuffre challenged.
If an agreement could have been reached, why did this not happen earlier?
Is it because the Prince was facing the prospect of sitting for a deposition – giving sworn evidence – at which he would have been questioned under oath by Ms Giuffre’s legal team? Did he have reason to fear the possibility that information may be uncovered that he doesn’t want to see the light of day?
Who is paying? It has been alleged that the Queen herself has put up some of the money for Andrew’s defence, and his representatives have declined to comment on the source of funds for the donation. Ultimately, are the citizens of the UK paying to whitewash this privileged man’s name?
Does Prince Andrew think this will all go away now, and he can resume work as a member of the Royal Family as if the court case didn’t happen? Commentators are already saying that this is unlikely – meaning his future is still in doubt.
York MP Rachael Maskell has called for him to stop using his title as the Duke of York, to show respect for the people of the city.
And concern has been raised over the possibility of him appearing alongside the rest of the Royal Family at the Duke of Edinburgh’s memorial service next month; with vindication impossible if a trial does not happen, it is not known whether the claims of sexual assault were accurate – and this may overshadow the occasion if Andrew is allowed to participate.
Perhaps the Prince hoped that, by reaching a settlement, he would be able to draw a line under these accusations and move on.
In fact, it seems he has merely extended the controversy well into the future.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Accused and accuser: Prince Andrew (left) is said to have sexually abused the woman now known as Virginia Giuffre (right) while she was still a child – and is doing everything he can to avoid facing trial for it. This in itself casts suspicion on his claims of innocence. And it may be bringing the UK Monarchy into disrepute for protecting him.
Let’s start this article with the important question: is anybody tracking down the perverts who had sex with underage girls provided by Ghislaine Maxwell?
It’s all very well saying that the procurer has been convicted so the route via which these vile creatures gratify their disgusting desires has been cut off – but it only means they will find other ways.
Police – in America – are going through the now-infamous black book kept by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, but they are treating the associates listed within merely as possible witnesses, rather than as possible suspects (until and unless evidence is found to justify criminal proceedings).
That may come as a relief to people like Keir Starmer’s recently-appointed henchman Peter Mandelson, who has 10 entries in the book (suggesting that he wanted the paedophile pair to be able to get hold of him wherever he may have been), and newly-to-be-knighted Tony Blair, who has an entry in the book himself.
It may not be so much of a comfort to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, who appears in the book 16 times and is accused of child sex offences.
And the repercussions may undermine the foundations of the UK Monarchy – an institution that has survived for almost a thousand years. That’s plenty of time to fall into filth and corruption – and to hide it by abusing the privileges that come with the highest position in the land.
It’s being reported that Andrew has just begun to show concern that his alleged crimes may bring down the Monarchy. It seems he had not previously spared a thought for the fact that being involved with people in a paedophile ring (whether he was a part of it or not) might bring that ancient institution into disrepute.
In This Writer’s opinion, the acts that have really put the future of the Monarchy in question are his attempts at evasion – his refusal to travel to America to face charges is not the behaviour we would expect of an innocent man; I understand he has claimed that his accuser should not be permitted to continue with her case because she now lives in Australia, not the USA (but that should have nothing to do with it; this is an international sex crime case and it seems logical to base the prosecution in the country where the offence was allegedly committed); and it seems he has also put forward a claim to have been in a UK branch of Pizza Express with one of his daughters at the time of the alleged offence – although nobody has come forward to corroborate the claim (and members of the public would certainly remember, even from 21 years ago, if a Royal walked into their local fast food joint).
His continued attempts to avoid justice are hugely harmful to the UK Monarchy because it makes the Queen complicit in the alleged crimes; Andrew is seen as having committed them (whether he really did or not is immaterial to this part of it) and then gone running behind his mother’s skirt tails for protection from the consequences.
Bear in mind that both Epstein and Maxwell, along with another sex offender – the US film producer Harvey Weinstein, were photographed at the 18th birthday celebrations of Andrew’s daughter, Princess Beatrice. It seems that Royalty and sex crime are well-entwined.
In his evasion attempts, Andrew is hugely aided by the UK’s mass media organisations – particularly the BBC. Maxwell was the daughter of a newspaper magnate (who was himself disgraced after he fell off his yacht and died, when it was found that he had been stealing from the Mirror Group’s pension fund). This means she is well-known to many of the journalists who have been writing about her – and their work has reflected their own sympathy for this child abuser.
The hypocrisy enough to send you reeling: the same people who took glee in claiming that former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn should take responsibility for his brother Piers advocating criminal damage of Covid-19 vaccine-supporting MPs’ offices have conspicuously failed to suggest that Boris Johnson should take similar responsibility for his sister Rachel’s article, It’s hard not to pity Ghislaine Maxwell.
This Writer has absolutely no pity for anybody who uses children to gratify their (or other people’s) perverse sexual desires.
The BBC’s editorial position has also been characterised as calling for us to bless this poor lost soul – with manipulative choices of verbiage. So when referring to the girls or children who were abused in Maxwell’s paedo ring, the BBC describes them as “underage women”.
That’s sickening.
And there is worse. Coverage refers to Maxwell by her first name, as though she’s our friend; her victims are described as “accusers”; after previous reports of similar crimes referred to “grooming gangs”, there is no such attempt to whip up outrage here (quite the opposite); and there are no calls to interrogate participants in the abuse (going back to the black book).
The BBC went too far when it booked people who are known to be sympathetic to Maxwell, to comment on the case in its news programmes.
The backlash, after Epstein’s former lawyer Alan Dershowitz – himself now accused of child sex crimes – appeared on BBC bulletins, giving a sympathetic view of Maxwell and insisting on both his own and Andrew’s innocence, was huge.
The corporation’s bosses had to issue a statement admitting that Dershowitz’s appearance had not met BBC editorial standards, and that the matter would be investigated to find out “how it happened”.
The statement led to what some have described as “the Twitter burn of the year” – from the Sunday Sport‘s Twitter feed: “That’s putting it mildly. It didn’t even meet OUR editorial standards.”
Of course we all know how it happened. Dershowitz was booked by a BBC booking agent who – knowing that he is himself a suspect – contacted him or his agent/manager and asked to interview him. They then falsely presented him as an independent legal expert. It was deliberate – and deliberately misleading.
And now the BBC has lost any right to claim that its news coverage is impartial in any way, as people across the UK are accurately accusing it of deliberately protecting the rich and privileged at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.
I say accurately because, having admitted its fault over Dershowitz, the BBC compounded the mistake by booking Maxwell’s brother Ian, who was interviewed about his sister the very next day.
Of course he made a big fuss about claiming she was innocent – on a news platform that is watched and believed by 70 per cent of the UK’s population. Think about that.
A former BBC political news editor, Rob Burley, has claimed that failures like the Dershowitz booking are results of budget cuts at the corporation – to which critics responded by pointing out that such errors exclusively benefit the UK’s rich and powerful elite. They quoted a current saying: “It’s not a bug; it’s a feature” of the BBC.
Even former BBC reporters like Adil Ray have railed against the corporation’s biased coverage. In a tweet, he stated: “When I filmed a doc on the sexual exploitation of young girls by some Pakistani men it would not have been acceptable to hear a defence from their brothers. Why is it ok now?”
The answer is obvious: families of abusers who travel on buses, instead of luxury cars or yachts, simply don’t get that platform. And the question isn’t why the former don’t – it’s why the latter do.
And let’s face it – the BBC doesn’t have a good record of identifying, accusing and denouncing child sex offenders. Look at the way Jimmy Savile was protected for decades. He was a close friend of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, of course.
Sadly, this deference to the rich and powerful isn’t limited to the BBC and Rachel Johnson – whose bias towards Maxwell is likely to be due to the fact that the child sex procurer was at Balliol College, Oxford, with her own brother: UK prime minister Boris Johnson.
See how the people in this group link up and protect each other?
Returning to Andrew, it’s one reason we should be grateful that proceedings against him are taking place in the United States; it is unlikely that the UK’s compromised legal system would ever have even accused him. It didn’t accuse Savile during his lifetime, after all.
And let’s remember that Metropolitan police commissioner Cressida Dick is another alumnus of Balliol College, Oxford, who may well have known Maxwell there at some point – either as a student or as a former student.
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how accusations against this fellow Balliol alumnus may have been taken by a Dick police administration, because we have the evidence of the Christmas 2020 parties that allegedly involved fellow Balliol alumnus Boris Johnson to help us.
That’s right: if Ghislaine Maxwell had been accused in the UK, the police would probably have responded by saying they don’t investigate incidents from more than a year ago.
Below please find material from Twitter that may provide valuable further information:
Ghislaine Maxwell deserves to go to prison, but where the fuck are all the men who actually had sex with these girls???
Now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty of selling children for sexual abuse, don’t you think we should investigate whom she sold the children to?
I don’t want to hear another word about how tragic her life is, only want to hear about the devastation caused to victims
Julian Assange faces 175 years in a Supermax prison for exposing the crimes of the powerful, but Ghislaine Maxwell only faces "up to" 65 years in prison for running an international child-sex trafficking ring for the global elite?
Three sex offenders, including two paedophiles, attending the 18th birthday party of some Princess at Windsor Castle. We’ve really no idea how big this cess-pit is. https://t.co/oTI1HPNFy4
Interesting how people were screaming at Jeremy Corbyn for the actions of his brother Piers, are now silent on that fact that Boris Johnson’s sister literally wrote an article “It's Hard Not to Pity Ghislaine Maxwell"
For anyone in any doubt about whom the @BBC serve the #Maxwell case exposes its role in defending the establishment. It’s not independent it’s not neutral it’s a tool of the powerful to influence how we think.
The framing of this case & the language used @BBC is a reminder of how the narrative is being controlled. First names of the guilty; accusers not victims; no "grooming gang" outrage; no drive to interrogate those who participated; sympathetic spokespeople. https://t.co/vpc9vXsjde
If only the TV and radio stations showing compassion to convicted child trafficker #Maxwell would direct that care and understanding to the survivors we would live in a better world.
As well as being one of the accused, this is the guy @BBCNews went to for first reaction to Ghislane Maxwell’s guilty verdict. pic.twitter.com/trpa7RP4KJ
Not satisfied with giving Alan Derschowitz a platform to attack Desmond Tutu as an "anti-Semite" and a "bigot" the BBC two days later give him a platform to defend Ghislaine Maxwell… POST CONVICTION!!!! Horrendous from the beeb
Even longstanding critics of the BBC were shocked by its decision to interview Alan Dershowitz following the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict. What does this tell us about the state of the organisation? (Thread) pic.twitter.com/gvfBWikhsY
Ian Maxwell is on r4Today defending convicted sex trafficker #ghislanemaxwell just now. Can you imagine the #bbc giving the family of a convicted Pakistani grooming gang leader a similar platform to defend a relative?!
Why is @BBC giving airtime to the Maxwell family on their main news bulletin? Ghislaine was found guilty of sex trafficking. The Maxwell family cannot accept the verdict. Families of abusers who travel on buses, not luxury cars or yachts, do not get this platform.
Why is the BBC now running an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, pleading her innocence, on its main bulletin on R4? Would they do that for any other child sex offender found guilty in a court of law?
So yesterday the BBC was forced to issue an apology for inviting Alan Dershowitz to “analyse” Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction as he clearly wasn’t an independent voice.
Yet today they’ve literally handed a primetime platform to *her own brother* to back her up!
BBC & others running interview by brother of convicted #ghislanemaxwell, claiming her innocence. In 2011, when I filmed a doc on the sexual exploitation of young girls by some Pakistani men it would not have been acceptable to hear a defence from their brothers. Why is it ok now?
Does anyone remember the relatives of the Rochdale child abusers being given prime BBC slots after a guilty verdict to protest their innocence and undermine the testimonies of the victims? https://t.co/WiRqDLxbJD
Confess I'm genuinely surprised by the ongoing tone of the BBC's coverage of Maxwell's conviction. Mostly because it's hard to see who benefits. My best reading, it's not conspiratorial, it's a reflection of the deeply embedded deference to power & wealth across the organisation.
Interesting how quiet royal correspondents are. Or could it be, they are waiting for instructions from their publication owners, who in turn are waiting for the Palace to instruct their next move?
Of course the BBC News framing of Ghislaine Maxwell is appalling, they've been doing it for decades to protect the establishment, they lied about Scottish Independence, they lied about Jeremy Corbyn, etc Analyse any BBC News story and it's twisted to protect the powers that be.
Memo to @BBCNews : You can be rich, expensively educated and a criminal. It seems that you find that hard to believe, but trust me, just open your eyes and you will find the evidence all around you. And some are even convicted, however unlikely you think that to be.
It is surely now time for all those politicians and other public figures that have visited one of Epstein’s or Maxwells homes to be investigated for possible involvement in child sexual abuse. Can we now start to put together a list of U.K. residents known to be associated.
I fear that were Maxwell truly looking for a deal by giving evidence against Epstein's rich and powerful friends, she would suddenly discover she too had committed suicide.https://t.co/7zqyMTm326
The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell is welcomed. I will state I believe after 3 years work on this case, I believe she was the chief and the former taxi driver Epstein the functionary. I now call on the Met Police to reopen their 1994 investigation into her activities in London.
I don't say this lightly, but I have grave doubts about whether the UK law enforcement and justice systems would have brought down two powerful figures like Epstein and Maxwell.
— Dorset Eye (Independent Citizen Community Media) (@dorset_eye) December 31, 2021
It’s amazing and shocking to think that after the disastrous impact of the Jimmy Saville cover up on the BBC, they’re still going with the “let’s be soft on famous paedos” strategy. pic.twitter.com/VltDlePCMP
We need to know who is paying Prince Andrew’s legal fees
I suspect it is the British people
It is hard to think of a more despicable use of our money than to help a very rich man in his attempt to escape justice from credible allegations of child rape
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Cressida Dick: we are slowly discovering evidence that increasing numbers of her officers have turned to crime during her tenure as Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
You have to sympathise with this tweet, I think:
How many 'bad apples' do there have to be before we start to admit the whole damn barrel is rotten? https://t.co/TgO2sBH9U2
That’s two sex crime accusations against Metropolitan Police officers, just in the last week.
They follow the kidnap, rape, and murder of Sarah Everard by then-serving Met Police officer Wayne Couzens.
And another serving Met officer – David Carrick – appeared in court on a charge of rape on October 4. That case has been adjourned and I see no reports of it since.
So the question is not only valid but urgent: How many bad apples do there have to be before we admit that the whole barrel is rotten?
And, considering that the rot must have been allowed by senior officers…
How long can Cressida Dick – recently rewarded with a two-year extension of her contract – remain Met Police Commissioner while we slowly discover how many of the so-called apples in her team are rotten?
Boring herself to sleep: this is a shot from when Ann Widdecombe quit the Tories to stand as a Brexit Party candidate for the European Parliament. She won a seat there (briefly) – but the voters on Strictly had the good sense to vote her out.
Who does Ann Widdecombe think she is?
The Tory/Brexit Party has-been has burst out of her kennel like a puppy desperate for attention, to berate the TV game show Strictly Come Dancing for allowing same-sex couples to dance together.
It’s as though she actually enjoys provoking responses like this one:
Ann Widdecombe says that ’families don’t want to see same-sex couples’ on Strictly Come Dancing. But honestly, did any of us ever ask to see this? I think not. pic.twitter.com/9dpyr9Kdz3
ann widdecombe will blow a gasket when she finds out same sex couples have been dancing for decades pic.twitter.com/n7YoCe1aWy
— radfem delight. 🏴🏴🇪🇺 (@radfemdelight) October 19, 2020
But at least it gives us a chance to make fun of her again. And again. And again…
In the same way that Kent has become Faragegarage, the mouth of the Teign near her house could be filled with queueing container ships and be renamed Widdecombe Bay? pic.twitter.com/xgT69oS6KH
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Another blunder: Keir Starmer’s insistence on allowing a law that would allow the government to undermine his party has created a rift between him and an ever-increasing number of his MPs.
It is already being labelled as a major rebellion against Keir Starmer’s leadership: 34 Labour MPs defying the party whip to vote against the controversial so-called ‘Spycops’ Bill that would allow government agents to commit crimes.
The real question about it, though, is: why so few?
Labour has been targeted by the so-called Establishment in the UK – probably from its beginnings as a political party. This includes espionage by the nation’s intelligence agencies.
We all know about famous incidents such as the Zinoviev Letter, which contributed to the fall of Ramsay MacDonald’s first Labour government. It was a forged communique allegedly between the government and the Communist government of Russia, written by people whose identities remain uncertain…
… but it was published by the Conservative Daily Mail, and it is widely believed that this was on the urging of the SIS – the intelligence service of the day.
Another famous issue is the MI5 file on Harold Wilson, which was opened when he first entered Parliament in 1945 and recorded his contacts with communists, KGB officers and other Russians.
It was opened because of concerns about his relationships with Eastern European businessmen. Can you imagine MI5 opening a file on Boris Johnson, over his relationships with oligarches from Russia?
Ultimately, none of the information in the file can have amounted to anything because MI5 never tried to use it to undermine him – despite his own paranoia about this in his later years.
Clearly there is a precedent for the security services – which are predominantly staffed by right-wingers – using every resource within their power to find ways of undermining the Labour Party.
And by abstaining on a Bill that allows government agents to commit crimes in order to achieve their aims, 167 Labour MPs including the party’s leader, Keir Starmer, have just handed them another such resource.
It’s undemocratic and dangerous – the kind of legislation created by a dictatorship in order to ensure, by fair means or foul, that no rival organisation can ever topple it.
But some good may come of it accidentally – the possible removal of Starmer as party leader.
Around 20 of his MPs rebelled against his demand to abstain on the Bill’s second reading. Yesterday (October 15), 34 defied his whip – including eight who resigned from front bench roles to do so:
Here are the 34 Labour MPs who voted against the Tories’ Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill tonight.
The law makes it legal for the state to authorise the murder of political opponents.
The fact Keir Starmer whipped Labour to abstain on outright Fascism is truly horrifying. pic.twitter.com/SMvXPDaUNa
It is with regret that I did not vote with my party on the #spycops bill. Joined by a significant number of other Labour MPs. The stakes were too high in my view to abstain. I always remember Nye Bevan who said 'if you sit in the centre of the road you eventually get run over.'
I have voted against the Covert Human Intelligence Sources bill and so have tendered my resignation from my position as Shadow Schools Minister. I wrote to Keir Starmer before the vote. I’d like to thank Keir for having given me the opportunity to serve on Labour’s front bench. pic.twitter.com/9BmfqhciHz
Today I voted against the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill and resigned as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Andy McDonald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights. Please read my statement below. 👇https://t.co/Aw7LQXAcHC
It was an honour to serve as Angela Rayner's PPS and I thank her for the opportunity, but as a lifelong trade unionist and a campaigner for social justice I could see no rationale for a second abstention. I am still totally committed to campaigning for a Labour government.
This evening, I again voted against the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill which I fear undermines our democracy and our commitment to champion human rights. #CHISBill
Much of this can be attributed to Starmer’s own attitude, which suggests that he actually supports the Bill’s demand that government agents be allowed to commit any crime without fear of prosecution for it later – any crime at all, including the murder of the Tories’ political opponents:
this is what 166 Labour MPs have ultimately waved through. A dark day and one that ought to go down in infamy in the history of the British labour movement https://t.co/tGqYwneveJpic.twitter.com/pjt3izkhtm
Discontent with his lack of opposition to the worst Tory government in history is growing, and already there are rumours of a leadership challenge in 2021:
We are once again calling on all socialist Labour MPs to start making preparations for a leadership challenge in 2021. #StarmerOut
Political developments are strange; they don’t happen the way anybody expects – unless that person is very far-sighted indeed.
The Zinoviev Letter led to the fall of a Labour government – but only in a roundabout way. Labour’s vote increased in the general election; it was the collapse of the Liberal vote that allowed the Conservatives their victory.
It would be ironic if now, nearly a century after that attempt to end a socialist government, a piece of legislation that legalises espionage against the party that formed that government actually led to its re-founding as a socialist organisation once again.
That is the only comforting thought I can raise from what is, in all other respects, a disaster for democracy.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
