When did Downing Street know bullying was about to be a problem?

Tonight Brown as Son of the Manse intervenes in high moral tone on assisted suicide declaring himself against and issuing dire warnings on the consequences of altering the guidelines.

Does this reflect concern for his own future perhaps?

Smearing Coulson and getting Prescott out of his box will not save him.

[...] Benedict Brogan has the following: [...]

In a less corrupt Parliament, this would not happen: Labour MPs have forgotten that they are there as Constituency Members of Parliament, to hold the Government to account.

Instead, they all seem to be part of Government.

But then, they are socialists.

Cue F…! F…! F…! fabian-delight..

[...] When did Downing Street know bullying was about to be a problem … [...]

Benedict, I do not believe in that sort of coincidence, they knew the book’s content weeks ago, so they prepared the ground.

If there was no evidence given on the point, why in the report at all.

It is all about prewriting history, or preparing the ground with planted mines. Remind you of the 45 minute inclusion and the prebooked studio visits on publication of the Hutton report??

Am I wrong, but doesn’t this have the finger prints a former worker at No 10, before it became a bunker, all over it? He is on retainer there, isn’t he?

It is possible that bullying has been going on for several years (unless Brown has only recently taken it up, which seems improbable). So they must have guessed that it would come to light sooner or later. The Rawnsley book was an obvious occasion for this.

If you’d wanted to know when I knew about the bullying claims, why didn’t you call or email before you wrote this blog post?

I knew at the weekend about Mr Rawnsley’s book. Frankly, I’m out of the loop these days – not remotely interested in the usual Westminster conspiracy theories like the one you cast above.

The reason the amendment was tabled was because of the complete difference in approach to the employment issue between Mulcaire and Goodman (jailed for criminal offences yet paid off by News International before an employment case) and poor old Matt Driscoll (bullied at work and had to fight all the way for a record compensation). If you read the report in full, you might understand the context.

Ands if you’d bothered to ask me, I would have told you why I moved the amendment.

[...] 2 Benedict Brogan puts his tin-foil hat on and starts [...]

How do you know a politician is lying?
..
And when they are not talkng..?

tomwatson:
How about all of those MPs who are bullied at work by your Party?
How about those civil servants who have been bullied by Brown, Campbell, Prescott?
How about David Kelly – bullied to death?

This bullying story has been known about for years. You know a man by his company – you, Shriti Vadera, Prescott, Campbell, Mandelson, Balls.

And never a word about Gordon’s bullying on the BBC 6 o’clock news, but plenty about Cheryl Cole whoever she is

barryobarma
“How do you know a politician is lying?”
–
HIS LIPS ARE MOVING.

Tom Watson said “knew at the weekend about Mr Rawnsley’s book. Frankly, I’m out of the loop these days – not remotely interested in the usual Westminster conspiracy theories like the one you cast above.”

And we have to suspend belief that he knew nothing before the Observer revelations, or the indeed the Mail ones long before that. The I know nothing defence is very thin.

Isn’t this the same Tom Watson who was involved in a typically nasty Labour election campaign which bore the slogan…

“Labour is on your side – the Lib Dems are on the side of failed asylum seekers”. No irony intended I suppose Tom?

Also, wasnt he called “disloyal, discourteous and wrong” by a certain Mr T Bliar? WOW to be called disloyal, discourteous and wrong by the British Zen Master of all three is some achievement Tom, you must be proud.

How Tom Watson voted on key issues since 2001:

* Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
* Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for the hunting ban. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately for equal gay rights. votes, speeches
* Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change. votes, speeches

Read about how the voting record is decided.

More on well-known issues (from the Guardian) & their full record

* Never rebels against their party in this parliament.

Tom Watson – one of Brown’s most trusted attack dogs. Remember his part in Brown’s plot against Blair.

Never mind. All this happened before Darling’s interview last evening. “Unleashing the forces of Hell, launched against him from 10 Downing Street.” Of course Brown had no part in this, he has just said so. He would never support anyone who briefed against his Chancellor. Why then is Charlie Wheelan, who briefed against Darling, back advising the PM? Brown is a pathological liar as well as being mad!

Sorry, Benedict, it isn’t at all curious; it is what we expect from this mendacious shower.

Frankly, I don’t believe tomwatson’s comment at 1219 am, even assuming it’s the real Tom Watson.

First, I’m a mere reader of the press, including blogs, and I’ve known for far more than a fortnight that Andrew Rawnsley was planning a book on Brown. So for Watson to claim he only knew a week ago stretches belief beyond breaking point – or is he using sophistry on the word “knew” in classic nuLiebour style to exclude being aware of the probability of a book?

Second, if the long-standing rumours of bullying are true (or even if they aren’t), they are an obvious weak spot for Brown and you would expect him to lay down his defences in good time so he has something to attack the Conservatives with.That’s what he’s always done, and I see no reason for this to be an exception.

It’s a good job for Tom Watson that he’s not on oath in this blog. Why doesn’t he just b*****r off, and keep his crap to himself.

Bionic Raspberry: thanks for pointing out just what an unpleasant character this Watson is. By their fruits shall ye know them.

Tom Watson – just another noxious bucket of Sewer Party sewage, who despite being ‘not remotely interested’ is up off his fat arse like a fly off dung to spread some lies on behalf of McBully.

Pull the other one Tommo – it’s on it’s way up McSnivel’s fundament.

[...] lo what words do we hear from an embedded correspondent with a finely tuned ear listening to the crew in the lower decks? Part of the Captain’s Log [...]

Tom Watson. ‘ Frankly (?) I am out of the loop these days’. Yeah, pull the other one. In any case, as a Labourite ( with the exception of F.Field and K. Hoey) you are all fruitloops.

Fly on the wall at the bullying charity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dDvvdXPaMM

Benedict Brogan writes about Bullying at Downing Street
is that what you call Election, specially in American-Election? I wonder?

However, I hope, and I pray to God, that our election in UK will be, fair and much cleaner then the USA?

Cllr Ken @ 1.03pm Ken, the politics here are just as bad as the states!. Not many in fact very few!, have kept the promises made during election time!.

@ Tom Watson

Ben Brogan: ‘…a gratuitous reference to Mr Coulson and bullying, [on February 9th] just weeks before a story Downing Street knew about came to light’
Tom Watson: ‘I knew at the weekend about Mr Rawnsley’s book.’

Yes, but when did you first know about AR’s book? Most casual followers of Westminster politics knew this was brewing for some time. Have you been living on Mars? Otherwise your answer looks disingenuous.

The DCMS Committee was examining press standards, privacy and libel, not press employment issues. Mulcaire and Goodman breached privacy laws and the press code. Driscoll’s was an internal employment matter relevant to Employment law, but had nothing to do with the press code, privacy and libel. You invented a ’standards’ connection to plonk it in as an amendment. The Committee couldn’t be bothered at that late stage to disagree.

Your amendment was obviously a party political point, intended to be used in a general election campaign to smear your opponents.

Ah well, just when I thought MPs couldn’t stoop any lower in the public’s opinion.

tomwatson,
Do try and keep up, for your party’s sake. You will have to do much better than this little feeble contradiction:
‘…Frankly, I’m out of the loop these days – not remotely interested in the usual Westminster conspiracy theories like the one you cast above…’.

Out of the loop and not remotely interested, yet you pester a fine, respected journalist like Benedict Brogan who raises a legitimate question, given your well documented past tactics, and associations.

I hope you are not trying to menace Benedict, tomwatson. This is 2010, not 1997. Few journalists had ever encountered the kind of menace and threats directed at them when ‘New Labour’/Old Stalinists came to power, but they have learnt from experience that your ort must be opposed, despite your smiling faces.

File the writ of go forth and multiply. Also, do learn proper English grammer and spelling before you lecture a professional journalist, comrade.

Oops! Hoisted by my own petard
‘…that your sort…or go forth…’.
Crumbs. Just the sight of a puppet master for the Guardianista and Daily Fuhrer fanzine infects me with their typos. Errors corrected now, unlike theirs, eh tomwatson?

The fact is that Andy Coulson was asked to appear at Matt Driscoll’s tribunal but refused.