Why is Tom Watson being hounded for intervening with the CPS, while Tory politicians intervening with the CPS are given public interest immunity?
Why should the public interest be served by protecting “one of Britain’s wealthiest and most reclusive men” from possible blackmail, if it is not served by exposing possible rape and child sex abuse by wealthy and influential men like Leon Brittan?
According to an article in the Independent in October 2011, 3 Tory MPs are believed to have put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed with the prosecution of a man accused of blackmailing one of Britain’s wealthiest and most reclusive men.
The CPS refused to identify the MPs or explain why they had intervened – on the grounds of public interest immunity.
The accused was subsequently acquitted.
No public outcry followed the reporting of the MPs intervention. There was no media furore. The MPs were not subjected to an HASC interrogation and there were no calls for them to be investigated.
On 23rd October 2015, the Telegraph ran yet another report decrying Tom Watson’s intervention with the CPS regarding allegations of rape and child sex abuse by VIPs.
In the case of Leon Brittan, as we know from the statement of DAC Rodhouse to the HASC, the rape case was dropped after DCI Settle failed to interview Brittan before his death, despite criticism from senior officer Rodhouse, who asked for the case to be reviewed by the CPS.
The child abuse allegations are still under investigation.
Lord Macdonald, former DPP, is quoted in the Telegraph as follows:
“For an MP to use parliamentary profile and privilege to intervene in specific cases in which there is no constituency connection is questionable. The [MP] simply cannot know the strengths and the weaknesses of a case. He is proceeding at least in partial ignorance.
“So for someone to … put pressure on the DPP to take a particular course of action can be very unfair”.
if Macdonald is right, why is this judgement not applied to the Tory MPs in the blackmail case? Why were they not investigated and hauled before the HASC to answer for their actions?
Why were they given public interest immunity?
Why is it one rule for Tom Watson, and another for Tory MPs? One rule for Leon Brittan, and wealthy and reclusive men, and another for child sex abuse whistleblowers and witnesses?
Why is Tom Watson being pilloried and hounded by the media for insisting that wealthy, high status, privileged men like Leon Brittan should be subject to the same justice as, say, people accused of blackmailing wealthy, privileged men?
If all and any interventions by MPs are not to be tolerated, why did the CPS refuse to disclose the identities of the Tory MPs who intervened over the blackmail case? Why isn’t Keith Vaz calling for their investigation? Or Chris Grayling? Or David Morris?
Could it be that their outrage has less to do with Tom Watson’s intervention with the CPS, and more to do with protecting powerful and vested interests by ensuring that the VIP child sex abuse allegations stay covered up, and none of those responsible are brought to justice?