I have a feeling that the Sunday papers are going to be full of this sort of thing. Here’s the Sunday Times:
A FORMER senior Labour aide has alleged that John Prescott sexually harassed her over a two-year period.
Tricia McDaid, a former political journalist and press officer at
Labour party headquarters, said the deputy prime minister “jumped” on
her at parties and once turned up uninvited at her home, hoping for
sexual favours.
She said yesterday: “He just leapt on me at one party and his tongue was halfway down my throat.”
Such was Prescott’s reputation, she said, that she resorted to
wearing trouser suits to avoid his wandering hands in the lifts at his
Westminster office. She added that she was too afraid to protest at the
time for fear of losing her job.
…
In 1993, after Labour’s defeat in the 1992 election, McDaid was
recruited to work for the party. One of her tasks was to help Prescott
in his role as shadow transport secretary. “He was wary from the start
because he was aware his behaviour had been inappropriate,” she said.
“He was a boastful, arrogant, nasty pig. He just jumped on you when he
felt like it at a party. He had no manners whatsoever. Several times I
nearly slapped him in the face.
…
Allegations are circulating on the internet that further mistresses
will be exposed. Within Westminster circles, a junior Labour minister
has been named as having an affair with Prescott.
So they’re still treading very carefully around our Rosie then? Re Tracey selling her story to the Mail on Sunday:
His wife is said to have forgiven him, but the woman involved has now
sold the diaries of her love affairs to a tabloid newspaper for
£250,000.
Tabloid? Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
Err, Jeremy Clarkson?
Or there’s the parable of the John Prescott, an inarticulate fat man
who was steered though life by his pant compass and his class hatred
and ended up lost in a tabloid world of hate and “Two Shags” ridicule
Breaking news in the Telegraph:
Mr Prescott’s statement said: "I have admitted that Tracey Temple and I had intimate relations.
"However,
much of her recollections in the Mail on Sunday are simply untrue, and
are clearly motivated by a desire to maximise financial gain."
The spokesman refused to say whether she faced
dismissal for selling her story. As a civil servant, Miss Temple is
forbidden by strict rules from profiting from her job.
A
Government insider confirmed that the interview would be scoured for
any breach of the code which states that civil servants "should not
misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of
their official duties to further their private interests or those of
others".
One rule for me, another for thee, eh? Johnno’s being defended from abusing his position, she might be canned for simply speaking out.
Christopher Booker finds something much more damaging than whether the DPM was getting his end away or not:
In Banstead, Surrey, there is much anger over Reigate
& Banstead council’s plan to close the local swimming pool and
sports centre, to sell off the land for housing. A UK Independence
Party (Ukip) candidate passes on the letter sent to all who are
standing for election by the council’s chief executive, Nigel Clifford,
telling them that they cannot express any firm view on this proposal
during the campaign, because this would indicate that they had "closed
their minds".
They must wait until they have
seen the report on the plan being prepared by Mr Clifford’s officials.
The net effect of Mr Prescott’s revolution has thus been to abolish the
principle which lies at the heart of democracy.
If
voters can no longer choose the candidate who best represents their
wishes, and councillors are not permitted to express a view until they
are told what to think by officials, what remains of representative
democracy?
In the Soviet Union, this was known as "guided democracy". Thanks to the fiat of Mr Prescott, it is happening here.
Until
councillors rise up en masse to defy this system, we can say that our
local democracy has, by an administrative edict which was never debated
by Parliament, been brought summarily to an end.
The Mail’s coverage online is very weird indeed. Here’s their report on Prescott’s response. It doesn’t, as far as I can see, actually link to their own nine page story. Still, if you’re interested in it in all its gory detail, it’s here.
Leave a Reply