Right-wing media omit key info in O’Mara case

missing link.png

Missing links?

Jared O’Mara’s attitudes toward women appear to have been reprehensible and this blog has no interest in defending them. However, information relating to disturbing omissions from reports concerning that behaviour have reached the SKWAWKBOX.

The S*n reported allegations against Mr O’Mara from two main sources: Sheffield women Sophie Evans and Liz Aspden.

Ms Evans told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme about comments she said O’Mara had made to her but didn’t mention that she had a ‘history’ with him before the events:

sophieevans5

But the S*n, of an ilk with the right-wing source of the original story, also seems to have omitted to mention another key piece of information.

A S*n article accuses O’Mara of ‘watch[ing] as his bouncers gave woman a black eye’ before relating a story told by Sheffield woman Liz Aspden. The right-wing blog that crowed about the Evans story mentioned the S*n article in a follow-up with the words:

Meanwhile a second woman, 42 year-old Liz Aspden, has come forward

as if the two women have no connection – and the second has merely ‘come forward’ – but that appears to be anything but the case.

Sources in Sheffield have told the SKWAWKBOX that Ms Aspden is the publican of the Harlequin pub, less than a mile from Jared O’Mara’s club – and that the original complainant, Sophie Evans, is Liz Aspden’s employee.

Not only that, but the pair have a long, busy and familiar Twitter history together, with the earliest tweet between Aspden’s ‘@harlequinpub’ account and Evans’ ‘@drunken_musings’ dating back some eighteen months:

harleq se

All of which might mean nothing – or might mean a lot. At the very least, these are connections that a serious journalist would pursue. However, they might not be conducive to an outright, anti-Labour attack article.

Neither woman has been reachable for comment. There appears to be no reason to doubt either’s account of what O’Mara said or did, but if one complainant owns a potentially rival establishment to his and the second complainant works for her (and has history with O’Mara), then that information is absolutely pertinent to the story, raising questions about motivation and other possible background.

At its mildest, the omission of such obviously pertinent facts would represent a failure of journalism, especially with both publications – openly opposed to Labour’s aims and values, especially under Jeremy Corbyn – relating the accusations with such obvious relish and an apparent desire to damage the Labour Party through them.

If the outlets in question didn’t know that their two complainants were linked, they should have – the link can be uncovered via a simple Twitter search. If they knew and failed to include the information, that’s a different order of failure.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

10 responses to “Right-wing media omit key info in O’Mara case

  1. Pingback: Right-wing media omit key info in O’Mara case | Hercules space·

  2. Pingback: Right-wing media omit key info in O’Mara case – The SKWAWKBOX – leftwingnobody·

  3. Pingback: We’re ruffling the right feathers. Please support the SKWAWKBOX | The SKWAWKBOX·

  4. What hasnt been brought up much is the interview she did on Sky news. She said her and Jared O’Mara had been going out for a couple of months before the incident.

    Like

  5. Does the fact that they used to date make a difference? Surely regardless of this fact his comments are inappropriate and if true letting his bouncers punch her is inexcuseable and slut-shaming the accusers is unhelpful in a society only just beginning to come out if an era of denying women a fair hearing? I expect more of you Skwarkbox – better to get the facts serious journalists should go after before smearing these women.

    Like

    • Nobody’s shaming either woman. It *is* shaming the S*n/Fawkes for failing to do their job properly by omitting pertinent information. As the article makes clear

      Like

    • Do you work for The Sun by any chance? Because you obviously have a knack for distortion and misrepresentation.

      Like

  6. Normally, a feature about a pub mentions who the landlord/landlady is. Not so on the website of this pub although there is a tweet from somebody called Betty Aspden whose status is not revealed.

    Thank you for raising this.
    I do wonder if we have another ‘brick through the office window’ type situation here.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s