Still from the classic 1953 Western ‘Shane’
A good friend of mine told me not so long ago that a great many people were confused about where I stood on some issues. “The problem is”, she told me, “you appear to write something that appears to be supportive of one side and critical of another and then without blinking you’ll write something that appears to be sympathetic to the other side and critical of the side you appeared to support earlier and this confuses some people who are watching.”
My friend wasn’t being critical of me, she knows my thoughts only too well, she was just trying to explain to me why it is that I tend to get attacked from all sides because there is sometimes confusion about where I stand. The big problem as I see it is the perception that there are ‘sides’ and that we all need to pick one. It should be obvious, I hope, that I support CSA survivors, justice, and the CSA Inquiry but to my mind these principles aren’t controversial, most commentators on the CSA issue would say they support the same. If it isn’t a contradiction to say so, the entire debate has become fractured and polarised – shared agendas, mutual animosities, misplaced loyalties, and improbable alliances determine these ‘sides’ and they are forever shifting. Given that most genuinely believe they have honourable motives while at the same time too many act in the most appalling way, I’ve never felt any great compulsion to join a ‘side’ and that way I’m free to write as I wish and if some who self-identify with one particular side or the other are confused by this – if they read some things I write as being supportive of their ‘side’ and want to co-opt it while reading other things I write and wish to ignore or dismiss it – that is their choice but what I’m not going to do is feel bound to always write posts that support a particular view just because to do so would make my life more comfortable.
This, I suspect, will be one of those posts that will leave a lot of people on all ‘sides’ a little confused.
You see, I have a great deal of admiration for both DCI Paul Settle and Tom Watson MP. I think that Paul Settle and his team of police officers always acted diligently and pursued their investigations correctly under incredible public pressure and press scrutiny and I think that Tom Watson was courageous for championing the cause of CSA survivors and he is one of the few high profile public figures that actually ‘gets it’. However, it is symptomatic of the broader debate that those commentating online and in the press feel it necessary to perceive and then portray both of them either through rose tinted glasses or through a glass darkly depending on their already established positions.
Yesterday, Tom Watson made a short statement in the House of Commons (HERE) it was bold and justified given everything that he will know but then Tom Watson also released his letter to the DPP and gave an interview to Channel 4 News both of which contained thinly veiled criticism of DCI Paul Settle.
I’m afraid that my own view on this is that these criticisms, which I’ve highlighted in the copy of the DPP letter below, are that they read more like a reflection from that time of the Gospel according to Exaro in their bunker. Pretty much all of the potential problems that Tom Watson faces over this issue stem from his over-trusting relationship with Exaro News, everything else like his original PMQ which his political enemies have attempted to spin against him, can easily be justified and are actually to his credit.
Naturally, it can all be reasonably explained but who on either ‘side’ are prepared to listen to reasonable explanations ?
And now what ?
Well, my own prediction is that this is all now going to get very nasty indeed and as I like and admire both Paul Settle and Tom Watson, and as I feel no great passion to write a detailed running commentary on the finer points of who is right and wrong, or continually but vainly attempt to correct misperceptions when everybody else commentating will be deliberately trying to perpetuate them – my own position on this will be rather like the young boy in the classic 1953 Western Shane, pictured above. I’ll watch wide eyed and silent but when the bigger and powerful men start brawling I know that I’m going to keep out of the way and just try to dodge the occasional bit of furniture that might fly in my general direction.
theneedleblog 
The common denominator in all this is the insurance liability of the giant insurance companies, and their frantic attempts to avoid payouts to CSA survivors. Zurich have already warned their shareholders to expect a mega-hit next year on CSA claims. All state and privately owned companies/institutions and all professionals have to buy insurance to cover damage liability, so they can all be controlled from the top by the threat of higher premiums. The “smoke and mirrors” have been the deliberate attempt across their broad sphere of influence to muddle Jo Public with conflicting CSA stories to achieve the required result of mass disbelief – more research just reveals more confusion. But evidently Zurich at least, no longer believe the original plan is going to work.
I agree ‘gw’, best not to say too much about Dr Booth. Remind me, how did he make his millions?
Hi Sarah,
To clarify my statement – I meant I can’t really say too much on Pendry. As for Booth you probably know more than I do!
Thanks.
It’s all on his New Sparta website if you look hard enough and muse a while on Silver Linings and NHS phone apps for children. Why New Sparta I wonder? What was wrong with old Sparta?
I neither believe nor dis believe the stories, when i said it was all spin and lies i meant the cover story which you have now pointed came from Private eye.
The sides are not very clear cut and it appears a lot of smoke and mirrors from both sides. Nobody on any side is thinking things through either, allegations are either being vehemently denied or believed due to political positioning and a lack of reasoning is taking over normal rationalisation.
I also feel at the moment we are having the Leveson enquiry being merged into the pot. Certain newspapers never hacked anybody and feel very aggrieved by the outcome of the enquiry it appears one by one they are attacking anyone who went against the media. So are these attacks on Tom Watson really about Lord Brittan? He did the right thing putting it before parliament, he did the wrong thing by being emotive a man in his position should have known better. If Brittan was still alive and the CPS went ahead with the charges those comment would have had a negative impact on the outcome of the trial had it got to the point of trial.
I am a little confused with Leon Brittan situation has he been cleared of all accusations? or was it just the rape accusation made by the woman?.
I did read somewhere that the secret service had set him up because he wanted to investigate the Dickens dossier and he was always seen as an outsider due to his jewish heritage. This makes sense to me because some of those accused who are also now deseased were very powerful men. I also read somewhere else this was spin and lies. Cant remember where i read these two versions but i know they were not on the Coleman Experience a website that has done more damage than good.
Sorry if the post is a bit jumbled but i am now confused by the whole thing, hopefully the victims get justice whomever abused them and from what ever back grounds,
QUOTE: “I did read somewhere that the secret service had set him up because he wanted to investigate the Dickens dossier and he was always seen as an outsider due to his jewish heritage. ”
Hi Observer, Leon Brittan did not want to investigate the Dickens dossier. He also refused to ban PIE, and was considered overly tolerant of PIE and paedo’s in general, even at the time (1980s).
With regard to the claim about smearing him due to his Jewish heritage, I believe that came from Private Eye.
It has been suggested that the smear story was used by Private Eye as a clever and subtle way of getting the child abuse allegations into the public domain without risking a libel writ from Sir Leon. (He could hardly sue Private Eye for printing an article which said he had been smeared due to his Jewish heritage).
In any case, it seem highly unlikely that the security services were guilty of smearing him, or that they would even want to. There have been plenty of Jewish cabinet ministers, so it isn’t like Leon’s appointment was something rare.
And if the security services were trying to smear him, it seems odd that the allegations never actually made it into the public domain (apart from the seemingly sympathetic Private Eye article) until 2014.
Surely if they were trying to smear him, MI5/6 would have made sure that the allegations against Brittan were widely circulated in the early 1980s when he was Home Secretary to damage his career, instead of 30 years later, when he was long retired.
The smear story seems highly unlikely.
As disturbing as it is to contemplate, it is highly probable that Brittan was actually a paedophile.
This article, from the Guardian, is largely balanced (if perhaps a wee bit biased in favour of Leon Brittan and the establishment):
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/oct/13/tories-gunning-for-tom-watson-forget-ignored-sexual-abuse-muckraking
Interestingly, the author of the above article points out how certain newspapers (especially the Daily Mail) have schizophrenically see-sawed wildly between breathlessly reporting the allegations (a few months ago), to dismissing the allegations in the most strident tones (now).
Key paragraphs:
“But hang on. As recently as last November, the mighty Mail was enthusiastically running paedophile cover-up stories like this one by Guy Adams, a smart operator, in which Watson and fellow accusers are respectfully treated. The Mail has a track record of being quick to accuse, then to turn on false accusers as if the paper had never given their claims any coverage. ”
“After all, did not Bishop Peter Ball, convicted the other day of indecent assault years ago, have some powerful backers and protection by the church? Has Thatcher’s biographer, Moore, not forgotten her Savile knighthood against advice? No, he wrote about it. Are they not all making the same mistake they (and most of us) made years ago when we disbelieved all we were told?”
“I cannot vouch for this law firm or its motives, ulterior or otherwise, but it is clearly experienced in this field. What it says today is this: it isn’t over yet. Plenty of time for the Mail to change sides again.”
The article also points out that Tom Watson’s PMQs and public statements mostly used circumspect and careful language, and that in fact it was Jim Hood MP (and not Watson) who named Leon Brittan under parliamentary privilege.
“Journalists can be had over too. LOOK AT WHO OWNS EXARO! STICK TO THE FACTS.”
been saying it for ages
Can’t comment on Booth and I don’t want to say too much but I think you ( dpack) would probably get along with Pendry. I’ve been told he was a big fan of Lobster magazine and I think that is why he invested in Exaro. Cheers.
FACT: Only ONE allegation against Leon Brittan has been discounted by the evidence – he could not have been where the allegation said he was on the day in question because the evidence shows he was somewhere else. But if Leon Brittan’s loyal supporter’s were genuinely convinced of his innocence, why not wait confidently for the the outcome of the police investigations into the allegations of the other THREE survivors, before demanding an apology? Their efforts have made Leon Brittan AND now his supporters look far more guilty than he or they did before.
Journalists can be had over too. LOOK AT WHO OWNS EXARO! STICK TO THE FACTS.
Not one allegation. Three allegations.
“Jane”
“Darren”
“David”
Yes, but there’s now the problem of exonerating Leon’s reputation. It really is like reading a bad play, as the inevitable next Act after the Exaro and Panorama Programme debacle, is the backlash! The selected characters, the, is he/she telling the truth, hyped up over the last year or so, with various high profile people getting involved, social media, everyone, when the only people with the evidence and who can investigate are the Police.
The set up of using the allegations of a few alleged Survivors, who may be genuine, who may not be, whose allegations may, or may not be true, but might not be substantiated, only serves to undermine the confidence of those in the Public arena. How convenient for those that don’t want the other ongoing investigations going anywhere.
Constant calls now from the relatives, friends etc of Leon Brittan for a full apology from Tom Watson and now Zac Goldsmith, in other words to admit that all the allegations against Leon Brittan are false and investigations to now be closed down. Surely the Police have a job to finish, if Leon Brittan is innocent it will come out through the investigations and inquiry, why the panic to close the investigations down. Tom Watson will have to answer to Keith Vaz, he keeps appearing in connection to the Inquiry etc and for a lot of people, he has history, particularly regarding Mr J and Leicester. If Tom Watson and Zac Goldsmith capitulate, then this is all very suspicious indeed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273212/Goldsmith-told-quit-London-mayor-race-abuse-smears-Tory-candidate-refuses-withdraw-discredited-claims-linked-Brittan.html
just pretend to be dead it works for me.
i know what you mean sabre but that pdf has internal logic that seems valid and fits the situation ,as i see it ,quite well.
as a training manual it lays out the basic tactics for creating smoke and mirrors ,disrupting the forces one opposes and presenting the version of “reality” that promotes one’s objectives.
it isnt at odds with numerous examples of deception from history ranging from simple things like torches on the horns of cattle to fake an advance or creating a illusional army to invade calais in 1944 and more complex game play such as the bologna station bomb and aldo moro to create opposite factions and a population pleased to have a strong controlling state.
through to very complex situations of information war such as the one we seem to be in where creating a”vanguard” to rush onward with the intent that they are proved wrong and subsequently destroyed thereby avoiding (or masking) being attacked in a weak spot by the enemy who partly join that vanguard whilst encouraging the others among the enemy to distrust each other and the vanguard whether or not there is good reason to do so.
creating one’s opposition has always been a good way to “keep a lid on it” and if one can get the real opposition fighting itself tis even more effective.
pretty much what i would do in those situations
the best counter to such things is to apply a policy of gathering data,assuming nothing,following the evidence,applying cui bono and occam’s razor to data,actions and outcomes much like the basics of policing until one has an understanding of the situation then applying the exploitation of that intelligence to every directly or indirectly connected operation,keeping discipline and adapting the plan according to the field as in warfare and mostly being careful to trust the right folk and to to identify those who should not be trusted as in spookery and in the case of the untrustworthy attempting to apply the rules of war to destroy them or subvert their efforts in a way that suits one’s cause .
im glad im on my side and not my enemy’s.
Your last paragraph is spot on.
dpack, i’ve been quietly reading your posts for months now. I’m always impressed by your intelligent approach and analysis. Aside from some of the issues that might be raised about Snowden and his galavant across the world carrying such a huge bundle of top secret material and indeed, as you point out, the seeming internal logic of the powerpoint provided, why would these lovely folks in Gloucester get so deeply engaged in protecting child-sex addicts?
Perhaps there are indeed some in the family of our dear lizzie and perhaps the Gloucester chums have some big players by the short and curlies, perhaps through blackmail, performing nefarious deeds in the service of some odd nouveau-imperial agenda. But why get involved to any depth in protecting them?
One would imaging that such creeps would be the first to turn up, dosed up with painkillers, wrists slashed with rusty garden impements, halfway up a mountain somewhere, if they gave even the slightest bit of trouble.
Is there not a danger that we are lionising child-sex addicts when in fact our job is to diminish them? All sides in the factional debates about exaro etc. are playing this lionising role, perhaps inadvertently. I’ve tried to make this point a few ways in recent days. There may well be some child-sex addicts in positions in the ‘establishment’, which does seem to exist and which does seem to hold unaccountable and undemocratic power in some areas of our national life.
The fact that they are child-sex addicts means they have nothing beyond rudimentary intelligence. Have you ever had to deal with a person who has become a heroin addict? Such brutes may have some sway, perhaps hereditary loyalty and they may be very sly but they cannot outsmart a determined effort to unmask them. It seems that in Belgium and Holland this unmasking is going on too.
Please, lets work against the idea that there is an untouchable cabal of such people. For me, that’s almost David Icke territory. He says what he says because it feeds him. He’s very clever at creating montage. He is, in fact, a master bricoleur.
Child-sex addicts are the lowest of humanity. Please, let’s never lose sight of that fact.
It’s actually Cheltenham rather than Gloucester isnt it. I’m a northern lad, you’ll have to forgive my geographic imprecision.
firstly i do not feel i can expand on my comment regarding safeguarding and child care,the passage of time may allow such comment.
i would also hope that those involved in such things were of the highest standards but the examples of horrible chaps such as righton ,fraser ,mcgrath or allen shows me that has not always been the case.
re the protection of offenders by the spookier sides of the state a cover up of these issues or distractions from the truths of them and disruption of the process of exposing such things is not necessarily to protect the offender (although in some cases it probably is in order to maintain a veneer of the “great” being good)it may well be to protect a system that has exploited their vulnerability to coercion for at least a century especially as that coercion which can also be exposed has led to things that the public might find both difficult to believe and when demonstrated beyond reasonable dought so unacceptable that they get very angry.
regarding coercion when being gay was a crime and for the most part unacceptable to the public knowledge of that could be enough of a stick to control a person or exploit them for gain ,once both social attitudes and then the law changed a new and very ugly stick was required.before those changes there was sometimes a crossover of sticks between being blackmailed for being gay and blackmailed for being a csa offender but by the 1960’s the latter was the bigger stick by a considerable amount and imho has been used on an industrial scale in a variety of settings.
Ian, you will see many interpretations of the distribution of wealth. A commonly cited one at the moment is that the top 1% own 50% of the wealth, I mention this as an illustration only there are other interpretations. A lot, by no means all, of the wealth is based in the ‘Western liberal democracies’, imagine the top 1% having 1% of the political influence, it wouldn’t work would it. The wealthiest interests have but one vote each, they often don’t even have 1 vote being corporate entities or foreign nationals. Those that are (nominally) in power need to be controlled, bribery corruption, future directorships generally work sometimes it’s good to really have them by the nuts. There is always the possibility that PMs and cabinet ministers may shake off financial rewards rather than fight illegal wars with no vital British interest, there are however some levers of control that can’t be overcome the issues at hand being a case in point.
The whole thing is a game it is literally being gamed at the level it is likely to affect most. The inevitable internecine conflicts that are and will continue to be waged are not merely a consequence of the game strategies but an integral part thereof. This issue is so toxic and the probability of keeping everything secret so small the only defence is to hide the secrets in plain sight amongst half truths, lies and exaggerations. The participants in the debate will include overtly antagonistic groups with differing agenda as well as covert infiltrators with hidden agenda. The stupid and idiotic are of course welcome insofar as a nice touch of surrealism goes a long way in the game. Friends and allies will turn on each other while the sweet embrace of latent enemies will be welcomed. You really can’t expect those with huge stakes in the game to fold while holding a royal flush in favour of those of us with the arse hanging out of our trousers are holding a pair of 3’s.
spot on.
however if we are playing baccarat and they have a royal flush to our pair of threes we stand a good chance of winning as they are busted as they were foolishly hoping for an ace and we only require one or two more cards.
yet again i thank mr snowden for a rule book to the game
Click to access the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf
I like the pdf, the only trouble is my paranoia has reached such a level I don’t know whether or not to believe it. I guess the game works ;-)
You are right, it is like participating in a very surreal Chess game, what position is everybody really coming from and who do you trust? You would hope that such an emotive issue, would bring out the very best in most people, especially some of those who are in a position to make those changes possible. But you are left wondering, who is really genuine, could it all be an elaborate game, agreed upon across party political ideologies, to keep the lid firmly on, after all they all have a lot to keep hidden. I still hope that Tom Watson is coming from the right place, a lot of people thought Exaro were coming from the right place at first, perhaps it was easy to fall into the trap that’s been set up, or maybe not. It is precisely because the issue is so emotive that the genuine are drawn in, by the assumption that all is as it seems and that perhaps they can make some positive input. But as you say,even the allies are being set up against each other and are fighting, so divide and conquer once again. Perhaps participating in the discourse isn’t really helping, if it’s being used in a negative way. I just hope some of the genuine people, like Peter Mckelvie and Liz Davies are able, through the Inquiry, to help the Survivors who have been so badly treated throughout all of this.
The vast majority are apathetic. Work, family, mortgage, bills, personal interests, an untrusted media and a yet more untrusted political establishment leave most behind as occasional spectators. Those that are interested, excluding the malevolent, are undoubtedly full of good intentions and acting in good faith. The problem arises from the fact that we can all swim but we can’t control the tide. You have to learn the game and invest in a decent boat. The answer isn’t to withdraw as that is one of the major objectives of those currently controlling the game.
Ps when you’ve learned the game cheat like f**k. It’s not our game.
Yes, well that depends whether the game hasn’t f****d with one’s head first!
QUOTE: “Friends and allies will turn on each other while the sweet embrace of latent enemies will be welcomed. You really can’t expect those with huge stakes in the game to fold while holding a royal flush in favour of those of us with the arse hanging out of our trousers are holding a pair of 3’s.”
Good post, Sabre.
The infighting among survivors/victims and their advocates is very frustrating and disheartening to watch.
Back in August, it seemed that we were SO CLOSE to getting to the truth, exposing VIP abusers, and seeing justice done.
Ever since Harvey Proctor’s press conference, the establishment has been fighting back relentlessly, and winning.
Two million people watched the Panorama documentary, which was extremely biased in favor of the alleged abusers like Leon Brittan.
Most of those viewers are probably now skeptical of the allegations of VIP abuse.
And meanwhile, instead of remaining focused on keeping the pressure on the government and the authorities to prevent them from covering up the abuse, we have turned on each other with supporters of Exaro attacking opponents of Exaro, supporters of Darren attacking opponents, etc.
I have no connect to Exaro, but I believe that there is nothing to be gained by attacking a news website that is at least trying to stand up for victims and draw the public’s attention to the issue of VIP child abuse. Exaro’s methods might be flawed, and they might be seeking attention, but they appear to be on the side of the victims, so there is nothing to be gained by attacking them.
If Exaro need/deserve to be discredited, I am sure that the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and the BBC are perfectly capable of doing that without the help of victim’s advocacy blogs.
The people who want to discredit the allegations of VIP abuse must be laughing at us.
Instead of criticising each other, we should remain focused on keeping the pressure on the government, authorities, police and media to address the concerns of the victims, so the child abuse cannot be covered up, ignored or forgotten.
That is how we were successful in getting the Goddard Inquiry launched and Operation Midland started.
We need to keep the pressure up on the government, police and media.
The Panorama program and the torrent of criticism of Tom Watson/Jane/Nick/etc provides the establishment the perfect opportunity to treat the VIP abuse allegations as “fantasy” and ignore them.
We need to keep the pressure on, to prevent that from happening.
Perhaps we should learn a few lessons. 1. Instead of an over reliance on victims who were frightened traumatised children decades ago and the evidential problems that accompany such a situation we should try to get ex cops, social workers, local government workers and officials perhaps some local and provincial journalists to provide evidence of obstruction collusion and cover up. 2. The msm are regarded as a major part of the problems faced today and yet they are still the information gatekeepers setting the agenda, by endlessly recycling their output we are lending it the credibility it has been losing by giving it an alternative media label.
Good post.
Well this might shed a bit more light
“Tom Watson will be questioned by a parliamentary committee over his intervention in the police investigation into Leon Brittan.
Labour’s deputy leader has been asked to appear before the home affairs select committee, which has a Conservative majority, to answer questions about newspaper articles he wrote concerning Lord Brittan of Spennithorne and attempts to influence inquiries by the director of public prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police.
Mr Watson is understood to have accepted an invitation from Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the committee, to attend next Wednesday, although the time has yet to be fixed. The committee has also called Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, to provide an update on the investigation into allegations against the former home secretary.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4585219.ece
Perhaps at least one member of this committee might ask the portly campaigning hero why it is that he has never apparently made any public comment about Rotherham model CSE in the West Midlands
“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.
The force produced the report in 2012, with a sanitised version given to safeguarding boards in the region. Neither the original report nor the sanitised version were placed in the public domain.
A report to SSCB last year referred to the sanitised police version and disclosed for the first time that Asian gangs are preying on young white girls in West Midlands communities through on-street grooming – the term used to describe children in the UK being targeted by men for sexual abuse.”
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-report-reveals-7948902
Click to access SSCB%20Policy%20Development%20Protocol%20-%20June%202015%20v3.pdf
may i humbly refer you to appendix one ,without the comments i want to add for very good legal reasons.
One would hope that a company such as that mentioned in appendix one would have the absolute highest standards in all aspects of their work with children and indeed there seem to be a number of associated companies involved in childcare and fostering. It’s odd to see how these profitable childcare enterprises have sprung up, presumably out of the ashes of local government provision. Your post prompted me to look up the directors, of whom there are two. I am sure they are of the highest calibre for the work they undertake.
In contrast, in my area, which is South Hertfordshire, there is an ongoing case against four directors of a childcare enterprise. Ben Lewis, a director of the company LLCamps, a children’s summer camp focused on provision to the local Jewish community, which was based in Bushey, has been remanded to the Crown Court on a charge of possessing indecent images of children. His fellow directors are charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice. All the defendants are locally well known middle-class entrepreneurs.
As well as the LLCamps project, they have been running several local nurseries. They were close to setting up a primary free school. I looked pretty closely into this at the time this first broke a few months back. It seemed odd to me that young people who clearly had a taste for fast cars and expensive holidays, judging by their now-erased Facebook pages, would turn to education and childcare to make their big bucks.Two of the defendants are actually parents of the other two.
One would hope that in all cases like this the most scrupulous attention would be paid by the authorities to issues of child protection, but in this case a few wrong-uns seem to have slipped through, with the potential of something far more serious had Ben Lewis not been caught. The LLcamps Facebook page, before it was taken down, revealed the anguish of many parents who don’t yet know exactly what has happened and whether their children have been involved. The trial begins at St. Albans on Oct 25th.
I’d prefer to trust the judgement of Tom Watson rather than that of Keith Vaz and his friends.
No not shameful. Actually quite understandable, given Watts’ wholly unjustified attacks on anyone that adopts a different point of view than his own.
Just curious AB did you see Watts attavks on Gojam. What were they. What did he say, and how long did he keep it up for?
Hi Tricia. If you want me to give dates and quotes, I’m afraid I can’t. So if I overstate the case, I will accept my error. But I do remember Watts on Twitter referring to authors of blogs that question or critique his stories as ‘tools of the state’. I’ve also seen many of Watts’ supporters on Twitter directly attacking Gojam for exressing views contrary to Exaro’s. Whether Watts retweeted these I forget, but I certainly got the impression he was encouraging such attacks.
So in regard to respecting others’ points of view and engaging in respectful debate in an honest search of truth etc.etc. I give Watts a 2 out of 10, and Gojam a 9. Though in regard to empathising with others’ poor behaviour and not joining in with unhelpful conflict, neither score very highly.
Hi Andy,
I have been following this for a long time, and until Gojam said what his issue with Watts was I did not know. Possible Watts atttacked Gojam, And I. did not see it,but if so it was certainly nott relentless..
Your initial reply states that watts attacks were irelent.ess on Gojam. Your follow up reply shows that you do not know that to be true,and might just be others on twitter.
As I have said alll along this is a murky business with lots of smoke and mirrors. I think you should keep that in mind
Erm, I did not say they were relentless. I said they were wholly unjustified, nothing more.
I don’t like to see attacks on anyone, Tricia, especially not those that are campaigning for justice for survivors. Such attacks serve little purpose other than to hurt and turn away people that might otherwise be our allies. Disagreement is not attack however. We have to be able to disagree with each other; noone has a monopoly on the truth or on the right way to go about things (me included).
As to “murky business”, I dare say there is lots of it about, which is why we should always keep an open mind and trust noone – bloggers and journalists included. Of course we will make judgements about the reliability of individual reports and of individual reporters. We might even decide that someone is our enemy, just because they cast doubt on our own judgements or question our motivation. But our judgements may be wrong and our fears may be misplaced. We need to be open to changing our views, without it feeling like a defeat. Otherwise we can find ourselves backed into a corner, fighting people that should be our friends and handing victories to the real enemy.
I think you remind me of a man who wakes up a Radical, by morning tea break, he is a Marxist, by lunch time he is a Socialist, or Green by afternoon tea he is a Liberal Democrat, by evening meal, he is New Labour, by supper time he is a Conservative, and he goes to bed reading “The Road to Serfdom”.
When he wakes up the phone never rings, no-one ever calls all his political friends of various colours thinks he is an empty vessel, So he heads off to see his fellow lecturers and their subject of the day Is the “meaning of nothing”,
LOL. I think his name was always the clue:-)
CPS informed police of Watson’s letter a week after Brittan was questioned, CPS sez:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/tom-watson-letter-did-not-lead-to-leon-brittan-being-interviewed-says-cps
Well Gojam, it seems with everything coming out today about Watson and Setlle – see @mysweetlanlord TL for example, you have posted multiple stories on Jane and how the Met were pressured that are not the truth.
It also seems that Setlle friends with the Guy at the Mail. and onviously his anonymous source . All I know is thank God for people like Landlord – who doesn’t just repost msm stories and states he thinks their conclusions are correct.
QUOTE: “All I know is thank God for people like Landlord – who doesn’t just repost msm stories and states he thinks their conclusions are correct.”
Hi tricia, who is Landlord?
Academics have long recognised the potential for conflict between those that adopt differing positions, along with the detrimental effect this can have on the quality of debate. They introduced what is called the Principle of Charity, which simply put requires a person not to question another’s intelligence or motivations when countering their points of view. It encourages you to look kindly at another person’s arguments (at least initially), presuming them to be rational and honestly-held, to the extent that any intelligent person with the same information and beliefs might come to the same conclusions. Only then, when you have understood the other’s position in the strongest possible light, are you qualified to challenge it.
When properly applied, the Principle of Charity allows a group of well-meaning individuals to have the sort of conversations that further the search for truth, by avoiding misunderstandings and enabling consensus to emerge. It also allows for different viewpoints to be held, without the insults and name-calling that results in conflict (aka side-taking).
Key elements of this principle are the recognition of other people’s right to hold and express different points of view than ones own, together with the courtesy and empathy that should be shown towards them. IT MEANS BEING NICE TO PEOPLE – including those who are not nice to you. And it means being understanding when stress and anxiety causes someone to behave in a less-than-charitable way.
As difficult as it may seem, it sometimes is right to ‘love your enemy’ – Mark Watts included.
AB, totally agree. Gojam’s relentless attack on Exaro and Watts is shameful. No problem with him making his point of biew known, but to keep at it over and over again is spiteful.
Well lets see if he starts attacking msm who have gone overboard to muddy the waters and distort facts. Of course, he would then have to revisit his opinion on Settle.
No not shameful. Actually quite understandable, given Watts’ wholly unjustified attacks on anyone that adopts a different point of view than his own.
Having said that, I’ve no reason to doubt that Watts honestly believes everything he writes and cares deeply about the injustice perpetrated against victims of CSA. I’m therefore very uncomfortable about attacks on him on this blog, however understandable they may be.
Most journalists are about as trustworthy as most politicians.
@Lee, it had to happen one day, I actually agree with you for once.
Trish can I ask why you bother reading this blog in the first place? It seems to continually put your hackles up.
The tweets you mentioned regarding Settle and this blog post are not mutually exclusive positions! Far from it.
loving ones enemy can be interpreted as delivering a swift and kind death but putting that aside andy has made some good points about debate.
however in academic debate it is reasonable to assume all parties are motivated towards truth ,even if they differ in opinion and data sets,unless it is apparent that their funding depends on a faction with a strong interest in the suppression of truth ,the tobacco industry springs to mind(our product isn’t harmful) or the promotion of untruth ,big pharmaceuticals spring to mind(our product is safe and/or effective).
there are also examples where academics have presented data that supports their position but is found to be selective,incorrect,falsified by them or taken in good faith from others who have falsified data,unrepeatable when others try the experiment or even found to have been interpreted using the logic that cats have legs/tables have legs therefore this horse is a cattable etc etc etc .
if any of the above apply to a situation it is reasonable to examine both the methods and motives of the party presenting and interpreting the data.
with regard to mr watts i have no idea about his motives but some of the above issues do seem to apply to output of exaro and to the backers and board of his employers ,exaro, which he is employed to head in everyday matters.
exaro’s methods,data and interpretations of that data that they have presented over the last couple of years are either deeply flawed or not.
if one considers any part of them flawed it is reasonable to examine how and why those flaws may have come about.
that can very reasonably include looking at the backgrounds of those who formed and fund the organization such as mr pendry and dr booth as well as examining the data and methods used by their employees to present their case.
to always assume good faith is not always the position most likely to establish truth.
im sorry that is a bit rambling and might be unpalatable to some but it seems the best option in the pursuit of truth.
Potentially the problem that a lot of people of good intentions now have, is that they are faced with the possibility that they have been duped, but find it hard to admit to themselves, that is really happening. That is a hard thing to swallow when someone has invested a lot of time and energy in something that appeared like the truth, anyone’s ego could take a jolt, some might bail or maintain an even more entrenched position in their camp refusing to accept what is really going on.
Isn’t that exactly the covert warfare strategy, that the Snowden document you gave a link to discusses, the psychological effect of using the internet etc and pretending to be your enemy, talking the same language, pretending you have the same ideologies, when actually they are trying to manipulate their enemy in to submission.