cui bono?

yesterday's story about the trial of former MP Margaret Moran can be read here.  She did fiddle expenses, in a calculated and fraudulent manner.  Others have gone to prison, but she will not, as it appears she has had a mental and emotional collapse, and was absent because unfit to stand trial.  It is possible she will be discharged.  Whatever her state of health, it seems to me that if she is to be found guilty she should have a criminal conviction as the others did.  Otherwise justice is not served.  It will of course never be known how many MPs engaged in fraud over their expenses.  It can easily be discovered, and mostly has been since parts of the media got their claws into it, what irregularities took place - although when what was done was within the rules it seems wrong to punish people retrospectively.  I am referring to actual fraud here though.  Falsificaation of documents for financial gain at the taxpayers' expense.  All those who have stood trial and gone to prison have done so as a result of complaints to the police, nearly always made by former members of their staff or associates, within their own party.  As you might expect.  this is true of Margaret Moran too.  It follows that there must be quite a number of others.  Mr Salter, who was one of the few who committed fraud by claiming GBP 1000 a month for four years, from 1997 to 2001, for a London property he did not have, has had no complaint made, and so has not been prosecuted.  I suppose I should have made the complaint myself.  I may still do so.  What do readers think? To commit fraud in this way you need to represent a constituency which is reachable on a daily commuting basis.  Of that ring of constituencies around London, the MPs I knew all, with the exception of Mr Salter and Michael Trend, the then MP for Windsor, had places in London.  Mr Trend was found out - a disgruntled former member of his staff had him followed and saw that he drove back to Windsor every evening - and he had to stand down from parliament.  No need to have Mr Salter followed, he boasted that he went back to Reading every night, but I saw him fill in the claim forms for a thousand a month.  It was the Michael Trend affair which obliged MPs from 2001 on to provide their mortgage documents or rent agreement before claims for London property could be reimbursed.

Here in France things are rather different.  MPs do not have much scrutiny of their expenses.  They also do not have the media snapping at their heels every five minutes.

It's a sad business.  I'm sorry for those who went to prison, and I'm sorry for Margaret Moran.  They are all paying the price for what they have done, as they must.  I hope they all, including Margaret, come out the other side of this.  Paying  your debt to society means just that - once you have had your punishment the debt is settled and you are clean.

a questionable assessment

A certain John Howarth (prop. Public Impact Ltd, remember "Your Better Off With Labour"?) has published, inter alia, what is below, on the subject of the role of his MP, and the man he worked so hard to elect, Rob Wilson (Con, Reading E).  Leaving aside the tiresome grammatical and punctuation errors we have come to expect from Mr Howarth, there are some stunning logical lacunae here, which I leave readers to spot for themselves, knowing that readers of this blog are a fairly clever bunch.  I just wonder aloud here if Mr Howarth has in fact asked his MP these questions, as he is entitled to do, and also whether Mr Howarth has any idea what a Parliamentary Private Secretary actually does, and what that person's role is.  I answer the second question by noting that Mr H's protege and stooge, Martin Salter, made a spectacular balls-up of that role when he briefly had it, and was sacked after five weeks in the job.

One individual who cannot escape serious questioning on this is Mr Hunt’s PPS, the Reading East MP, Rob Wilson, who happens also to be my MP. I should say I bear Mr Wilson and his family no personal malice, I just usually think he’s profoundly, politically mistaken, prone to vacuous exercises in ‘spin’ and has real questions to answer, namely: did he advise Mr Hunt or was he in fact consulted by the Secretary of State on this matter? If so what scientific evidence was he personally made aware of by Civil Servants and did he express a view to the Secretary of State? Was the whole thing his idea or did the Secretary of State come to him with the notion? Does he, or did he ever agree with his Secretary of State, given what he now knows of the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? Parliament and Mr Wilson’s constituents have the right to ask these questions.

Mr Wilson’s role is a kind of advisor and assistant to Mr Hunt – a role he also held while Mr Hunt was Secretary of State for Culture and Sport, or to some in the media and opposition benches ‘Minister for Murdoch’, so it isn’t as if they have only just met in the month since the re-shuffle. In fact Rob Wilson reportedly rejected a move to the whip’s office to remain Mr Hunt’s Aide de Camp (Reading Chronicle, 5 September 2012). If his advice was not sought either on the substance or the tactics of the announcement how can he remain in his junior role with any degree of self-respect? And if his position is no longer tenable without sacrificing any personal credibility, how can he justify to himself supporting a Secretary of State who has so blatantly neglected his duty to seek and give due weight to appropriate scientific advice.

something missing here, surely

the full list of charges following Operation Weeting on phone hacking is handily produced for us by Guido.  But something is missing.  The individuals or groups of individuals whose phones were allegedly hacked are listed, but Mr Salter's name is not there!  And he identified himself as a target just a few short weeks ago, as we read in the Reading Chronicle (so it must be true)!  What can have gone wrong?  There must be a separate operation going on just in respect of the hacking of Salter's phone, don't you think?  Which will report in due course and will result in serious criminal charges.  Bound to happen.  Do I detect a note of scepticism in your resonse, dear reader?  Careful now.  Because if you are right, and there is no police operation going on in respect of the alleged hacking of Salter's phone, then Salter was either lying or deluded when he said he had been a target of News International, and that of course cannot be the case.  Can it?  And the Chronicle published a story which was a lie, and if they did not know then that it was a lie they do now.  So they'll publish a retraction, won't they?  Won't they? *sound of tumbleweed*

Leveson and Watson

Last month I wrote to Tom Watson MP, following the publication of a "story" in the Reading Chronicle which made me aware that he had submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry which referred to me by name, and which was untrue.  I sent the letter by registered mail.  I have not received a reply.  The text is below:

Tom Watson MP
House of Commons
London W1A 0AA

Dear Tom Watson

Leveson Inquiry

I refer to the evidence uploaded to the Leveson Inquiry website on 22 May 2012, and specifically to the part of that evidence submitted to you by Martin Salter and which referred to me by name (see below).

"After a turbulent relationship with her local party my neighbouring MP Jane Griffiths was eventually deselected on 22nd February 2004.  The following Sunday she gave an angry interview to the Mail on Sunday and tried to smear me and others in a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations.  My solicitors Bindmans managed to have my name removed..."

I have written to the Inquiry (copy enclosed) formally requesting that this part of that evidence be removed from the transcript of the Inquiry, for the reasons that it is both untrue in its reference to myself and irrelevant to the Inquiry. Its irrelevance is in fact confirmed by its author, Martin Salter, in a comment he submitted to a story about the giving of that evidence published in the Reading Chronicle (copy enclosed). In fact it was on having my attention drawn to the Reading Chronicle story that I first became aware of the existence of this evidence submitted to the Inquiry by yourself.

I am formally requesting you to remove the part of the materials submitted to you by Martin Salter which refer to me from your evidence to the Inquiry. I hope you will agree to do this, so that I need not consider any further action.

At no time was I approached by any of the parties or informed that my name was going to be submitted in evidence to the Inquiry. This appears to me to be at the very least discourteous, if not actually in bad faith, the more so as we are former colleagues in the House, but the usual courtesies should surely apply to everyone if they are to be meaningful.

Finally, the Reading Chronicle story quotes Martin Salter as saying that you had approached former MPs for evidence of phone hacking or any other criminal or wrongful behaviour on the part of News International employees. I was not so approached, nor were a number of other former MPs with whom I am in touch. I should be grateful for the names of those you approached, as I think we could have a useful conversation on certain matters. If the names are not to be supplied, an indication of how many former MPs you approached would also be helpful.

I can be contacted as above, and look forward to hearing from you.

Jane Griffiths

At the time of writing this post that evidence submitted by Tom Watson MP has not been withdrawn, and I have received no communication from him.  I have now made my own submission to the inquiry, which had not originally been my intention.  It is factual. 

I now have to consider my position and any future action.

the Labour parliamentary candidate for Reading East

is going to be a GIRL, says my little poll, which closed some days ago.  by a wide margin.  Tony Jones and Martin Salter nowhere, Tony Page worse than nowhere. The corrupt little clique at the heart of the party will not hear of a GIRL of course.  But every party member has a vote, last time I looked,  and I also hear that there are some people with sense, of a younger generation, active in the party, hence the victory in Caversham.  If true, good news.  So - which GIRL?  The boys already have their candidate, Rachel Eden in Reading West.  Can they lock someone in Singleton-White's attic this time?  Can they run a puppet in both constituencies?  You tell me.

a girl in Reading East?

my little poll has shown some remarkable developments in the last day or two.  From looking like a two-horse race between Martin Salter and Tony Jones, just as Salter pulled ahead the GIRL tendency surged into the lead, from nowhere,  VERY interesting.  Have there been unforeseen changes in Reading Labour?  I think we should be told.  Last time a GIRL was selected from a non-all-female shortlist - well, we know what happened.  The seat was won from the Tories and held at the next election with an increased majority.  Never again, they said.  We're not having THAT.  Have they come to their senses now, hein?

Reading East Labour: the campaign hots up

Mr Salter was all over Radio 4 yesterday and the day before, being described as Speaker Bercow's campaign manager, and generally touting himself as the political operator you cannot afford to be without.  The Reading boys supported Rob Wilson to win Reading East for the Tories in 2005.  In 2010 they ignored him (as they ignored their Labour candidate of the time, who was locked in Stuart Singleton-White's attic).  In 2015 they will be dying to trash him.  That is why Salter is all over it.  He is informing them that only he can beat the Tory in Reading East.  Seems a pity not to let Tony Jones have a chance at a parliamentary seat, rather late in life, admittedly, but why not?  I do not think they can win it from Wilson anyway.  And what about the younger fellows?

Reading East Labour

my little poll (right) is showing a stand-off between Tony Jones and Martin Salter for Labour candidate for Reading East.  I am a little surprised that Mr Salter is in the running, you'd think he wouldn't want to go back, although I suppose having pretended to represent Reading East for so long he would like actually to do so.  I reckon Tony Jones thought it was his for the taking.  But both of them are, how to put this, past their first youth.  Nothing wrong with starting a new job in your 60s, I intend to do precisely that when I retire from the one I am currently doing - but younger people may well be interested in the role as a career move.  My personal view is that Mr Salter will not go for it, because he knows that Rob Wilson may be expected to hold the seat, however unpopular the coalition is.  But we'll see.

imprisoned for information

Hossein Roneghi Maleki

this man is serving a 16-year prison sentence for creating proxies to help those opposed to the regime in Iran have access to information on the internet.  As Harry's Place reminds us, the "green" protests died down rather after his arrest, because the opposition was fuelled by information and contact with the outside world.  Those outside Iran who have contact with Iran, who go there, who take its money (George Galloway) are better placed than most to call for the release of this man.  Anyone?  Anyone? (sound of tumbleweed).
When will the illiberal-minded, in the West as well as in totalitarian regimes like that in Iran, learn that you can't shut down knowledge, or information.  Even in the darkest days of Soviet terror, even in the gulags, well before there was the internet, there were clandestine leaflets and newsletters.  There may even be such things in North Korea today.  In Cuba people find ways to speak, and to read, and to be heard (step forward, Yoani Sanchez).  The mullahs can lock up one man, but they can't stop it.  Their days are numbered.

There have been disgracefully illiberal attempts in the West too, to close down the internet.  Laughable, I know,but such eminent figures as Jack Straw (whom I admire) have lent their name to such things, including the Dangerous Pictures act (remember that?), promoted by Martin Salter, which criminalises the depiction on line of acts which would be perfectly legal if actually depicted on film in a cinema.  Because we must Shut Down Teh Internetz.  It's easy to be flippant about such things when you live in a country where there is, more or less, free speech and freedom of information.  Nobody is going to put me in prison and threaten my family, whatever I say.

a national exception - it's DEFINITELY different for girls

The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party has met, and my man on that Committee notes the following, especially that the Organising Committee has met to decide on parliamentary selections - it needs to where there is a proposal that the normal rule should not be followed.  The national rule is that where the last Labour MP was a woman the shortlist should be all women.  This was followed in Reading East in 2010, and the latest decision is to depart from that in several constituencies, including Crewe and Nantwich (the late Gwyneth Dunwoody, anybody?), and - you're ahead of me - Reading East.  My fly on the wall at the NEC, nice chap that he is, must buy him a drink next time we meet, comments in this way:

I thought you would be interested to note that Reading East is selecting from an open shortlist. This goes completely against the Labour Party's national policy - re-affirmed only recently, that where the last Labour MP was a woman, the new parliamentary  candidate should  always be selected form an All Woman shortlist.


Well, yes.  Now, who lobbied them?  And why?


Stampede of interested chaps?

it's different for girls

Readers will remember that I posted some days ago about some nonsense in the Reading Chronicle, dictated to them by Martin Salter.  The headline of their story, that Salter had given evidence to the Leveson inquiry, was a plain lie.  And they knew it was.  But the Chronicle's willingness to publish lies knowing them to be lies is well known in Reading and further afield. However, they took the opportunity to have dictated to them some untruths about yours truly, which Tom Watson MP has chosen to submit to the Leveson inquiry, although they are totally irrelevant to it.  I am taking action in respect of Tom Watson MP and of the Leveson inquiry people separately, as you might expect me to.  In respect of the Chronicle I asked for withdrawal of the untruths in the story and for a reply, to be given equal prominence with the piece of dictation they had previously taken from Martin Salter.  They have refused, and have told me I may write a letter for publication, which must be significantly shorter than the original piece and which will be subject to their editorial control.  I'm not doing that.  I've posted my response as a comment on the on-line version of the story, but if you read the Chronicle only on paper you will see nothing.  You might wonder how many other untruths go uncorrected in that organ.

it gets better - Mr Salter engages in dialogue!

he has commented on the Chronicle story referred to - like this:

Just for the record. My solicitors were contacted by officers from Operation Weeting earlier this month regarding some phone records that had just come to light and which are currently the subject of investigation. Ms Griffiths is of no relevance to the attempt to bribe a police officer in 2000 in the wake of my spat with the NoW over their Sarah's Law campaign and only of passing relevance to impersonation incident in 2004 which was a follow up by the NoW to her Mail on Sunday deselection allegations.

Along with other former MPs I agreed to provide Tom Watson with examples of illegal behaviour by News International to assist his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. I remain convinced, as I said in my statement, that there was a culture of criminality in parts of News International which had a corrupting effect on our public life. I await the outcome of the three police enquiries and Leveson with considerable interest.

Martin Salter 


I'll refrain from fisking for a little while, would be interested in what readers think.  It is not his usual prose style, especially the missing article in line 4, would simply point out that if he was seeking to provide Tom Watson MP with examples of illegal behaviour he has not done so.  It was not illegal to go to his house and try to speak to him.  Oh and Mr S - why did you not sue?  Especially over the fraudulent housing allowance claims 1997-2001?  Hein?

my response to the lies

The Reading Chronicle published this yesterday, so here is my response to it.  I have also put it in the comments box on the story, and they have said they will publish a shortened version in the dead-tree remix.

I read with interest your copy of a press release from a Mr Martin Salter titled "Ex-Reading MP tells Leveson he was a News of the World target". Apparently Mr Salter is upset that the now defunct News of the World ran an "unpleasant" story about him refusing to back its Sarah's Law campaign in 2000. Poor love. Journalists not always being nice about people in public life? That must have come as a terrible shock to the notoriously publicity-shy and reclusive MP. Understandably still traumatised 12 years later by the dreadful discovery that there are parts of the print media which are sometimes unwilling to copy out his press releases, Mr Salter has attempted to heal those wounds by providing his tale of woe as evidence for Tom Watson MP to present to the Leveson inquiry. What Tom Watson was thinking when he agreed to accept this stuff is another matter. But I have read Tom Watson's ghostwritten book "Dial M for Murdoch", which is not only crammed with inaccuracies but reveals that Tom Watson at one stage believed himself to be mentally ill. We're with you on that, Tommy-boy! Mr Salter takes up the story. The News of the World went to his home! Shock! Horror! They had a photographer! Anguish! Terror! He was indeed terrified. He had to stay away from home for the Whole Day! In case the Nasty Men came back! I am reliably informed that he spent the day in Reading West, where he knew the press would never find him. They were searching for him, of course, in Reading East. A cunning stunt, I'm sure you will agree.

Anyway, the reason I have taken up my pen is that Mr Salter's press release contained the following:

"In 2004, former Reading East MP Jane Griffiths, (punctuation errors either Mr Salter's or the Reading Chronicle's) attempted to "smear" him with "a series of wholly false and ridiculous allegations" in an "angry interview" with the Mail on Sunday after she was deselected by her local Labour party." First, matters of fact. No smear. A smear is an allegation, usually untrue, but anyway intended to make the person it is about look in some way bad or as though they have done something they have not done. Everything I said in relation to Mr Salter was factual. Not only this, but he said so himself at the time, telling MPs and anyone who would listen that he had "coughed to the dope". (No, me neither. I think it's a secret language they speak in Staines.) "Ridiculous" my words may have made Mr Salter seem, but "false" they were not. If they had been, why did he not sue me? He brags about his litigiousness often enough. Also, I was not "angry" during the interview. The journalist and I had a good laugh together. I've let the journalist know about this nonsense, and I have of course contacted both Tom Watson MP and the Leveson inquiry team. Second, why was this nonsense given in evidence to the Leveson inquiry? There is no connection with phone hacking. Except in Mr Salter's dreams. He tells us that on the day in question the Horrid Newspaper Man made 20 calls to him, which he ignored. He also tells us that to this day, eight years on, he is still "trying to figure out" if there had been "an attempt to illegally access his voicemail messages". No evidence for it, Martin. Sorry mate, you're just not interesting enough.

I am grateful to the delightful Sally Stevens of Berkshire Media for allowing me the opportunity to reply to the nonsensical falsehoods peddled by Mr Salter in the pages of the Reading Chronicle. It does the heart good to know that not all newspapers allow lies and smears to go unchallenged

Salter and the Leveson Inquiry

Ain't  Google Alerts wunnerful?

If it wasn't for them I would not have discovered this evening that the Reading Chronicle has published on its website a report of evidence given to a certain inquiry by one M. Salter, which refers to remarks made to media outlets by yours truly some years ago and describes these remarks as lies.  I refer to a story which can be found here

It contains serious inaccuracies, in particular in that it states that comments I made to the media some years ago (Mail on Sunday, story by Jonathan Oliver in 2004) were untrue, when in fact not only are they factual, but Martin Salter acknowledged them to be so, stating that to a large number of people in the House of Commons at the time, including to at least one shadow minister, in, inter alia, the following terms "I coughed to the dope, but not to the grope".

I have asked the Chronicle why, in publishing this piece, they did not contact me for comments, as I was named therein.  I contacted their news desk and of course their editor in chief Sally Stephens (kisses, Sals), I hope they respond.  I also sent a message like this to the Reading Evening Post (Andy Murrill and Hilary Scott)

I said this to the Chronicle: I would also request that you do not publish this piece in the paper version of your publication, or indeed in any other version.  I hereby offer you the opportunity to withdraw from publication of any inaccuracies.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Jane Griffiths

Well, we'll wait and see, won't we?

targeted? how exactly?

the Leveson inquiry goes on, and Tom Watson MP has been giving evidence to it.  According to this report, Watson referred to the "targeting" of then MP Martin Salter for opposing "Sarah's Law" as an example of the power wielded by the Murdoch empire.  He's got that one way wrong.  First of all, Salter was not actually targeted at all.  He was pictured in the News of the World, with about eight other MPs, all of the pictures seriously unflattering, because all had responded to the paper's call on MPs to support "Sarah's Law" with vocal opposition.  (Me, I threw that letter in the bin and ignored it all).  That was the extent of the "targeting" that took place.  Anything else was in Mr Salter's press releases,  Even His Master's Voice frames their copy of his press release as a question, perhaps because even they balked at the reproduction in his press release of the completely false story that a paediatrician was burned out of their home because of the activities of News of the World journalists.  Didn't stop them copying it out though.  Allegedly, Devon and Cornwall police at one stage had evidence that an investigator was looking at Mr Salter's activities.  Well, if one was he didn't work very hard at it, or he would have found the fraudulent housing allowance claims from 1997 to 2001 (when disclosure rules came in) - about 48K trousered for a non-existent London flat.  I posted about the allegations last year here.  Now Mr Watson, I have read your book 'Dial M for Murdoch' (great title, shame about the numerous inaccuracies) and you ought to be a bit more careful.  I don't know if Leveson questioned you about the "targeting" but he ought to have done.  What? Exactly? Happened?

congratulations

to all the Labour councillors elected yesterday.  No congratulations to the Reading boys who thought a racist dog-whistle campaign in Church ward was a good idea.  Desperate men.  Especially no congratulations to George Dickhead Loughlin who, at the Reading count last night, thought it was a good idea to head-butt a former councillor from another party, who was only saved from serious injury by the physical intervention of one Dave Peasley - if there was a pub fight near me I'd be glad if Dave was minded to intervene.  And no congratulations to M. Salter for his co-authorship of the racist dog-whistle leaflet in Church ward.   Even he wasn't bragging about it when he turned up at the Reading count, unshaven and slobbish and staying well away from Church ward. Update: but he got into the victory photo, looming over her from behind, bad idea. I was especially pleased  to see Daya Pal Singh and Rose Williams elected.  Rose needs no hints from anyone on how to be a good representative.  I just hope the boys let D.P. Singh get on with the job.  I know he will do a good one.   And Tony Jones always spreads a little happiness wherever he goes in politics, so Good News.

The new Labour councillor for Caversham - if the same gang of malevolent lard-arses is still there in Caversham Labour then I wish you luck.  You are going to need it.

Azam Janjua - thanks for all your work for the people of south Reading, and Reading as a whole.  It was a privilege to work with you, and the people of Church ward were luc ky to have you as their representative.

Now, about that Labour vision for Reading ...

Dial M For Murdoch

I downloaded this to my Kindle yesterday (oh how I love that thing) and have now read it.  I must say I was impressed with it as a source book.  It is clear, mostly chronological, and detailed while being readable.  It has a clear agenda, that the Murdoch Empire is Evil and has Corrupted Britain.  Well, that is not the full story, as any fule kno.

Tom Watson and Martin Hickman have put together quite an impressive account, which work has probably done much to save Watson's sanity.  But it is those who appear to be mad and obsessed who have often got hold of something which is true and/or needs to be disclosed, against the forces of those who not want the stone lifted up.  There is quite a lot of cut-and-paste in this, as you might expect.  For example, early on they trot out the story about the paediatrician whose job title was mistaken for paedophile - but they copied that from the Guardian, and it is wrong.  No paediatrician was burned out of their home, either.  Mr Salter was in on this stuff, as I noted here last summer.

Thes two have worked hard to find some impressive and entertaining quotes, such from as the New York Times, which described those attending the British Press Awards 2005, at which the News of the World won a bunch of awards, as "a club of misanthropic inebriates".  Larf?  I nearly passed me fags round.

Pertinent to the same previous post of mine is this: "In February 2003 Devon and Cornwall (police) had raided Lawson's (a private investigator) firm, Abbey Investigations, and found that in late 2000 Lawson had supplied a national newspaper with checks of the criminal records of Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nick Brown, then Agriculture Minister, and another Labour MP, Martin Salter.  The newspaper which bought the checks (which came back blank) has never been named but, in 2000 and 2001, News International was siding with Tony Blair in his frequent rows with Gordon Brown, and Rebekah Wade's News of the World had placed Salter on a 'naming and shaming' list for criticising the 'For Sarah' campaign."  This is the only place I have seen that the checks came back blank.  Even Salter didn't say so at the time, as well he might not, because he has frequently bragged that he has  criminal convictions for possession of cannabis and assault.  Any other report or mention I have seen has said that the criminal record checks produced nothing of interest.  Not to that thread, no.  But a criminal record check obtained informally as opposed to a CRB check, would show everything on the record, including spent convictions.  Just saying.

The "For Neville" email was sent on 29th June 2006,  and it contained transcripts of voicemail messages between Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers' Association, and an associate.  The content was not apparently very interesting, it was just that it was clear from the transcripts that phones had been hacked - and now this had been disclosed to its victim.  All this stuff is what this book says, others may dispute it on matters of fact, I don't know.  I do know that Neville Thurlbeck, former chief reporter, is most offended at having it said, later in the book, that he inhabits a semi-detached house.  For example.

In October 2007 there was a clause in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which provided for a custodial sentence for breaches of the Data Protection Act.  By the following April this clause had been dropped, although the Bill had been ready for royal assent the previous October.  Journalists and executives might have gone to prison otherwise.  I'm prepared to believe that. But who knew?

On the Max Mosley story (Nazi orgy which wasn't), Neville Thurlbeck allegedly emailed one of the women present to threaten that if she and the others did not cooperate in the writing of a follow-up story unpixilated pictures of them would be published, thus identifying them. According to this book Thurlbeck acknowledged doing this, under pressure from above. But sometimes there is a whiff of conspiracy theory here.  Chris Bryant, well known for being self-important as well as loathsome in various ways, said that the underpants picture of him (from the Gaydar site, seeking partners) was published eight months after he had asked Rebekah Wade in Parliament about payments to police.  It might, just, be that News International had other priorities than Mr Bryant's underpants.

Quoting from Thurlbeck (in a private conversation with Tom Watson): "All I know is that when the DCMS was formed, or rather when it got on to all the hacking stuff, there was an edict came down from the editor and it was find out every single thing you can about every single member: who was gay, who had affairs, anything we can use.  Each reporter was given two members and there were six reporters - that went on for about ten days.  I don't know who looked at you. It fell by the wayside: I think even Ian Edmondson (the news editor) realised that there was something quite horrible about this."  If I were a member of a Select Committee of the House of Commons (and I have been) I would be surprised if the tabloids were not snooping around.  Thurlbeck has professed himself pissed off at his confidence being breached in this way, by quoting a private conversation in this book.  I don't see why.  Happens all the time.  Has happened to me loads of times.  He calls the task of snooping espionage rather than journalism.  Well, maybe, but I don't really see that.

The book is a smooth read, as befits something basically written by a journalist.  There are not that many infelicities, considering that it has been produced quite quickly, although a CID officer is named "Fillergy" and "Fillery" in the same paragraph.

News International tried to marginalise those who were seeking to make its life difficult.  Well, what would you expect it to do?  What do people generally do? What would you do? At a BSkyB reception at Labour Party Conference 2010, a Times journalist told the Labour MP Stephen Pound that Tom Watson MP was about to check in at the Betty Ford clinic because of heavy drinking.  What is amazing about this, if true, is not that it was said, but that Tom Watson did, or at least he says he did, give up drinking for six months as a result.  Who's the patsy here?  Do the tabloids tell MPs how to live their lives? Should they? Should MPs obey?

It is very helpful to have detailed just how Yates of the Yard (and others) failed to check the evidence of criminality that they had been given.  Good to have all this stuff in one place.

Neville Thurlbeck (who has a "soft and precise Wearside accent", hmmm) was arrested in April 2011.  On 4th July 2011 the Guardian broke a story that the NotW had deleted messages on the phone voicemail of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler, to make room for more.  At that time the Met, Surrey police, NI and the Dowler family all believed the NotW was responsible for the deletions.  Five months later the Guardian would admit that this was bollocks.  Still, whatever, hey.  It's only the red-tops that make things up, hein?

The answers to the crossword in the final edition of the News of the World (1 across, 4 down, 10 across, 7 down) were Tomorrow, We, Are, Sacked.  Lolz.  I've kept that edition, as a souvenir.

The book reminds us that, when asked why he had not dismissed Neville Thurlbeck, at the parliamentary inquiry in July 2011, James Murdoch said he had never heard of him.  Was this true?

Scotland Yard was "humiliated" by the launch of a new, "proper" investigation.  Hmmm.

Potential smears, too.  The NI receptions at the 2011 party conferences were cancelled, but Michael Gove MP, Conservative Education Secretary (whose wife is a Times journalist) took the opportunity to praise Murdoch anyway.  "Gove's experience as Education Secretary might be useful if, as has been suggested, News Corporation makes a move into the educational publishing business."  I love that "as has been suggested".  I use it all the time.  It's how not to have to back up what you say as fact, and how to protect your sources.

Watson's approach and dialogue sometimes appear juvenile, and he does chase the cheap sound-bite.  Quoting himself at a parliamentary hearing: "Mr Murdoch, you must be the first mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise."  Whatever else James Murdoch might be, he is not a mafia boss.

After the Guardian's Marina Hyde had wrongly reported that the Sun had doorstepped one of the Leveson Inquiry's junior counsel, a couriered parcel arrived from Wapping for Alan Rusbridger, containing a  toilet roll and a note which read "I hear Marina Hyde's turd landed on your desk.  Well, you can use this to wipe her arse."  Mmmm, stylish.  But Marina Hyde is a shit, so very pleasing.

Chris Bryant said early in 2012, rightly, that there was a "three-headed scandal... mass criminality, then the mass cover-up and then, from 2007, the inexplicable failure of the Met properly to investigate..." But it does seem a bit like special pleading when it is the victims of the tabloids who are the ones wielding the trusty sword of truth.

Sometimes facile "the battle of Prince William's wounded knee".

Well, those are my impressionistic quotes and observations.  While I have no time for Tom Watson and his associates, I am glad to have read the book.  I am glad I have it, because it is informative, and those mentioned in it are likely to come forward now and say so if they have been misreported there.  Which is all to the good.  I'd love to know what those closer to the centre of these matters actually think now.

look at this (if you're one of us)

John Howarth's company's services

for which I am indebted to Was, who is good at this stuff.  I wonder (silly old me) why in the box in the centre of the page the word "labour", clearly intending to refer to the Labour Party, has a lower-case initial letter, when higher up the page, and in all other conventions, it is upper case?  Just asking, still, remember "Your better off with Labour"?  Anyway, Mr Howarth's company is still providing these services, because it gets a credit for printing Labour Party leaflets, calling cards and so on to this day.  The text is usually worked on by himself and Mr Salter, who decide the line to take.  The line they decided on for Church ward for this election was the line I have heard them both express many times, namely that the people who live in Church ward in south Reading are racist.  This is presumably why they decided on the "one of us" leaflet you see below.  I don't know how the people of Church ward are going to vote on May 3rd, and what the figures will look like, but I do know that this leaflet has had an effect - and not in a good way for Messrs Salter and Howarth

the racist dog-whistle leaflet

oh and the "one of us" story has now appeared on His Master's Voice's website here and the comments are mostly not mad, but rather considered, and, I submit, do give an idea of what readers of that organ are thinking.

criminal defamation

Was suggests that Reading Labour may have committed this offence under Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, because Azam Janjua is a candidate in an election which is imminent, and a Labour candidate (Tony Jones) has published on his website an extract from a letter from the Labour agent in Reading, David Absolom, which states that Azam Janjua has committed an offence of (unspecified) misconduct.  The actual wording is "disowned by the Labour Group following allegations of misconduct".  You will find here the text of a public statement, made in Reading's council chamber in March 2008 by the then leader of the council, David Sutton, in answer to a question from Marian Livingston, now herself a Labour councillor.  Sutton said in that statement that he was making it after discovering that Azam Janjua had joined the Conservatives and been selected by them to stand in Church ward, the ward he had previously represented for Labour until he stood down in 2007, citing family reasons.  He also said that the allegation of misconduct was made in "late 2006".  There is no evidence that the police were ever involved, or that any allegation was ever substantiated.  To this day no evidence has been produced in support of any allegation against Azam Janjua.  A letter from then MP for Reading West Martin Salter, in whose office the alleged incident allegedly took place, was referred to at this time but has never been produced.  Sutton did not say why no public statement was made for well over a year, other than to refer to his own personal "outrage" at Azam Janjua's selection for the Conservatives.  He offered no information about the position of Azam Janjua in the Labour Group from "late 2006" until he stood down from the council before the elections in May 2007.  Azam Janjua remained a Labour councillor until he left the council in 2007.  So at least up to May 2007 he had not been in any way "disowned" - and in March 2008 he was neither a councillor nor a member of the Labour Party, so the question of "disowning" does not arise.  Therefore, to help Was with the sequence of events, it clearly was (1) allegations of misconduct (2) resignation from council (3) joining the Conservative Party (4) selection as candidate for Church ward for the Conservatives (5) public statement by David Sutton.

Was has this to say:
(either)
1) Something did happen and Labour covered up a criminal act in their offices by someone who was then a member.
2) They required something to smear Cllr Janjua with after his defection and cobbled together a bogus story which explains why they never went to the police.
In the absence of any report to the police and the failure to provide even a shred of evidence to back up their accusation, we are left with only the one conclusion that this is a clear attempt to defame an election candidate which is contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People's Act 1983.


On serious reflection I think Was is right.  It is for Reading Labour to substantiate or withdraw the allegation they have caused to be published on Tony Jones' website (and which has subsequently been published elsewhere), and if they do not do this it is for the Reading East Conservative Associatin or its Agent to initiate an action under the Act.

Oh and Reading Labour could withdraw their racist dog-whistle leaflet while they're about it.  It's been reproduced on large numbers of national political websites and is "most-read" on many of them.  Not for good reasons, boys.  Say sorry and move on.

desperate men

resorting to a racist campaign, thinking this will get them elected.  The Reading Labour boys' story was always that the electorate of Church ward was racist - but they were and are wrong.  Unlike them, I have knocked on the doors of Church ward residents over the years, and they are nothing of the sort.  White and working class, yes they mostly are,  not many Guardian readers there, the people are decent, and will vote for someone who works hard as their representative.  I got so tired of hearing the cheap Guardianista sneers in Labour Party meetings,, and even more tired of the boys actively treating the voters, and the party, in that ward with utter contempt.  Now of course it is personal, because of the Conservative candidate.  But that is another story.  Which will come out in full in due course.  There is a stinking piece of criminality here, and using racist language in a bid to get an unsuspecting girl elected and trash a non-white candidate for another party only serves to remind the electorate, and others, of what has gone before.  You'll be sorry, boys.