FLASH IN THE PAN GORDON

Wonder if the BBC will ever get round to investigating this from Guido:

‘Sources close to Linklaters whisper to Guido that while Leveson only asked for specific evidence from 2008 onwards, they collected testimony from Fred Michel dating back to the crucial election-that-never-was period in 2007 that was not heard at the inquiry. This includes embarrassing details of failed attempts by Brown’s aides to lobby Murdoch for support and more significantly evidence that sources at the law firm believe show Brown lied under oath when he denied the truth of the infamous ‘declare war’ phone call.’

 

You may not know who Gordon Brown was…he was Chancellor and then PM over the course of 13 years of Labour’s runious rule.

But I understand why you wouldn’t know who he was…because the BBC rarely if ever mention him…..Maggie gets more mentions and she was out of office 20 years ago.

Still, a PM who lied at Leveson and crawled at the feet of the BBC’s arch rival must surely merit some attention from the BBC?

 

Don’t hold your breath.

Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to FLASH IN THE PAN GORDON

  1. tinks says:

    A story very unlikely to be touched by the BBC.

    Anyone who knows, reads or is capable of observation would have seen that man for what he is. All hubris, vain ambition and twisted psychopathy. His presence will resonate for a long, long time – but not in a good way,

       53 likes

    • #88 says:

      And going back to Naughtie’s cosy lunch with Balls yesterday (Naughtie slags off Cameron over lunch…Balls agrees).

      I wonder if Leveson will be in the slightest bit interested and if Watson and Bryant will be asking urgent questions in the House?

         41 likes

  2. lojolondon says:

    Good as it would feel to see him hauled into the slammer for 12 months -a-la-Archer, unfortunately he is Liebour, so there will be no ‘public outrage’ as the BBC reflected when MP’s phones were hacked, no publicity at all for this so no pressure on the police to investigate so nothing will happen.

    PS. BBC can only say good things about Liebour. When there is nothing good to say, then they say nothing.

       42 likes

  3. Redwhiteandblue says:

    Guido can publish this sort of stuff because he’s not a UK national and his site is registered abroad. For the rest of the UK press this story is impossible to touch unless you fancy a contempt of court conviction and imprisonment. So it’s a bit unfair to have a go at any UK journo, BBC or otherwise, for not touching it.

       6 likes

    • George R says:

      That’s a bit of a desperate excuse, isn’t it: Beeboids won’t criticise Brown for legal reasons? What actual facts is that assertion based on?

      Are we licence payers now supposed to exonerate Beeboids for failing to criticise Brown because some Beeboid supporter comes up with some unsubstantiated claim about the law?

         40 likes

      • Redwhiteandblue says:

        Apologies, I misread this first time round  - because the evidence had not been presented to Leveson, contempt of court does not apply.  
        HOWEVER, there is another very good reason why no editor in the country would publish this.  Without copper-bottomed evidence to substantiate the claim that Brown perjured himself, it’s an invitation to a libel suit.  You’d need to have proof sufficient to convince a jury.  And without that proof, you’d lose the libel suit and pay massive damages (perjury being right up there with murder on the statute books, those damages would be punitive).  A ‘whisper in the ear’ from an unnamed lawyer is not evidence, it’s a rumour.  You’d need documentary proof and/or at least two witnesses you trusted implicitly before you’d go to press with that story.
        As I pointed out earlier, Guido is incredibly difficult to sue because his servers are abroad and he’s not a UK national.  A newspaper editor, on the other hand, could be found individually responsible for libel and send to prison.  Hardly surprising that nobody here is touching it.
        Incidentally, by reproducing this explosive allegation on this website you are potentially repeating the libel – it’s no defence that you are repeating somebody else’s story.  David Vance may wish to consider this fact…

           7 likes

        • mat says:

          Bring it on if your BBC mates are cowards when it comes to ex PM labour thugs that’s to your discredit not this sites !

             16 likes

          • Redwhiteandblue says:

            They are not my mates. But I know a bit about media law, enough to know that this story is unprintable. You’re just displaying your ignorance by claiming otherwise.

               7 likes

            • Jim Dandy says:

              Quite.

              Any evidence any other broadcasters are touching this? Nope. Therefore the notion the pro-brown BBC are and will suppress it is asinine.

                 5 likes

              • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                Nixon thought he had gotten away with his watergate coverup, but in the end it got him bang to rights. Evidence may yet appear, I live in hopes.
                Maybe there’s deepthroat out there yet.

                   8 likes

    • Privatise the BBC says:

      In my opinion, the BBC will only investigate something where there is no chance of anything coming back to bite themselves or their left wing masters.
      Another reason why this organisation should be privatised.

         13 likes

      • Redwhiteandblue says:

        Yeah, I mean look at all the privately owned newspapers that have printed these allegations…oh wait…

           5 likes

  4. prole says:

    Alan, yet another non story. You set up men of straw on a daily basis with no relevance to real evidence. What about the BBC not reporting on the latest Toyota recall? Surely clear Japanses bias? Ad infintum…

       5 likes

  5. Beeboidal says:

    Guido writes

    If you have been watching BBC news or reading the Guardian you would think that Brown’s testimony was proven and Rupert Murdoch had made up the whole claim about Brown “declaring war”.

    Guido then reproduces some of Mandelson’s evidence to Leveson. The point here is that Brown not only denied the ‘declaring war’ comment, he denied there was any such telephone call. Mandelson flatly contradicts him.

    No wonder the BBC dropped this like a stone.

       29 likes

  6. chrisH says:

    Typical of the BBC supporting gadflies above.
    If our last Prime Minister denies that he threatened Murdoch with “war” , when NewsCorps decided not to support him any more-and then same ex-Prime Minister denies that…under oath,and him a “son of the Manse” with his “moral compass”?…then that should be a massive story.
    None of us believed him at the time, and this ought to hang the weirdo that none of us voted for!
    Yet the same Beeb buddies above tell me that this is “illegal” to either suggest this or to act upon the perjury or whatever…and think that to be the end of the matter?
    Christ-what a country-what dupes and house trained socialists we now have as a matter of course to defend Brown and the BBC-WHATEVER they did, they do or they will do from now on?
    The likes of the Beeb apologists above frighten me more than the likes of Benn, who get paid to spin their evil-the dupes above do it pro bono!
    Chilling,

       14 likes

    • Redwhiteandblue says:

      This is an illogical rant. Nor – sigh – am I a socialist. If you haven’t a clue how libel law works, why post here? Would you rather live in a country where any Tom Dick or Harry could print reputation-ruining allegations about you in the national press without a shred of evidence?

         4 likes

      • chrisH says:

        1. As opposed to your “logical musings” as you stroke an imaginary beard , then?
        2. If you`re trying to tell me that Labour and its paid up sycophants are not “socialist”, then do tell. Whether you are personally or not is not an issue…but(sigh) maybe if you continue to read the Guardian or accept the BBCs take on things-you could well apply for “associate status, should you wish to”.
        3. No-not a clue about libel law-have you?
        But if Mandselson says one thing, Brown says another in a court of law-then one is perjuring himself is he not?…or do I need to read up on quasi-judicial forums both here and in Europe or the USA, before I post an opinion , based on how Brown squirmed on oath(oh God…define squirm eh?)
        4. “Reputation-ruining allegations withou any shred of evidence eh?”
        I refer you to point 3 above, m`learned friend!
        Until then-Savile`s OK then?…

           9 likes

        • redwhiteandblue says:

          1. If you’re going to argue something, at least make it logically consistent. Your argument wasn’t.

          2. I thought you were calling me a socialist. I’m not. If you weren’t, apologies.

          3. Yes I understand libel law. Alan’s point wasn’t that Brown’s and Mandelson’s testimony contradicted each other. That fact was widely reported months ago. He was asking why the BBC was not reporting claims made by Guido that unnamed sources had evidence of perjury by Brown. These specific allegations are totally unreportable by a newspaper (or broadcaster) without a witness prepared to give evidence under oath. Alan, who appears to have a ten-year-old’s grasp of libel law, does not appreciate this fact, which should be totally obvious to anybody who knows how newspapers, and the media more widely, work. Ask yourself this: if it’s such a good story, why has not a single newspaper run it? Because they’d be sued. And they’d lose.

          4. See 3 above. Libel is libel. Until the law is changed (as it probably should be), don’t blame an editor for not sticking his neck out.

             4 likes

          • chrisH says:

            Oh dear!
            Do you mind if I`m a bit illogical for you?
            I`ll take point 3 first if you don`t mind.
            I think I know why nobody has run the story…and the clue to me is that “Biased BBC” bit…why the BBC will never run the story is that it shows either Brown or Mandelson to be lying; which means that Labour would be split-and that would never do.
            The truth doesn`t age my friend…months ago or not,.
            Don`t really see how you`ve decided to tell me what or who is logical or not…I know I didn`t vote for you.
            Well done on your libel law speciality by the way….if I accused Gordon Brown of squirming when he was being all honest an `all about his chats with Rupert Murdoch…and in your opinion this is libel or whatever…I do have a Thesaurus and will consider changing the verb.
            Which verb is best for you…was Brown “Savilating” or “Maxwellisisng”?

               5 likes