My dad normally swerves political discussions, but a couple of weeks ago we managed to get onto the subject of Prescott's travails. Echoing the average punter, we agreed that it was incredible that he remained in Cabinet when more capable colleagues got kicked (ex Foreign Minister Straw was mentioned). Although I try not to be one for gossip, I had to put the hypothesis forward that Prezza has something on Blair. I was surprised that my dad hadn't heard the rumours. I'm afraid he did doubt my words when I said that allegations have been made by a former Labour press officer (Tricia McDaid) that Prescott offered her a dossier that included details of a gay fling between Blair and Brown and that the American secret services also have this material. As a regular reader of newspapers I could understand his disquiet at not being in the loop on this massive story. I had to prove it to him by going to the web and googling Tricia McDaid Blair Brown gay and getting 154 hits. Today my dad told me that he got laughed out of the pub for repeating this story. Clearly, the British public have confidence that such a story would hit the front pages. Their confidence is misplaced. Check that google search again.
From the mainstream press only the Sunday Times reported the allegation carefully emphasising that "the dossier contained the laughable (?!) allegation that Blair and Brown had a gay fling" and rubbishing the accuser as "a journalist trying to make a name for herself". Although the Sun and the Guardian alluded to her writ neither repeats the Blair/Brown allegation only reporting other allegations related to Prescott. You may ask why a High Court writ (official document) issued by a former Labour press officer (professional person) reporting blackmail material (serious allegations) relating to the two most senior politicians in the UK would not be reported.
To repeat - An official document arising from a serious allegation made by a professional person relating to the most senior politicians in the UK does not make news. Something stinks.
8 comments:
Perhaps it was just deemed too outlandish my many newspapers, and they assumed the British public would feel the same way.
Googling the newsgroups brings up all sorts of lurid tales involving sundry high profile Labour figures too....
That Prescott stays in post is also "outlandish". I wouldn't expect papers to report all the tittle-tattle that's on the grapevine but when something is the subject of a High Court writ, it is in the public domain and it seems odd that there is such silence. Although people's faith in journalists is similar to their opinion of estate agents and politicians, I do think that people do have faith in the journalism industry as a whole. I question this faith and think the above is a good example to illustrate. There have been many major political stories (e.g. Simon Hughes sexuality, Prescott's adultery, Blunkett's travails) that have in retrospect been described to us as open secrets amongst those in the know. On the other hand, the press does show a propensity to be vicious with others. As examples think Mark Thatcher (benefitting from mother's position), Jeffrey Archer (you name it) and George Osbourne (class A drug allegations made by drug addict). I'm not defending any of the above but to this observer, how free the press is does seem to depend on the victim.
Charles Kennedy was apparently rat arsed for years before we found out about it.
The Charles Kennedy story is probably the neatest example to demonstrate the point. Thanks serf. Angry in Prague - I love your blog.
Test
Post a Comment