Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Jul 14
13:35
Joined:
Date Joined:
01 Mar 03
Google 'Tim Fortescue' and take a look at what this piece of work boasted he could do to pervert the course of justice.
.....and then, if you are a true lover of democracy, be very, very fearful about the nature of what you are supporting. Some level of accountability and government of the people, by the people for the people (Naïve? Maybe but show me a better, real-politik alternative) - or the perpetuation of power for powers sake?
And politicians then wonder why there is a general disengagement with voting and politics and society.
.....and then, if you are a true lover of democracy, be very, very fearful about the nature of what you are supporting. Some level of accountability and government of the people, by the people for the people (Naïve? Maybe but show me a better, real-politik alternative) - or the perpetuation of power for powers sake?
And politicians then wonder why there is a general disengagement with voting and politics and society.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 10
|
By:
As it's in the Daily Mail, true or not, chit chat won't believe it.
|
|
By:
When he died in 2008 the Telegraph did a piece on him?
This is the only mention of his time as a whip. His time with the police was almost as fruitful. He discovered that the Home Office had told officers that letters levelling accusations against them were "privileged" even if the charges turned out to be malicious, and consequently they could not sue for defamation. He had little time to act on his experiences of prison, as within weeks of his stint at Walton the Conservatives won the 1970 election (Fortescue almost doubling his majority) and he was appointed a whip. In autumn 1971 he was promoted to a Lord Commissioner of Treasury (a senior whip) in time for the parliamentary battles over Heath's legislation to take Britain into the Common Market. Some backbench Tories were highly reluctant, and years later Fortescue spoke of the use the whips made of their famous "Dirt Book" on the alleged misdeeds of their flock. The stories in it – usually along the lines that "member Bloggs told me over dinner that member So-and-So was seeing a lot of somebody's wife and not his own" – were not always accurate, he conceded, but hinting at their existence could still bring a waverer into line. |
|
By:
From his wiki page.
Revelations about paedophilia in the House of Commons Fortescue worked as a whip in Edward Heath’s government between 1970 and 1973. In a 1995 BBC documentary, Westminster’s Secret Service, he said the following about what the Whips would do for MPs who were in danger of being mired in scandal: “For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be… a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which, erm er, a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more. |
|
By:
STANDARD !!!
|
|
By:
This piece of sh1t was on the BBC, speaking live - no misquoting, no taken out of context, no journalistic license.
He was prepared to turn a blind eye to colleagues criminal activity of the worst kind against children, if it meant that giving the Whips office leverage over them in future. Basically, just maintaining power for powers sake. Nothing to do with public service, protecting the vulnerable, or increasing the common good. Yes it's easy to characterise all politicians thus, but it's also lazy and there has not been anyone IMO so brazen about what he was doing. |
|
By:
Here is the short clip of him saying it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkOWPauu_A |
|
By:
He's just so blasé as if abusing small boys is standard practice in his circles.
|
|
By:
It's the notion that his first reaction is not at a basic human level of 'the man in front of me is a monster and has to be stopped' but a Machiavellian 'how can the information that this man is a child abuser be used to give leverage over him and thus retain power, in the future?'.
When politicians have such a disconnect with basic humanity, is there any wonder that the public holds them and the political process in such low regard? |
|
By:
It beggars belief they just know they're untouchable. Hopefully things are about to change.
|
|
By:
That's the key. The people have to be angry but they must be angry for the right reason and about the right thing. None of this the past is a foreign country bolllox. We cannot be taken in with the old look at what they did in those days. We need to know and must demand to know what is happening now. NOW. Tom Watson raised this in parliament two years ago and Cameron said it was complex. Bolllox. I'm not nearly as interested in what happened 50 years ago though. It won't save a single child. I want to know who is doing what now and I want the fucckers in jail. That way they can't damage lives now and in the future.
|