ONLY FOOLS AND WATER GO THE WAY THEY ARE DIVERTED

I am sure I am not alone in refusing to buy into the self flagellation,  public trial and corporate punishment of the BBC over their own role in badly reporting the ongoing child abuse stories unfolding almost hourly before our eyes.

Yes we can, if we wish criticise them for not publishing and or revealing earlier and more openly their in house concerns on Jimmy Saville's behaviour over the years. And yes individuals within the BBC may have their own skeletons to hide away in the corporations prop cupboard.

But then after acknowledging what they got wrong ask yourself a few simple questions. Such as, when Jimmy Saville abused young girls on the wards of NHS hospitals was it the BBC who let them in onto ward in the middle of the night? When accusations were made to the Police over his possible paedophile activities was it the BBC that the police referred to over any possible prosecution not the CPS? And were the BBC not Social Services running the Children's Homes where he and others committed their vile acts? And was it the BBC who tied up young boys at the home before then transporting them around the country to large houses where they were abused and used as personal sexual playthings by evil men?

And then we have the more recent accusations related to the Bryn Estyn children's home in North Wales, Newsnight may well be sued by Lord Mcalpine for their role in repeating and reporting the allegations being made against him, even though they didn't name him at the time, but can they be really be guilty of encouraging the trial by internet which had already began to gather pace online prior to their report being aired?

Of course its not the BBC who is responsible for these wicked acts and the current blanket press coverage focusing on their role is both ridiculous and becomes little more than a self lit smokescreen.

We are now in danger of forgetting that this whole story is really about wicked and depraved child abuse, and not about who has accused who of what? This story isn't about the BBC or Lord McAlpine's and his internet accusers, it is about children and young people, going back many decades, who were subject to cruel and depraved sexual abuse.

That abuse centred on (but does not end with) children's homes in north Wales - and specifically the Bryn Estyn home near Wrexham this became news again earlier this month when victim Steve Messham spoke to Newsnight, claiming that the Waterhouse inquiry, released in 2000, had uncovered only a fraction of the abuse. This claim is also backed up by the questions asked by my good friend Tom Watson MP in Parliament.

But it was Steve Messham not the BBC who said McAlpine had abused him, and then withdrew his accusation a week later, saying he had been mistaken after the Police had shown him the wrong photo back in the 90's!

So what the hell is going on here, it was not the BBC it was the Police who had shown Steve Messham the wrong photo So are we not able to question, despite the obvious harm caused to Mr Messham as a result of his abuse, why in all the period of the 1990's to the current day he suggests he has only been shown and or has seen himself only two photos related to the case?

In his own words he says

"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine," 

Lord McAlpine will of course seek his own recompense against those who named him prior to his own statement, and his lawyers I am sure will look very carefully at the role played by the internet in publicly revealing and repeating Steve Messhams accusations, but it is important for all of us I believe to concentrate not an individual accusation, but on the wider issues involved. Only then will we get to the truth  instead of us all indulging in wild speculation as to what individuals and/or the BBC did or didn't do.

I still believe Tom Watson's claim that the abuse at Bryn Estyn Children's Home and others was carried out by a powerful group of Paedophiles which led all the way to the door of Number 10 during the Thatcher years and maybe even before her tenure, and I also believe that the current attacks on the BBC are far more than simply a coincidental sideshow.

Imagine if you will an establishment shook to its foundations by the whole scandal desperate for a quick diversion, in need of having the heat and light shone in a different direction, how could they possibly buy some time and sow confusion in the minds of the public, who could they use as a scapegoat? how could they manage and indeed change the news?

Well, simply by controlling it. If I was Lord Patten I would be more worried by who in high circles is deciding that it is acceptable to hang the BBC out to dry rather than simply castigating Newsnight and Panorama. I would be more worried as a Tory peer about any accusations of insider collusion rather than who will be the next Director General.

Premature publicity around the witch-hunt of dead celebrities and current political figures in absence of the facts is now detracting from what should be the real purpose here,  which is to find out the truth over the child abuse that has gone on in the past and bring all those guilty to justice in the hope that the victims (apart from the 12 who have all died prematurely since) some closure and make sure that such a cover up and collusion can not happen in the future.

The Public must not join the Police and the BBC and become obsessed with their own internal fault lines. They must not forget that by contemplating their own navels that by default they may be helping to conceal evidence that the abuse ever existed.

And they also mustn't be afraid to go to all lengths to get to the truth, even though the establishment will as ever put every obstacle they can find in it's way.

NOT INVITED TO THE PARTY

It was a very good night locally if not nationally  for the Conservative Party with them clearing the board in Northamptonshire winning all seven parliamentary seats at the general election. Well done to them. I disagree fundamentally with their politics but the voters have spoken and it would be churlish of us to deny them our congratulations and best wishes.

It was also though an interesting result for the Labour Party, defeated in all six seats but with a vote which held up very strongly. Strongly enough in fact to deny any Liberal Democrat a victory or any give them any big surge in popular support.

Finally though it was a bad night, a very bad night for those of us who either as Independents or as smaller parties tried to gatecrash the Big Party's Party.

Despite lots of good wishes and seemingly a lot of support on the ground, voters clearly returned to the traditional fold when they finally entered the Polling Station.

Having looked at the results of other Independents and small party's locally and nationally I am starting to feel slightly pleased that I held my deposit! it seems few if any others did. Even the celebrity appeal of Esther Rantzen in Luton South did little to help her have her £500 returned.

So what did we all learn? That the country is not ready, at least at a national level for radical politics? or maybe that those of us who propose change to the three party system are wrong to do so?

Or maybe that the national media and the electorate that they aimed their guns at, got exactly what they wanted?

There is no doubt that the Leaders Debates had a huge impact on the outcome of the election, probably leading to the now hung parliament which matched its self promoted prediction, but in reality it also killed off the attempts of the minor candidates to breakthrough. I hold to the view that too many of our voting public who understandably are switched off to the local and national  political scene went to the polls expecting the names of Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown to actually be on the Ballot Paper. And the focus of the national media on the "closest election in years" and their ability to choose which policy areas to cover and which not to cover (what happened to MP's expenses debate?)  no doubt also played a big part in galvanising voters to poll in favour of the LAB/LIBDEM/CON
coalition. So where was the real debate some may ask?

But were we not supposed to have been choosing our constituency MP's? not a Prime Minister or Government? And how does a Labour candidate in Northampton South who runs a non campaign (turning up just one day a week) and missing the BBC and local newspaper hustings still end up in second place in Northampton South with nearly 10,000 votes!

Over the coming days the party's in Westminster will horse trade with each other to determine who will govern, and electoral reform will be high on the agenda and shopping list of the Lib Dems, but it is not only the voting system we need to change. It is also the role that our national media are increasingly  playing in determining the very outcome. Our national Parliament shouldn't continue to be used as a political TV alternative to the "X Factor" or a " Britain's not got Political Talent" beauty contest. The role of the national newspapers, the broadcast TV and Radio media and the publication of national opinion polls without any local knowledge and or weighting thrown in should all be questioned.

I accept my defeat, it was heavy, I feel personaly for those who worked tirelessly to support my challenge, and for those who had the courage and conviction to back me and vote for an alternative to the big three, and I apologise to them here and know publicly for not being able to carry their standard and banner any higher into the battle.

But tomorrow is another day, and the local elections in May 2011 are a different animal, and I have many many miles to walk before I rest.

I would also like to thank you all for reading this blog over the last few weeks, our hits have gone through the roof, keep coming back, I have lots more tales to tell! and we have many more challenges to face and battles to be fought.

Here is the news, or not, part two

Following on from the post below about the biggest terrorist arms raid since the 1960's being curiously missing from the mainstream news, I thought you would welcome this similar scarcely covered story (which did at least make it to the BBC) about how the far right are dealt with (or not) when they are finally bought before the beak.

A Derbyshire man, Neil Macgregor 36 was recently up before a Scottish Court where Sheriff Andrew Mackie heard his plea.

Mr Macregor threatened to blow up Glasgow Central Mosque, in fact he went a little bit further than that, let him explain in his own words in an email he sent to Strathclyde Police which was given to the court as evidence. He said:

"I’m a proud racist and National Front member. We as an organisation have decided to deal with the current threat from Muslims in our own British way like our proud ancestors.

“Our demands are very small. Close all the Mosques in Scotland, we see this is very easy – even you guys can handle that.”

He then issued a barrage of sickening threats, centering on the internet killing of Ken Bigley.

He wrote: “If our demands aren’t met by next Friday we’ll kidnap one Muslim and execute him or her on the internet, just like they did to our Ken Bigley.

“Those monster evil Muslims cut off his head with a kitchen knife, so we would like to repay the compliment. Every week we’ll kidnap and behead a Muslim if our demands aren’t met.”

... “We will also detonate a box of nails in the Central Mosque on Friday night.”

MacGregor then followed up the e-mail with a call threatening to blow up the Central Mosque.

Threats to kill a Muslim a week, and blow up a Mosque? what's the tariff on that then under the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

15 years? 5 years? maybe being held indefinitely at her Majesty's pleasure? (a bit like Phil the Greek)

No Mr Mackie decided that he needed medical treatment not punishment and dished out a tough sentence of 3 years probation.

3 years probation! you couldn't make it up, Neil Macgregor is, as we speak is free as a bird walking around Derbyshire a man at full liberty.

The trial didn't even make it to Scotland High Court system and serious questions are now being asked as to why the matter was allowed to be dealt with by the junior Sheriffs court system?

I can but wonder what would happen if a member of the Muslim community was bought before a court having admitted to threats to kill a Christian a day and blow up Glasgow Cathedral, on demands that all churches in Scotland be closed?

Judgements like this do little to promote any sense of equity within our legal system and the failure of most of the press again to report the trial or its outcome will not help to convince the Muslim community that the media doesn't operate a wicked policy of double standards when reporting such matters. It also adds to the concerns of many that the dangers of far right extremism in our country are being underplayed and under reported

Well done the BBC at least, and believe it not The Scottish Sun, but if you wanted to read the news elsewhere you would have to subscribe to newspaper titles and websites well outside of the UK.

Or of course read this blog...........................................................

A Plague on all your houses

In 2002 I agreed to be interviewed by the lovely Kate Sanderson (now Kate Gerbeau) from the BBC's "Watchdog" programme. You may remember Kate and her penchance for black leather trousers, if you don't I certainly do, (but don't tell the wife). Anyway Kate came to my London flat to talk to me as part of a BBC Watchdog inquiry into MP's expenses.

Given the current, public uproar over the scandalous abuse of the system you will be pleased to learn that my part in the programme was to be held up as a paragon of good practice. At the time I was one of a very few, if not the only Member of Parliament who openly published their expenses within my annual report. My wages, my additional cost allowance, (for living p/t in London) and my office cost allowances were broken down, line by line for everyone to see where the cash went and on what it was spent.

£60,000 a year salary was more than enough as far as I was concerned to recompense me for doing a job I had always wanted to do. And the fact that Parliament would pay for the rent on a London base for me to use when in the Commons was a huge help and a privilege, that should never be abused. No members of my family worked in my office, and every penny spent was accounted for and spent well. After all it wasn't my money, it was yours ! and as a consequence telling you where it went was part of my job, I thought I was there not only to represent the electorate but also to give them good value for money.

Myself and two other parliamentary colleagues shared taxi's home at night to save on cost's, and despite "the rules" allowing us to claim for a wide variety of "essential items" I and they always thought it churlish and inappropriate to claim for personal costs that I would have still incurred even if I had been at home in Northampton.

I said to Kate at the time that the whole system was open to abuse and that unless Parliament got a grip of the system, then in the future difficult questions would be asked of individuals and of the institution itself.

It therefore gives me little satisfaction to be proved right, but I was surprised to be asked this week by the local press as whether or not I thought the "Government" could recover from the public outrage that has followed the story so far.

I pointed out that whilst the initial focus had been on government ministers, that in fact MP's from all the three main parties were equally guilty and equally should be shamed. This is a plague on all their houses, and yet another example of how low in moral malaise our democracy has fallen.

The parliamentary expenses system needs a total overhaul, and the most urgent focus of that overhaul has to be the use of the additional cost allowance which should have been used (but clearly has not been by some) to reimburse to a member the cost of staying in London to perform their duty in the House. I said when in parliament that we should move towards a system of furnished apartments owned by the state and paid for by the state, to made available to individual members whilst they are in office. They provide MP's with offices already so why not a place to rest their heads?

Any MP not willing to take up the offer could be given a reduced amount (say £8,000 a year to sort out their own arrangements in hotels or as part of a private arrangement payable only upon receipt of clear invoices. All payments should be made publicly available for scrutiny and MP's should be forced to publish their accounts in their annual reports to electors as a condition of their service.

One final point, the focus has so far been on those MP's from all three parties who have disgraced themselves and the office they serve, but hidden deep down out of sight are an unfortunately small minority who have not and would not as a matter of principle take a penny more than is due to them. As we approach a general election that could see sitting MP's punished for the sins of the collective whole, I hope that the good as well as the bad and the down right ugly are equally brought into public focus.