Pointlessness

A parliamentary committee decided yesterday was the day to show just how pointless this Left inspired Salem witch hunt is. They announced that in their opinion the Murdoch's were not fit and proper people to run an international company, even though they have no business making that assertion. It is the role of a regulator.

The opinion though, just appeared to be the malicious dribbling of the Labour bloc doing as they are told, so not even a hint of a real inquiry process. But I suppose the real point was to try to set the direction the regulator should take. It would be a brave bureaucrat who found differently from a Parliamentary committee wouldn't it?

This inquiry, like the Leveson one is yet another example of how the Left so completely dominate our lives through corrupt politics. It has no point and barely touches things that are the proper interest of government and yet as a tool to attack capitalists, both in the flesh and politicians of that hue, it is unimpeachable. The constant complaints and shrill exhortations of the Left really are becoming tiresome.

The process has revealed something of importance though, that is of real and proper interest to MP's and something that requires action. Tom Watson MP (Labour), a member of the anti-Murdoch brigade brought in to do harm, has released privileged information from within the inquiry, before its own report was published and in a book written for financial gain. Watson disclosed that the report would say Murdoch misled Parliament.

Surely this exposes Watson as at least not a fit and proper person to be on the committee, casting its whole validity into doubt, but also raises the question as to whether he should be a Member of Parliament at all. It is surely correct that he be released from his position as an MP and barred from the House for at least 5 years, meaning he cannot stand again for election to that House, within that time frame.

Naturally, as you would expect of such an unattractive character, Watson has form. He has leaked information before, though his buddies on the Leveson inquiry somehow managed to blame Guido Fawkes blog. They said that Watson had copied the information released from the blog, making Paul Staines (aka Guido) the source of the leak. Quite how the redacted version he published became un-redacted in Watson's hands, no-one felt at liberty to say. This meant an important matter was dropped.

So, the actual lessons learnt are, that we should listen less to and be more aware of the Left and its persistent tactics to modify the way you think. And that we should act against the Left, holding them to account every time they corrupt democratic process and break the law. No more should they be able to escape common justice, as it applies to others. This is not party politics, or differing opinions. We have to weed out these dangerous people from within our midst.

Tom Watson MP

You don't have to love the Murdoch's or even side with them in any way to find Tom Watson offensive. Indeed if you have a strong sense of morality you would want to seriously question a man like James Murdoch and could not possibly like Tom Watson.

In fact I find it difficult to understand how West Bromwich East finds itself with such an odious person to represent the region? Is he representative of them? Are they all as low as him? A 'toadie' is how the Guardian described him. Hell, even Tony Blair called him 'discourteous'.

Watson is today famous for saying to James Murdoch, during a Parliamentary Committee session, that he was 'the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise'. Clearly Watson is disinterested in the substance of the actions of News International, except where he can use it to make personal attacks on the Murdoch's. As I say, James might well be a nasty piece of work, but Tom Watson clearly is.

Whilst you can see Watson as being someone who would appeal to Gordon Brown, I wonder about this outburst. Does parliamentary privilege extend to committees? Because the reason that MPs can say what they like, is that, if denied the facility they would be unable to say things necessary for good government. Does Tom Watson represent good government? Does what he said hold high the standards of our MPs?

By his use of the word 'mafia' Watson betrays his detestation of the Murdoch family, which is irrelevant and beside the point. He then extends the analogy to say that James Murdoch runs a 'criminal enterprise', that is an organisation set up and designed to engage in illegal activity. Clearly this is not the case and this is a straightforward libel.

That some people at News International acted illegally and even if one of those was James Murdoch, that still does not make NI a 'criminal enterprise'. The House of Commons is much more of a criminal enterprise, as Mr. 'well fed' Watson can attest personally, having claimed the maximum allowed for food on his expenses. Obviously, there is no sane nor natural reason why the people of a nation should provide £4,800 in a year for sustenance to a well paid MP, but the rules they gave themselves allow it and by glory Watson will have it.

He did also over claim for some dining chairs and had to return a sum, which seems uncharitable after we have paid so much for his dining. No I don't need someone to be whiter than white to deal with the reprehensible activities of some at News International, but you cannot possibly use someone of such low moral fibre as Watson, to show our disgust by uncovering it. Had it not been the Murdoch's, one suspects that Watson would be seeking employment by an organisation with such tastes and standards.

MP Tom Watson And Parliamentary Rigour

Bravo for Tom Watson, a Labour member of the committee that grilled the Murdoch's recently (and who's party also supplied the person who attacked Rupert Murdoch), who has become aware of a possible mendacious statement by James. It seems the younger of the clan claimed not to know something that apparently others say he did. If he has misled the committee, Watson wants the police to investigate.

Now let us be clear, this is a nasty affair and whoever has been up to no good should be discovered and dealt with under the laws of the land. But the thing is, this is still really a minor matter and yet Mr Watson wants to pursue the miscreants at all costs. The same rigour seemed absent though when his ex-leader, Mr Blair, lied to Parliament in order to attack another country, Iraq. This cost the country a not inconsiderable sum and, much, much worse the lives of a lot of completely innocent and uninvolved people, not least our forces who did not need to be there. But why did we invade? Was it just for Blair's vanity? His fame and the impact it could have on his 'saleability' later? There were no WMD's and we knew that, so just what was he up to?

Then of course, we have the related death of a civil servant who was involved in stating that there were no WMD's before the lies that took us to war, Dr David Kelly. There is not only an absence of rigour over investigating his death, there is official interference to ensure there is no proper investigation. These are real issues of national importance that should be investigated at all costs, with no stone left unturned. Then we might see more than mock outrage from a Director of Communications who really was a danger in No 10. But Mr Watson doesn't seem to see any need for rigour here. The Murdoch's may not be the most pleasant people, but the Left represent the extreme in that respect.