Friday 11 November 2011

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment