Sexual abuse in the highest rank of the Labour Party

The reason nobody has likely heard of this case is because it's practically a non-story. There have been a couple of baseless accusations with no proof, no follow-up and no action demanded or taken. And it all happened well over a decade ago, so I don't know why you're posting in N&CA about it of all places…

Action hasn’t been demanded because the complainant is dead. It is a non story because the fake news media have decided it isn’t one.

You are desperate to shove this under the carpet because it is one of your own. That’s the beginning and end of it. Why are you lefties so morally bankrupt? Why is there a vacuum where your consciences should be?

Snowflake safe spaces, jazz hands so no one gets offended by the noise of applause. But when a Labour MP gets assaulted by a Labour Cabinet Minister, it is a “ non story.”

This is not about legal “proof”, there can’t be a court case, the complainant is dead. It makes a change from the other historic sex abuse cases, I suppose, where the abuser is dead, but is still indicative of justice not being served. Jimmy Saville, (guilty until proven innocent too?) this, in both cases no closure, no justice. Offence’s gilded hand may shove by justice.

This needs to be aired, given publicity. And the decision not to do so is an editorial decision.

You say politics has nothing to do with this

I say that the journalistic left is selective in its moral outrage, as are you. You may never have voted Labour but are of the left. Don’t try and deny it.

I doubt you will have heard of this case, despite the act that it is very on trend with the media narrative of the moment, and covers the subject of sexual abuse clear to the left wing media's heart, it hasn't been covered by the BBC or the Guardian.

Why? Because it involves the establishment left. The top of the Labour Party. And the Fake News Guardian and BBC don't take their jobs quite so seriously when it involves one of their own, do they?

https://www.tomwinnifrith.com/articles/12306/so-if-labour-is-really-serious-about-sexual-harassment-what-about-fiona-jones-mp

The Labour Party is rotten to the core. And it is covered up by the mainstream media who all know the story, but refuse to raise it.

Action hasn’t been demanded because the complainant is dead. It is a non story because the fake news media have decided it isn’t one.

You are desperate to shove this under the carpet because it is one of your own. That’s the beginning and end of it. Why are you lefties so morally bankrupt? Why is there a vacuum where your consciences should be?

Snowflake safe spaces, jazz hands so no one gets offended by the noise of applause. But when a Labour MP gets assaulted by a Labour Cabinet Minister, it is a “ non story.”

You guys are a joke.

a couple of baseless accusations with no proof

The same leftie media that ran with Jared O'Meara tweets?

I doubt you will have heard of this case, despite the act that it is very on trend with the media narrative of the moment, and covers the subject of sexual abuse clear to the left wing media's heart, it hasn't been covered by the BBC or the Guardian.

Why? Because it involves the establishment left. The top of the Labour Party. And the Fake News Guardian and BBC don't take their jobs quite so seriously when it involves one of their own, do they?

https://www.tomwinnifrith.com/articles/12306/so-if-labour-is-really-serious-about-sexual-harassment-what-about-fiona-jones-mp

The Labour Party is rotten to the core. And it is covered up by the mainstream media who all know the story, but refuse to raise it.

There was a long Channel 4 segment about Labour and the Bex Bailey stuff just last night.

The news isn't talking about this because it isn't current news, it's decade-old news.

All of these stories took place years ago, decades ago. Saville, Ted Heath, even Michael Fallon is talking about moral standards being different 15 years ago to today.

The events took place years or decades ago, but the emergence of the allegations (or new evidence about them) is much more recent.

The blog post you cite, by contrast, is about allegations from 10 years ago, about which there seem to have been no further evidence or developments since.

This is the hottest topic on the whole national news agenda right now, THE story. And these "allegations" as you put it, involve a prominent Cabinet Minister in the Blair Government. And one of his own MPs.

I put it to you that, in this current, arguably hysterical media environment, that makes them news, a supporting narrative to this whole imbroglio. The story should be included. There ought to be no statute of limitations on journalism, as there is on justice.

You really can't deny the bias of the media, (conscious and unconscious) especially the BBC which laughable claims to be totally politically neutral. Surely?

I'll give you an example. One plucked out of so many, chosen because it happened this very day. The BBC has an agenda to influence public opinion on accepting refugees. It positions articles in certain ways, edits TV footage to advance its case, gives prominence to the side of the argument which wants to accept them. That is a political view.

Today a court case on the matter came to judgment. How does the BBC report it?

Not that the Government won its case.

The case was lost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41845115

The reason it is news now is that new allegations have come out and new information has come out about old ones. It's not about a statute of limitations, it's that repeating something reported by a national daily newspaper a decade ago about which you have discovered no new facts or leads isn't journalism.

If some previously unknown fact suddenly emerges, such as a friend of Fiona Jones who knew some of the details, but previously kept them to herself, coming forward, that would make it news.



I've posted plenty of times on this site on what I think typical media biases are, and similarly about how the BBC is alternately asked to be neutral, impartial, objective, accurate, balanced, representative, inclusive, etc, none of which are really the same thing and which are often contradictory. But I also think that more specific accusations of an outright political bias, which Corbynites accuse the BBC of nearly as often as righties do, most of the time just serve to confirm what we already know about the accusers' politics.



So supposing this framing for the sake of argument, how should the BBC have reported it? By the logic given here, for them to report it in the opposite way that you suggest, namely to report that the government won, would just be supporting the opposing view.

Or do you think that only the interpretations you oppose are political ones, whereas the ones you support are impartial?

The case was lost not won, because they were supporting the side that lost. They shared in the defeat.

I put it to you, that a journalist who on a personal level supported the denial of entry of unaccompanied refugees (I doubt there are any in the whole of the BBC) would have reported that the Government had won the case.

So, I submit, you are asking the wrong question. It is not "how should the BBC have reported it?" but "how, being the BBC, could they possibly have reported it in any other way?"

The reason nobody has likely heard of this case is because it's practically a non-story. There have been a couple of baseless accusations with no proof, no follow-up and no action demanded or taken. And it all happened well over a decade ago, so I don't know why you're posting in N&CA about it of all places…