Oval Office onslaught II...

---

Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem. 

More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.

"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."

It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased: 

President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election.
Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him.
He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent.
Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion). 

Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor. 

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes. 

The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level. 

Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time… 

In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio. 

Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases…

Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. 

Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil. 

[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in
predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.  

"For Biden to
prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the
primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."

Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.

Oval Office onslaught II...

---

Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem. 

More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.

"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."

It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased: 

President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion). 

Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor. 

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes. 

The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level. 

Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time… 

In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio. 

Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases… Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. 

Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil. 

[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.  

"For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."

Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.

Obama's obversion...

---

[Edited:'dead' image/video removed]
Obama has endorsed someone he knows - and has said - is inadequate and a liar. Who'da thunk it. And it appears the gloves are off...get the popcorn in!  And just for background info a smattering of the assorted baggage the Clinton's are dragging round: 'From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer' [Link]. By the way, those scandals really are just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama's obversion...

---

[Edited:'dead' image/video removed] Obama has endorsed someone he knows - and has said - is inadequate and a liar. Who'da thunk it. And it appears the gloves are off...get the popcorn in!  And just for background info a smattering of the assorted baggage the Clinton's are dragging round: 'From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer' [Link]. By the way, those scandals really are just the tip of the iceberg.

Obliteration of one...

---

"The political left is extremely forgiving as long as you remain on the left. There's no sexual, moral or financial sin or wrongdoing that is too great to overlook or to forgive entirely as long as you remain committed to the left."

Never a truer word written. It is part of Laura Rosen Cohen's 'bimbo card' blog-post saying 'Trump should go Full Lewinsky'. She links to Mark Steyn whose two recent articles (A Tale of Two Bills and a day later Predators for Hilary) highlight the blinkered hypocrisy that surrounds the Clintons; more specifically 'about the obliteration of one Bill [Crosby], and the rehabilitation of the other'. Laura goes on to write that Steyn suggests that this is inherently racist but, she says, "...more than a question of race, it's a question of politics. If you are a political liberal and abuse women, all is forgiven."



The image above is of Christopher Hitchen's Book from the turn of this century: "No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family"; so clearly not all the critics of Bill Clinton are 'of the Right' although all are surely right.  One review of the book: "...mincing no words about the long record of sexual assaults and subsequent intimidation of the victims that trailed the President from Arkansas to the Oval Office. It remains the most remarkable feature of that horrific record that neither Bill Clinton, nor any of his hatchet men and women, could ever even muster the intestinal fortitude to deny that he raped Juanita Broaddrick. And it remains an indelible stain on the much splattered escutcheon of Congressional Democrats that not a single one of them ever examined the evidence gathered by the Independent Counsel's office".[Brothers Judd]



Lying, self-serving financial skulduggery and cronyism seem - unfortunately - natural for politicians of any hue, sexual controversies less so but by no means rare (although being a serial abuser and 'occasional date rapist' is taking it too far); the lying and deviousness clearly runs deep in the Clinton family; think email scandal, Benghazi etc. IMHO just for the Benghazi debacle Hillary shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office (and imagine having her husband [in name only?] back there!) but - going back to Laura's post - "Trump needs to blow this thing up."

Obliteration of one...

---

"The political left is extremely forgiving as long as you remain on the left. There's no sexual, moral or financial sin or wrongdoing that is too great to overlook or to forgive entirely as long as you remain committed to the left."

Never a truer word written. It is part of Laura Rosen Cohen's 'bimbo card' blog-post saying 'Trump should go Full Lewinsky'. She links to Mark Steyn whose two recent articles (A Tale of Two Bills and a day later Predators for Hilary) highlight the blinkered hypocrisy that surrounds the Clintons; more specifically 'about the obliteration of one Bill [Crosby], and the rehabilitation of the other'. Laura goes on to write that Steyn suggests that this is inherently racist but, she says, "...more than a question of race, it's a question of politics. If you are a political liberal and abuse women, all is forgiven."

The image above is of Christopher Hitchen's Book from the turn of this century: "No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family"; so clearly not all the critics of Bill Clinton are 'of the Right' although all are surely right.  One review of the book: "...mincing no words about the long record of sexual assaults and subsequent intimidation of the victims that trailed the President from Arkansas to the Oval Office. It remains the most remarkable feature of that horrific record that neither Bill Clinton, nor any of his hatchet men and women, could ever even muster the intestinal fortitude to deny that he raped Juanita Broaddrick. And it remains an indelible stain on the much splattered escutcheon of Congressional Democrats that not a single one of them ever examined the evidence gathered by the Independent Counsel's office".[Brothers Judd]

Lying, self-serving financial skulduggery and cronyism seem - unfortunately - natural for politicians of any hue, sexual controversies less so but by no means rare (although being a serial abuser and 'occasional date rapist' is taking it too far); the lying and deviousness clearly runs deep in the Clinton family; think email scandal, Benghazi etc. IMHO just for the Benghazi debacle Hillary shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office (and imagine having her husband [in name only?] back there!) but - going back to Laura's post - "Trump needs to blow this thing up."

Out of office III...

---

Not scandalous...and not Brooks.

King dong, the bitch is read, or red as the case may be. Not sure if there is much of a sex scandal about the latest sex scandal. At least Brooks Newmark (a member...of parliament) doesn't have a double entendre name associated with 'the crime' as in the similar A. Weiner case in the USA.



Interestingly there is clearly a 'conspiracy' afoot by the Sunday Mirror to ensnare Conservatives as Newmark isn't the only one...he was just the fish that took the bait. Maybe the lefty rag and the 'freelance' ("male reporter, a freelance ­journalist who passed the information to the Sunday Mirror" [ha!], set up false twitter account and,posing as a "twenty-something Tory PR girl" called Sophie Wittams, "was carrying out an undercover probe into claims by sources that MPs were using social media networks to meet women"; of course he was) are trying to recreate the continuous wave of scandals that helped Tony Blair to his '97 landslide (itself orchestrated by the BBC and New Labour amongst others). Or maybe they are members/fighters for left-wing charities and green totalitarianism have got their man.




Very late (travelling!) update: very surprised to read this from Guido re the above mentioned 'male reporter'; agree with THIS from Writerlywitterings. 

Out of office III...

---

Not scandalous...and not Brooks.

King dong, the bitch is read, or red as the case may be. Not sure if there is much of a sex scandal about the latest sex scandal. At least Brooks Newmark (a member...of parliament) doesn't have a double entendre name associated with 'the crime' as in the similar A. Weiner case in the USA.

Interestingly there is clearly a 'conspiracy' afoot by the Sunday Mirror to ensnare Conservatives as Newmark isn't the only one...he was just the fish that took the bait. Maybe the lefty rag and the 'freelance' ("male reporter, a freelance ­journalist who passed the information to the Sunday Mirror" [ha!], set up false twitter account and,posing as a "twenty-something Tory PR girl" called Sophie Wittams, "was carrying out an undercover probe into claims by sources that MPs were using social media networks to meet women"; of course he was) are trying to recreate the continuous wave of scandals that helped Tony Blair to his '97 landslide (itself orchestrated by the BBC and New Labour amongst others). Or maybe they are members/fighters for left-wing charities and green totalitarianism have got their man.

Very late (travelling!) update: very surprised to read this from Guido re the above mentioned 'male reporter'; agree with THIS from Writerlywitterings. 

Our own omnishambles...

---

By "Our" of course I mean a UK based omnishambles as against the ones enveloping poor old Obama or anything remotely to do with Ows or my friends, family or associates, OK? The Labour Party in the UK is becoming embroiled in several scandals that seem to be festering in the background plus one massive one that is starting to boil over (as it should). And I'm not even talking about the worse one, their immigration - demographic genocide - scandal (nor any of hundred or so others over the last 15 years).  Now, there's Falkirk, Grangemouth and - even closer to home and far more shocking - the Coop-Flowergate scandal, the rise and fall of the 'crystal Methodist'. As David Cameron said today "There are clearly a lot of questions that have to be answered" and for some reason, for once, Ed Miliband doesn't want an inquiry.

Our own omnishambles...

---

By "Our" of course I mean a UK based omnishambles as against the ones enveloping poor old Obama or anything remotely to do with Ows or my friends, family or associates, OK? The Labour Party in the UK is becoming embroiled in several scandals that seem to be festering in the background plus one massive one that is starting to boil over (as it should). And I'm not even talking about the worse one, their immigration - demographic genocide - scandal (nor any of hundred or so others over the last 15 years).  Now, there's Falkirk, Grangemouth and - even closer to home and far more shocking - the Coop-Flowergate scandal, the rise and fall of the 'crystal Methodist'. As David Cameron said today "There are clearly a lot of questions that have to be answered" and for some reason, for once, Ed Miliband doesn't want an inquiry.

Obvious onion...

---

Now after the complete non-story of the 'massive revelation' at today's phone-hacking trial where jurors were read a "love letter" (ooooh) and told two former work colleagues at News Of The World (ironically this news is perfect for NOTW yet BBC et al have led the News today with it) had an affair that lasted at least six years (and?). Anyway, is nobody else seeing the bigger story here, the real sordid details...look at the imagine to the left; add some primer and face powder, pucker the lips, red wig...OMG! 

Obvious onion...

---

Now after the complete non-story of the 'massive revelation' at today's phone-hacking trial where jurors were read a "love letter" (ooooh) and told two former work colleagues at News Of The World (ironically this news is perfect for NOTW yet BBC et al have led the News today with it) had an affair that lasted at least six years (and?). Anyway, is nobody else seeing the bigger story here, the real sordid details...look at the imagine to the left; add some primer and face powder, pucker the lips, red wig...OMG! 

Outrage oblivious...

---

Where's the outrage? asks James Forsyth at The Spectator; linking to Charles Moore's excellent piece: "Stafford scandal: Let’s face the truth about our uncaring, selfish and cruel NHS". Please, he, you, I and everyone in the country knows that there are hundreds of thousands of good stories and we know that most receive adequate to good often outstanding and wonderful treatment, especially in such a big organisation [wow, it's that big?] dealing with people's health, but he is right:

"The truth is the exact opposite of what we keep telling ourselves. The NHS is the least caring and most selfishly run important institution in this country. Until we recognise this, there will be plenty more Staffords."

And no, that doesn't mean he is slagging off nurses but that's what lefties will say. Needless to say I am still spitting feathers about the whole issue being brushed under the carpet on the BBC's website within 24 hours. Maybe it's because they're another 'much loved' UK national institution with some 'uncomfortable to hear' truths coming home to roost.

Outrage oblivious...

---

Where's the outrage? asks James Forsyth at The Spectator; linking to Charles Moore's excellent piece: "Stafford scandal: Let’s face the truth about our uncaring, selfish and cruel NHS". Please, he, you, I and everyone in the country knows that there are hundreds of thousands of good stories and we know that most receive adequate to good often outstanding and wonderful treatment, especially in such a big organisation [wow, it's that big?] dealing with people's health, but he is right:

"The truth is the exact opposite of what we keep telling ourselves. The NHS is the least caring and most selfishly run important institution in this country. Until we recognise this, there will be plenty more Staffords."

And no, that doesn't mean he is slagging off nurses but that's what lefties will say. Needless to say I am still spitting feathers about the whole issue being brushed under the carpet on the BBC's website within 24 hours. Maybe it's because they're another 'much loved' UK national institution with some 'uncomfortable to hear' truths coming home to roost.

Obvious outcome IV...

---

'24 hours to save the NHS'...how did that work out for you? ...Oops. In 2007the writing was on the wall; as in education, it was the introduction of 'high visibility' targets that could be 'easily' reached and then ticked off and waved triumphantly at the public as major achievements that sowed the seeds for the current unfolding" NHS disaster. Those government targets - including those for waiting and A&E treatment - were and are attacked for 'distorting clinical priorities'. Maybe you'll think it in poor taste and too partisan but if the Conservatives had been in power the Beeb would be screaming with every minute of news on every channel and radio station yet nowhere - at least in the BBC entire online coverage - is any mention of Labour, New Labour, Frank Dobson, Alan Milburn, John Reid, Patricia Hewitt, Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham* (in case you didn't know this is the motley crew who were all Secretary of State for Health between 1997 and 2010. No mention of Blair or Brown either (well they never mention Brown anyway, funny that).

*This prime twat is Shadow Department for Health, looking forward to his grilling on the BBC political programmes...  ...tumbleweed...

 


Update 2pm: unbelievably there is now, already, barely any mention or links to the stories about the NHS on the BBC webpages for News, UK news, England News etc. The only link is the features sidebar with such heavyweight news issues as "How you can make lunch at your desk that bit nicer". Do NOT trust the BBC,

Obvious outcome IV...

---

'24 hours to save the NHS'...how did that work out for you? ...Oops. In 2007the writing was on the wall; as in education, it was the introduction of 'high visibility' targets that could be 'easily' reached and then ticked off and waved triumphantly at the public as major achievements that sowed the seeds for the current unfolding" NHS disaster. Those government targets - including those for waiting and A&E treatment - were and are attacked for 'distorting clinical priorities'. Maybe you'll think it in poor taste and too partisan but if the Conservatives had been in power the Beeb would be screaming with every minute of news on every channel and radio station yet nowhere - at least in the BBC entire online coverage - is any mention of Labour, New Labour, Frank Dobson, Alan Milburn, John Reid, Patricia Hewitt, Alan Johnson and Andy Burnham* (in case you didn't know this is the motley crew who were all Secretary of State for Health between 1997 and 2010. No mention of Blair or Brown either (well they never mention Brown anyway, funny that). *This prime twat is Shadow Department for Health, looking forward to his grilling on the BBC political programmes...  ...tumbleweed...

 
Update 2pm: unbelievably there is now, already, barely any mention or links to the stories about the NHS on the BBC webpages for News, UK news, England News etc. The only link is the features sidebar with such heavyweight news issues as "How you can make lunch at your desk that bit nicer". Do NOT trust the BBC,

Orange offal...

---

Meatgate trundles on and Dutch meat companies will be quaking in their shoes this weekend as 'Food standards officials in Ireland have asked their Dutch counterparts to investigate 'several companies' in connection with the [horse meat in beef-burger] scandal'. The guilty companies that supplied the extra ingredient as filler are thought to be from The Netherlands. They'll be all-a-shiver at the fear of the maximum €1,050 fine that could await them [DT] . Tesco have said they will get to the bottom of the scandal but I doubt that because the bottom (or rump) is worth a whole lot more than the body parts that will be making up the burger-filler (see what I did there?). The fact that this has probably been going on for years just makes the comments by stupid wankers (final part of video from 55 seconds) at  trying to blame Coalition cuts as just more fuckwittery. That said, the scandal has moved on to more worrying aspects that is sure to upset many more people than the cross-species meat contamination; aspects that can and should be controlled by us. Update: Tops marks to Anna - not for the oddly disturbing shortened-horse video-clip at the top of her post, nor for the very sensible (but unspoken) question of  whether anybody was inquiring what the other 71% in Tesco’s Value Added Burgers was - but for the wonderful "It’s not just Tesco’s either, there’s My Lidl Pony…"

Orange offal...

---

Meatgate trundles on and Dutch meat companies will be quaking in their shoes this weekend as 'Food standards officials in Ireland have asked their Dutch counterparts to investigate 'several companies' in connection with the [horse meat in beef-burger] scandal'. The guilty companies that supplied the extra ingredient as filler are thought to be from The Netherlands. They'll be all-a-shiver at the fear of the maximum €1,050 fine that could await them [DT] . Tesco have said they will get to the bottom of the scandal but I doubt that because the bottom (or rump) is worth a whole lot more than the body parts that will be making up the burger-filler (see what I did there?). The fact that this has probably been going on for years just makes the comments by stupid wankers (final part of video from 55 seconds) at  trying to blame Coalition cuts as just more fuckwittery. That said, the scandal has moved on to more worrying aspects that is sure to upset many more people than the cross-species meat contamination; aspects that can and should be controlled by us. Update: Tops marks to Anna - not for the oddly disturbing shortened-horse video-clip at the top of her post, nor for the very sensible (but unspoken) question of  whether anybody was inquiring what the other 71% in Tesco’s Value Added Burgers was - but for the wonderful "It’s not just Tesco’s either, there’s My Lidl Pony…"

Only one observation...

---

Only one observation about the paedomania that has engulfed the whole of the UK media in the past few weeks: the latest furore that is causing debilitating tremors throughout the BBC was started 'innocently' by Labour MP Tom Watson at PMQs a few weeks ago. This seemingly 'brave' revelation - surely not just partisan muck-raking...surely not - turned into an orgy of 'Tory bashing' when Newsnight decided it couldn't resist the headlines that included the words 'Tory' and 'paedophile' and 'Thatcher' so threw journalistic integrity competence and due-diligence out the window; enough of that though, we all know where that has led them. No, my observation is to ask if this revelation could have been one of those alluded to in the sordid sex smear scandal (known as Smeargate) involving Damian McBride, Derek Draper and, it was suggested at the time, Tom Watson (all closely linked to Gordon Brown), the latter was "looking at other stories for Labour List" (later rebutted); certainly fits the bill and modus operandi of how to smear senior Conservatives. Could come back to bite them in the bum though, considering many of the names on 'that list' - somewhere on the Internet apparently - are much closer to home for Tom.

Only one observation...

---

Only one observation about the paedomania that has engulfed the whole of the UK media in the past few weeks: the latest furore that is causing debilitating tremors throughout the BBC was started 'innocently' by Labour MP Tom Watson at PMQs a few weeks ago. This seemingly 'brave' revelation - surely not just partisan muck-raking...surely not - turned into an orgy of 'Tory bashing' when Newsnight decided it couldn't resist the headlines that included the words 'Tory' and 'paedophile' and 'Thatcher' so threw journalistic integrity competence and due-diligence out the window; enough of that though, we all know where that has led them. No, my observation is to ask if this revelation could have been one of those alluded to in the sordid sex smear scandal (known as Smeargate) involving Damian McBride, Derek Draper and, it was suggested at the time, Tom Watson (all closely linked to Gordon Brown), the latter was "looking at other stories for Labour List" (later rebutted); certainly fits the bill and modus operandi of how to smear senior Conservatives. Could come back to bite them in the bum though, considering many of the names on 'that list' - somewhere on the Internet apparently - are much closer to home for Tom.