Clive Lewis: “accusations are just not credible – who’d be that stupid?”

The media are making much of claims that Clive Lewis ‘groped’ a woman’s bottom at a Novara Media party. This evening, Lewis spoke to the SKWAWKBOX about the allegations – and his tone was incredulous as much as anything.

Not at the fact that Labour is investigating them, which he applauded, but at the way they were being portrayed in the media.

Allegations absolutely have to be treated seriously and investigated properly, so I welcome the fact that the party is investigating them. That’s absolutely as it should be.

But if you look at the detail of what’s being claimed, it doesn’t make sense. The Independent admits that this was the first time I’d met the woman – she’s complained anonymously, so I can’t say whether I met her at all. I hug a lot of people, but I’d never grab anyone’s backside – but they’re saying that this was a complete stranger to me, someone I’d only just met. Not only that, but that it happened in front of a roomful of people.

Think about it for a minute. Apart from it being wrong and not in me to do it, who’d be that stupid as to grope a woman they’d literally just met and didn’t know anything about?

lewis indep 1

I’m a politician. There are lots of people to witness it. Smartphones with cameras linked to social media. And supposedly I’d just reach down and grab her bottom? In front of her friend, whom I also didn’t know.

It absolutely didn’t happen – and the fact the media are ignoring the obvious problems with the account shows how politically motivated it is.

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.


  1. Is these ‘accusations’ going to prove to be part of a new version of the staged resignations

  2. All these explosions of what ? That we all have to say are ‘shocking’ which some Benny Hill might find tame.

    With no distinction between serious rape and knee touching.

    So vague all live in fear of having a drunken lurch 20 years ago revealed and destroy career and income.

    Are so insidious and dangerous, and spun for whatever purpose media or employer want, with often only one side’s evidence.

    And you dare not say this as then you are attacked as a sexist/rapist harasser sympathiser and if female, a traitor

    Your word against theirs, the first person to be offended and complain wins.

    We know what it is leading to- Codes of Conduct, that can be used against all who are targeted, whether or not they have been whatever they deem ‘inappropriate’.

    Whether or not, that appropriateness is taken out of context, or even a deliberate sting..

    We already have such Codes of Conduct in most professions and Universities and they are a deliberate means of control and not of harassment, but of opinion, whistle blowers any dissidence

    We are living in a very nasty dishonest society and this could be a useful tool to control and further destroy relationships between sexs
    And mask/ distract from real sexual abuse like Rochdale Rotherham etc
    And why is this all happening now ??

  3. This is another attack. Probably by the “Establishment”, maybe by the Blairite Faction and distantly possibly the work of Mossad (given the Israeli aim to stop JC at all costs). Clive Lewis is being targeted for some reason.
    Or is it just the “New Puritanism” that is being laid on us all.
    If you dare question you are a woman hater or in denial of the wrongs being done to every woman on the planet by horrible men. If you are female and question you are doubly in denial and a traitor to the sisterhood.
    Meanwhile the disaster called “Brexit” lurches along, there are political prisoners in Spain, the Senate happily waves through “Constant War” in the US and no one notices, Democracy is under attack here and abroad, the NHS is being dismantled daily, the “House of Cards” coup in the Tory ranks takes place and the economy is going down the toilet.
    What a weird world we live in.

  4. Oooohhhh looook a squirrel . effing tory deflection !!!!

    Agree totally with Guanacaste Kid comments

  5. ” “charming and sweet natured” and that “a nice young man would be lucky to have you as a girlfriend and lover…Were I to be young…but I am not…”. ” Perhaps ill-advised words to say to someone you have only a professional connection to, I would have thought. I’m no Tory lover at all, and these accusations may be false, but it seems unlikely that Labour men have all, at all times, behaved perfectly.

    1. I agree liz – (re the ava situation) but in the context of the relationship as stated by her, ie who is leading the approaches etc this is not harassment and at worst is a vary minor but still inappropriate response. It deserves a reprimand which is what he got.

      1. Sorry – I should have posted my comment on the article about Kelvin Hopkins not here.

  6. I really feel for Clive’s situation. Having seen him in TV on this issue, he is genuinely perplexed, and genuinely concerned that victims of sexual assault are heard, and treated with respect. There is indeed too much being made in the press of the lesser “crimes”, one feels to diminish the seriousness of others. Clive is actually a target from within and without the party, as said above, as at conference he was at the launch of JVL. Almost everyone on that platform has been accused of just about everything.

  7. Perhaps anonymous complaints should be disallowed. Perhaps also single complaints against anyone should be viewed with suspicion.

  8. MP’s from all political parties are being accused not just your mates. Whether these men are guilty or not remains to be investigated but being left wing does not mean someone is incapable of such actions. Gerry Healy long time leader of the WRP and Comrade “delta” of the SWP are just two cases that come to mind.

    For someone to blame a Mossad conspiracy of “possibly” being involved shows an unhealthy mindset representative of this totally misnamed “new, kinder politics” that you claim to be part of.

    1. Nobody mentioned Mossad – except you. Nobody mentioned your strawman claims either – except you. The evidence suggests the claims are unrealistic and the MP is accurately quoted.

      1. The comment about Mossad was made by Guantacaste above. He/she wrote: This is another attack. Probably by the “Establishment”, maybe by the Blairite Faction and distantly possibly the work of Mossad (given the Israeli aim to stop JC at all costs).

      2. I see. Thanks. You started a new comment rather than replying to that one, so appeared to be suggesting it was in the article, which it isn’t

      3. Threading options are there for a reason, if there are a lot of comments it won’t be possible to follow who’s referring to what.

  9. More diversion from the REAL issue – the findings of the Ted Heath inbvestigations – you have been warned people – dont let the tories get away with it

  10. The Tories, indeed, the *whole* Establishment, is perched atop a supervolcano of sexual misconduct that goes so far beyond the – rather timely – allegations against Clive Lewis as the begar belief.

    The damage-limitation exercise is now well under way: delay, distract, play for time, conflate, reframe etc. etc. etc.

    Wonder if the overly implicated will go the way of Saville, Janner, Smith, et al?

  11. On further investigation, the young lady who made the allegations (allegedly) was found to be a Tory sympathiser!
    When are the Tories going to investigate their own?
    Hands up, who remembers the PROFUMO AFFAIRE OR JOHN MAJOR with his family ethics policy when all the time he and EDWENA CURRY ARE UP TO NO GOOD IN HIS PRIVATE OFFICE?

  12. I find it strange that two mp’s on the left of the party have been targeted I smell a progress rat. It was misguided to send a text but I don’t really regard the comments as sexual harassment patronisation/flattery probably. A reprimand was surely enough under the circumstances. I also find it strange that the alleged victim continued to maintain contact with kelvin Hopkins. As for Clive Lewis I don’t believe anything untoward happened.

  13. So Clive Lewis is in a room full of people, and a couple of complete strangers walk up to him, and Clive supposedly grabs the woman’s behind as he gives her a hug, and does so in full view of her male companion. Yes, sounds totally plausible of course!

    Unless this anonymous woman came up to Clive and somehow made it clear immediately that her male companion wasn’t her husband or boyfriend, then most people in such a situartion would naturally assume that the guy is her husband or her boyfriend, and so you are hardly going to grope her ass right in front of that person, even if you WERE that way inclined.

    And if this woman and her male friend actually DID interact with Clive, then presumably Clive gave the guy a hug as well, or at the very least shook his hand, but in the reports I’ve read, nothing whatsoever is said about the guy except that she and he looked at each-other as it happened…… here’s what she’s reported as saying:

    “My friend who was there, a fellow [constituency party] delegate…me and him looked at each other and our eyebrows went ‘whoaaa’.”

    She gives every indication that this meeting of eyebrows happened in the moment that Clive supposedly grabbed her ass, implying that HE was standing behind Clive (which would be odd in itself), and if that’s the case, then how would he have seen Clive doing it.

    This doesn’t just smell fishy, it stinks to high heaven of Tory/Establishment dirty tricks. As with Kelvin Hopkins.

    1. sorry, are you saying you wouldn’t grope a woman if her husband was there? Which would imply that you would if she was on her own….and that you wouldn’t if her husband was there, why? Is she a possession? Do you see women as possessions? are they fare game if they’re not accompanied by a man who ‘owns’ them? I think you need to think long and hard about your attitude.

      1. You are being a bit ridicules and letting you rather vivd imagination run away with you. As far as I can see Alan is saying absolutely nothing about his own attitudes to women, all he has done is point out some of the rather obvious holes in the veracity of these allegations. Having a totally unjustified rant isn’t in the least bit helpful to anyone, least of all to any cause you are attempting to proselytise .

      2. Lilith: You’re grasping at a straw that is non-existent. Or perhaps deliberately trying to distort and misrepresent what I said.

        To one and all:
        And another thing that occurs to me is that if it’s complete fabrication, then THAT would explain why this woman and her “male companion” – who I assume were responsible for the story getting in to the public domain – ie the media – chose to remain anonymous. I would imagine that Clive met a lot of new faces that night – and a lot of old faces and friends – and the longer he is left in the dark as to the identity of these two people, the more plausible it sounds that he must have forgotten meeting them (even though she says herself that she danced with him shortly afterwards) when he DOES learn of their identity and, as such, says that he DIDN’T meet them that night (or has no recollection of meeting them).

        Assuming that it WAS this woman (and her male companion) that conveyed the story to one media outlet or another, then she/they would have obviously given them their names, and wouldn’t it be normal practice for this newspaper or whatever to then contact Clive Lewis and tell him what has been alledged and WHO alledged it, and to do so before publishing the story so as to get his response . But it obviously DIDN’T happen like that, and THAT begs the question WHY NOT.

        I just this second read through the above article again, and from what Clive says, I gather it was The Independent that initially broke the story. And I get the impression from what he says that they didn’t contact him before publishing the story AND that THAT was the first time he heard about it (but I could be wrong of course, and maybe it didn’t happen like that).

        Anyway, it’s almost dawn and time to hit the sack, so I’m just gonna quickly check out the story in The Independent and then get some kip.

      3. Unfortunately my brain just thought of something else that doesn’t add up, and I want to share it before I hit the sack:

        If Brewer-Hartley had no problem what-so-ever with Michael Fallon touching her knee, as she has stated and has been widely reported, then THAT begs the question: WHO conveyed the story to whoever got the sexpest list together? The fact that she has said (as of since the story broke) that she had no problem about him touching her knee implies of course that at the time it happened she was perfectly OK about it, and if that’s the case, then SHE would have no reason to report it to whoever it was compiling this sexpest list. So who did? Or is it all a black propaganda op in conjunction with other recent ‘events’, all concocted and contrived and designed to hit Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party hard right between the eyes – ie a knockout blow.

        Oh, and no doubt if the Right do regain control of the Labour Party at some point, all this misogyny and sexism and abuse and anti-semitism will magically disappear! Hmmm

  14. And the Bex Bailey story sounds totally implausible as well. Where did this “rape” supposedly take place? Did the person in question drag her into the bathroom or somewhere by the hair in front of everyone.

    And if it really DID happen, which I doubt very much, then as a consequence of her NOT reporting it to the police (and only bringing it to the attention of LP officials two years later anyway), this purported rapist could well have raped again. And again and again. But THAT obviously didn’t for one moment cross her mind. And I do not believe for one millisecond that any LP official that, on being told by someone that they had been raped, would tell her to keep quiet about it. It totally beggars belief

    If the Establishment can hijack the Labour Party, as they did with Blair & Co, you can be 150% sure that they can smash windows when it serves their purpose, and put big signs up saying Tories should be hanged with two dummies hanging underneath etc, etc, then they are of course capable of anything. Like justifying the military invasion of a soverign country and hundreds of thousands of people being killed – murdered in actual fact – and hundreds of thousands more being maimed and crippled, and all the pain and devastation caused to those who lost loved ones, etc, etc, and all based on a Big Nazi-type Lie.

    See THEM for what they are!

    1. you do know that the majority of rapes go unreported? You do know that the odds of getting it court are slim? You do know its a massive ordeal that a traumatized victim may not want to put themselves through? Do you understand anything about the psychological reasons than means it takes time for women to come forward, especially if the rapist is known to them, which most are.

      1. Lilith: It’s not a case of what the odds are on it going to trial, or what the odds are on a successful outcome, because even if the victim doesn’t want to go through the trauma of a court case, they should still report it to the police, and the police in turn notify the alledged perpetrator that an allegation has been made against them. That in itself would be a very big deterrent to them ever doing it again.

        And as I said before, I find it pretty much inconceivable that a party official would be so insensitive as to tell someone to keep stum about such a serious offence – ie such a serious allegation – and advise her “that it would “damage” her if she took her complaint further”.

        And what I cannot get my head round at all is how it could have happened at a Labour Party “event”. How on Earth does someone manage to rape someone at a Labour Party event? What event? And where exactly did the “event” take place? And why on Earth has she not named the (alledged) perpetator and, as such, left hundreds, and perhaps thousands of party activists wondering if it was so-and-so.

        And if – after six years – she finally felt the need to do something about it, why would you go to the media first, or even at ALL, and not go and report it to the police? (According to The Sun: ‘On October 31, Miss Bailey told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that in 2011 she was raped at a party event’, and from there it was obviously picked and reported widely by the media in general).

        The Sun article (mentioned above) also says the following:

        ‘In a piece for the New Statesman last year putting forward her candidacy for the NEC, she wrote of her desire to “fight for a more equal Labour Party”, and ensure “young women have more opportunities to get involved”.
        She said: “As a young woman I know that the culture of the Labour Party at all levels can be intimidating and off-putting.
        “Too often we face unwelcoming meetings, difficulties getting involved and even harassment and bullying.”‘


  15. And IF – back in the early 1980s – the GLC and the six Metropolitan County Councils had been under Tory control, does anyone for one moment think or believe that Thatcher & Co would have introduced legislation to abolish them all, and done so on the grounds of devolving power to local councils. Of course they wouldn’t have. And THAT tells you just about everything you need to know about what the Establishment so-called think about democracy.

    And you can be absolutely certain the Establishment wanted OUT of the EU……. their propaganda machine had after all been vilifying and slagging off the European Union for more than two decades prior to the referendum so as to turn as many people as possible against it.

    And the leadership contest that then ensued after Cameron stood down was all contrived – ie Gove and Johnson cancelling each-other out, and Leadsom saying in an interview with The Times that she would make a better leader/PM (than May) because SHE has children (as if anyone would say such a thing in reality!) etc – all of which conveniently led to May ‘winning’ without the need for a protracted contest, so that the Establishment’s propaganda machine could then solely focus on smearing Jeremy Corbyn during the LP leadership election, which of course happened courtesy of the Blairites falsely claiming that HE was responsible for the result of the EU referendum…….

    And you can be sure that the NEC is run by Establishment plants.

    As for the Tory ‘sexpest’ list being leaked to the media – which many of us found inexplicable at the time – now we know WHY they did it!

    And it’s no coincidence that Damian Green perpetrated his (the Establishment’s) outrageous smear against Sqwawkbox etc when he (they) did.

    And they know of course that their ultra devious machinations are beyond the conceivability of most people. Deception and manipulation and the maintenance and consilidation of wealth and power is the name of their vile, demonic, anti-human game.

  16. Reblogged this on The Night Owl and commented:
    I find the accusations against Clive Lewis a tad too useful to the Tory media machine for my liking – especially in the wake of the 36 Tory MP’s who are in trouble for similar reasons – which the MSM are keeping very quiet about, as usual.
    Is this yet another Tory-led accusation, made to take the fire away from their problems, I wonder?

    1. So how useful are the complaints against Tory MP’s useful to the Tory media then? The press are hardly keeping quiet about it as you suggest. It’s in all the papers and on TV. Why the need for any conspiracy theories?

  17. Just for the record, the word I was actually looking for was diabolical, as opposed to demonic. But then again, what the hell!

  18. I think we all have to forget about left/right wing.

    Whatever the distinction is per se let alone de facto now.

    As for the past 20 years, effectively we have an increasingly totalitarian politics, where labour are in bed with tory.

    That is why the traditional small state Tory, has now made the state so huge it now controls every facet of our lives – how we parent, how we look after are old and vulnerable, what we believe , how we behave, what we are educated.

    And the labour party has betrayed its ethos by facilitating the monopoly privatisation of our welfare state, education, prisons , NHS for maximum venture capitalist profit.

    The Sunday Times today, Murdoch owned and orchestrated may show the real reason for this expose now, in addition to the future control of MPs etc via Codes of Conduct

    And that may be to remove/marginalise as many non third way totalists as possible, to leave the way for the return/continuance of the cosy third way Blairite/Cameron/Clegg /Gove alliance .

  19. This is a general comment on the whole mess, not the specific Clive Lewis case, but there does seem to be a general tone to the comments in this forum along the lines of:

    These accused Conservatives must be guilty, but there’s obviously something dodgy about those accusing Labour people.

    More than a whiff of double standards I think.

    1. Having re-read the comments section it has confirmed that my original impression that there was very little mention of the Tory accused was well founded. It is difficult to understand how you can substantiate reaching the conclusions you have.

      1. You may be right. On reflection “lying, corrupt, complicit Tory toerags” etc seems to be some peoples’ default response to any story.

        There’s certainly a lot of querying of the accusers of the Labour people though.

      2. Steve H don’t bother Hindson is a self confessed Troy supporter and voter . He’s a Tory TROLL , excellent at smoke screening and obfuscation , he has past form here on this blog and over on The Canary

    2. Graham, thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m glad to see that you now accept that your original conclusion above was to put it politely ill-founded and that you are unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support your original post.

      It is also worth pointing out that the words “lying, corrupt, complicit & toerags” only appear once on this page and those singular occasion are in your post.

      I guess we’ll have to draw our own conclusions on the veracity and true intentions of this and future posts.

      Trump has popularised a very apt phrase that describes your posts quite succinctly.

      1. The perils of paraphrasing!

        As I said at the outset I’m commenting on the mess in general, not just on the Clive Lewis case so have drawn my impressions from several threads.

        Try this one: “I haven’t got much to say about this except they are all perverts and this is the Government we’ve got all dirty perverted sex predators no wonder our country is fucked up as they are too busy fucking there way through life to make our country a better country for us to live in and I’m sorry to use foul language but that’s what’s happening and it’s a discrase”

        Or this: “Tories are morally corrupt in my view. Let’s hope theyget their comeuppance.”

        Or this: “What will it take to get rid of this pernicious mob that calls itself a government?”

        Or this: “For God’s sake go, May. Resign and take your disgusting cabinet of sex pests with you.”

        Or this: “I was thinking exactly the same…Just a cursory mention that there were 36 or so toerags on their list…At the last one or two sentences before the end of the report.”

        Or this: “Strange, innit? That they’ll refuse victims of CSA by saying they ‘consented’ to be abused…Stranger still that may’s gone all out to get as many toerags what lost their seats last June, into cushy, well paid numbers…

        Hang the bastard lot of them.”

        Or this: “Indeed…

        …Straight to the gallows. Overlooking/omitting something the once could be construed as an honest mistake, twice is carelessness…more than twice cannot be anything else other than complicity.”

        Or this: “Corruption has maintained power for the establishment for centuries, this insight now can’t be ruled out as conspiracy theories, isn’t it time the people of this country realised that they are taken daily as fools by these people, who are unfit to hold offices of the state.”

        Or this: “There’s not much to enjoy about the whole situation; but it won’t be satisfactory until the bastard lot of them are out on their arses..regardless of party…But especially the lot on that toerag sex-pest spreadsheet.”

        I’ve covered corruption, toerags, complicity and guilt assumption there; I thought I’d seen lying somewhere – I’ll keep looking.

        There’s certainly a lot of querying of the accusers of the Labour people though.

      2. Graham: On reading through the comments you listed, I would say – without actually counting them up – that at least half of them weren’t offensive at all. Anyway, several of them sound as if they were written by the same person, so could you in fact provide links for all of them so as it’s possible to check.

        It has been known of course for shills to post deliberately offensive comments on websites so as to give a bad impression of that website. I think all genuine users of sqwawkbox should bear this in mind and keep it clean, and the insults as polite as possible. “Go ye forth and multiply” is one euphemism that comes to mind.

    3. “The perils of paraphrasing!” – Yes indeed, especially when you put your paraphrasing within quotation marks.

      Oh ‘wow’
      You’ve searched the whole website and managed to find single instances of the words you quoted. Should I be impressed?

      Unfortunately you haven’t provided links to your ‘quotes’. Intentionally or not this makes it rather difficult to check the context of your quotes, as well as being a more than little on the sloppy side.

      Your current rather desperate position It’s certainly a long, long way from your original posting.

      1. The quotes are all from the comments attached to the various stories on the subject over the last few days. There aren’t many such stories so the quotes are easy to find.

        There is also a fair amount of questioning of the accusers of the Labour people – would you at least concede that?

    4. You really can’t be serious, do you really expect me to read through all the comments on stories over the last few day, especially when it is so easy to provide direct links to individual comments?

      “There is also a fair amount of questioning of the accusers of the Labour people – would you at least concede that?”

      Of course there are several commentators questioning the veracity of the complaints against Clive Lewis and Kelvin Hopkins. It would be a surprise if there weren’t numerous people questioning their validity. Are you saying it is not legitimate to point out the rather obvious contradictions in these allegations.

      1. I’d link to the individual comments if I knew how to. Can you give me a quick tutorial?

        It’s quite legitimate to question those accusing Labour people; I’m pointing out that there seems to be no equivalent questioning of the accusations against Conservatives, particularly with regard to the famous/infamous spreadsheet.

      2. Graham Hindson 06/11/2017 at 9:51 am · ·

        I’d link to the individual comments if I knew how to. Can you give me a quick tutorial?

        Go to file manager , select C drive , right click and select Format hard drive .
        Now piss off Hindson you Tory Troll , you set up your Facebook account ok and made it totally anonymous ( not simple ) so don’t think making a simple link is too difficult for you . Its just another ploy of yours

      3. Graham: So you didn’t provide links because you don’t know how to, or so you claim. Why don’t I believe you! It’s such a basic part of using a computer you’d be hard put to find anyone over about the age of twelve who DOESN’T know how to link to articles or whatever. But even if you really DIDN’T, a quick search would explain how it’s done.

        As for “questioning of the accusations against Conservatives, particularly with regard to the famous/infamous spreadsheet”, no one of course is stopping you yourself from doing so, so why haven’t you?

        The truth of the matter is that you are just being totally disingenuous. In the first place, the article is about Clive Lewis, and although I realise it might be a bit hard for you to comprehend, the comments people post tend to be related to
        the article in question.

        Anyway, here’s how to create a link:

        1. Hold the cursor over the webaddress of the page you want to link (at the top of the page where it says https etc)

        2. Left click on it to highlight it

        3. Hold cursor over it and right click to bring up drop down menu and click on ‘copy’

        4. On page where you want to put link, place cursor where you want to put the link, right click to bring up drop down menu and click ‘paste’

        So now you know how to do it, could you provide us with at least a few links to some of the comments you quoted in your post up the page. Thanks.

        Meanwhile, you may find this of interest:


  20. So now we know that movies, fashion & politics are peppered with sex-pests & rapists.
    We can thank our lucky stars we have the MSM to keep us informed; and that they’ve completely eradicated the misogynistic cultures they used to be famous for.
    They must have or we’d be reading complaints about their prominent men from women working in TV and the papers – now that the dam of silence is broken – wouldn’t we?
    Unless… couldn’t be that they just bunged non-disclosure clauses in their employment contracts could it?
    Would that even be legal?

  21. @Rob – How does one create a link to an individual comment on here?
    I can’t find a mechanism to do so.

    (I don’t think that insults move the debate on at all, but merely distract from the substantive issues)

    1. How does one create a link to an individual comment on here?
      I can’t find a mechanism to do so.

      It’s really very easy to link to individual comments all you have to do is right-click on the time+date stamp (it is in light gray immediately to the right of User Name at the head of each comment) Then simply select [Copy Link] and then [Paste] it into your comment.

      As an example this is a link to one of your earlier comments

      Or if you want to be more sophisticated try this instead

      1. Surprisingly, judging from the responses you received. you were not the only one who didn’t know how to do this,

      2. Graham: The least you could do is provide two or three more links to the examples you mentioned. It’s not that I don’t trust you of course.

        Steve: Thanks for the info; I didn’t realise it was possible to link to individual comments.

      3. Glad to be of help.

        Hopefully we can look forward to all Graham’s future comments having the appropriate supporting links. It will make everyone’s life a lot easier.

    2. “How does one create a link to an individual comment on here?
      I can’t find a mechanism to do so. ”

      It’s really very easy to link to individual comments all you have to do is right-click on the time+date stamp (it is in light gray immediately to the right of User Name at the head of each comment) Then simply select [Copy Link] and then [Paste] it into your comment.

      As an example this is a link to one of your earlier comments

  22. For The Attention Of Sqwawkbox:

    Could you please contact Bex Bailey and ask her if she has been in touch with the police yet regarding the rape she alledges happened, and IF not, why not. And also ask her why it was, that having finally decided to do something about it after six years, she decided to go to the media first, or at all for that matter, and not just report it to the police.

    And given what she said to the New Statesman – ie “As a young woman I know that the culture of the Labour Party at all levels can be intimidating and off-putting. Too often we face unwelcoming meetings, difficulties getting involved and even harassment and bullying”, could you ask her to give a few examples of her own personal experiences.

    1. Examples of the culture of the LP being intimidating and off-putting

    2. Examples of unwelcoming meetings she’s been to, and what happened exactly

    3. Examples of where she has had difficulties getting involved, and what happened exactly

    4. Examples of where she has experienced harassment, and what happened exactly

    5. Examples of where she has experienced bullying, and what happened exactly

    And ask her if on any of the occasions she experienced harassment or bullying, and especially the latter, did she report it to the NEC, or anyone else in a position of authority.

    Given that she said these things to the New Statesman last year, and given that she’s been involved with the LP for ten years (according to The Sun article I referred to in a previous post), none of it appears to have ‘off-putted’ her so far, even being raped it seems six years ago.

    I have never myself been directly involved with the LP, but I know – and HAVE known – a few people who ARE, and you couldn’t wish to meet more caring and compassionate, genuine and lovely people. Needless to say, they were on the Left of the party.

    1. Afterthought: I don’t actually know the answer, but isn’t it pretty much unprecedented that the media cover a story where the victim of a rape (an alledged rape that is) KNOWS the identity of the person, but doesn’t name them? But they cover it anyway.

  23. AND, isn’t it normally the case that the media would refer to a crime – and especially one so serious – that is, as of yet, unproven, as being ‘alledged’, and yet in not one single article I have read is that the case.

  24. The following is a link to the Radio 4 PM program on which the Bex Bailey rape story first broke on October 31st. I have only just listened to it myself for the first time, and it has, if anything, added to my belief that it is/was all contrived and fabricated. I will explain why shortly, but please listen to it first. The story is mentioned right at the beginning of the program, and is then mentioned in more detail in the ‘Today’s News’ bit that follows, and then there is a 14 minute piece starting at 5mins which mainly consists of an interview with Bex Bailey herself. See if you can spot the ‘disparities’, for want of a better way of describing them:


    The program is available (on BBC Iplayer) for another 22 days.

  25. PS Clue: It’s NOT in WHAT’S being said, but in what is being said when.

    1. @Allan Howard

      As requested another couple of links.

      (If I leave out the “” marks I get “awaiting moderation” message)



  26. Given that it’s now the early hours of the morning (just gone 6.30) AND that I didn’t post my comment(s) with the link to the Radio 4 program until nearly 4.00am this morning, I’m going to wait until later to say what I have to say about the ‘disparities’, when by which time, hopefully, a few people will have listened to it. But in the meantime I just want to say this (which isn’t directly connected, but worth thinking about):

    It is now a week since the story broke, and yet we still don’t know who this LP official is that she alledges told her it would be “damaging” were she to take the matter further. Why not? She must surely know the person’s name, or even if she has somehow forgotten it, be able to give more than enough information to identify who it was. And once she had, and the person interviewed, what possible reason would there be for their identity not to be made public, even if they have denied that it happened.

    According to the media, the NEC/Labour have appointed a QC to investigate the matter, and I guess they felt obliged to do that under the circumstances, but how long does it take to speak to Bex Bailey, determine who it was, interview said person, and ascertain what they have to say about it. A couple of days at the most I would have thought. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how long we DO have to wait before their identity is revealed.

    And just one more quick point: Given that Bex Bailey was on the NEC for two years, I can only assume that she reported the matter to an official there. And if that’s the case, did she just turn up there out of the blue, or did she phone first and make an appointment. Whatever the case, given the substance (that’s NOT quite the word I’m looking for) of her complaint, I would have thought she would have asked to speak to a female official about it, and if she DID, and spoke to a woman as such, then it’s even more implausible that they said what she claims they said.

    And it’s interesting to note – as far as I can recall that is – that the gender of the person is never at any point mentioned in any of the coverage, and they are always referred to as a ‘party official’ or ‘they’ – eg “they didn’t offer me a cup of tea”.

    Anyway, , if you haven’t listened to it yet, then when you DO, ask yourself why Carolyn Quinn – who’s doing the interview – says what she says at 9 minutes and 50 seconds……. and then asks the question she asks Bex Bailey. Very odd indeed (but it didn’t just happen by chance, of that I have no doubt).

  27. I don’t know if anyone is still following this thread (apart from the NSA and GCHQ, and perhaps Damian Green), but if there is, then please accept my apologies for the hiatus, but the old brain-box needed some time out.

    That said, the Bex Bailey saga will have to wait a bit longer as I just want to clarify something I said in a previous post, but then I would imagine that most people who listened to the ‘interview’ would have spotted the anomalies anyway. But I WILL get back to it in due course.

    Anyway, in a previous post I gave some examples of what the PTB are capable of, including abolishing the GLC and the six Metropolitan County Councils etc, etc, and concocting and spinning a gargantuan Big Lie about WMD so as to get Parliament and the majority of the public on side and supporting the invasion of Iraq. And in my post I said how hundreds of thousands of people were klled as a consequence of this Big Lie (and hundreds of thousands more maimed and crippled and traumatised etc), and I said how – regards those killed – they were in fact murdered. And they WERE. But what I ommitted to mention and clarify is that I wasn’t just referring to the Iraqi people who were killed, but to everyone who lost their lives’ as a consequence of the Big Lie, who would still be alive today but for that Big Lie, whether they were British, American, or whatever. THEY were sacrificed for the ‘interests’ of the few. And we should never-ever forget it.



Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: