Sunday, July 09, 2006
Max Clifford Claims Two More Prescott Affairs
Max Clifford is claiming that there are two women seeking to sell tales of alleged affairs with the Deputy Prime Minister and that they have been offered £150,000 each to tell all. I despise Max Clifford and rarely believe much he ever says, but if for a change he's telling the truth, well, we all know what that means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Anyone ever sued Clifford successfully? Nope.
Is there anyone he hasn't shagged!
No - in one way or another - we have all been screwed by Prescott!
Hmmm? "telling the truth" leads me to ask, what is truth?
According to Wikipedia
Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree. Numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. Differing opinions exist on such questions as what constitutes truth, how to define and identify truth, what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play, and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
Maybe Mr C knows that, and at least some of his stories are entertaining.How could they all be true?
cyberscribe:
Truth is beauty; beauty is truth. Prezza is neither.
"
Anyone ever sued Clifford successfully? Nope. "
yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1411710.stm
We all know what what means?
Frankly, I'm getting tired of your vulgar personal campaign against Prescott. He can shag whomever he likes. I don't care, the public shouldn't care, and it has no bearing whatsoever on his ability to govern.
SPL, it's not a vulgar personal campaign, and it's hardly as if I'm alone. It's not about who he has sex with. It's about rank hypocrisy. And if you can't see that...
spl said:
He can shag whomever he likes. I don't care, the public shouldn't care, and it has no bearing whatsoever on his ability to govern.
Uhhm ..... and to which particular ability are you referring?
SPL,
It does matter, not just because it's hypocritical. In the first instance, his affair with his own secretary was utterly unprofessional - his ability to manage her fatally compromised from the moment she shared his bed. And now there are more revelations - with the possibility that another mistress may also have gained from his political patronage. How does this square with Labour's ideas about a meritocracy?
SPL, we now know he can hardly govern an erection, so that does not bode well for his abilities generally.
Incidentally, are Oxford's admissions standards so low these days? Presumably selecting people on the basis of insight and intelligence is now considered discriminatory.
SPL,
Had JP made a point throughout his career of defending other MP's caught with their pants down on the grounds of such things being personal, I might agree with you. But he hasn't. Indeed he made much political capital out of every instance of Tory sleaze as he could.
Had he simply conducted an affair with a woman not connected to his job (especially a subordinate) I might agree with you. But he didn't. Instead he screwed his secretary at every opportunity.
Another known Paramour of Prescott (she admitted she'd been his lover) has subsequently done very well in business as a "planning consultant". Surprisingly this is one of the areas of government that used to fall under the DPM's remit. Certainly that should be grounds for suspicion if not investigation.
Further it is rumoured that two other women shared Prezza's bed both benefiting with professional advancement thereafter. Although, to be fair, one may have spurned his advances and been paid off with a promotion in return for promises of silence.
I would say that there is at least a prima facie case that the DPM is a serial womaniser who appears to use his position to alternately bully or bribe women, not his wife, into his bed.
None of this is the sort of conduct normal people would find admirable in any man, let alone the nominal second in charge of a government that prides itself on its support for women.
I've never really believed in this 'adultery is none of our business' concept.
If a politician's wife cannot trust him, why the hell should the public?
"Is there anyone he hasn't shagged!" - Theo Spark
Is there something you wish to tell us Theo??!!
Yes, but Phone Cam Foolery - do you have blonde hair? Do you have a haircut like Tracey and Rosie? Are you a subordinate of Prescott's? These things are important pointers as to who is eligible for assault.
SPL, adultery is our business when it serially takes place on government premises and government whiskey is poured down necks of a department that is all but swinging from the chandeliers. Let us not forget,SPL, that in one of the most dignified offices of state, Prescott staggered round with a glass of whisky in his hand and his diary secretary hanging from his neck by her legs.
Your outfit in the photo accompanying your post demonstrates that you have poor judgement.
There are a couple of points worth responding to, here. Sadly many other comments - particularly by the ubiquitous "anonymous" - veer from crude sexual innuendo to the infamous ad hominem fallacy.
First, Iain Dale's point about "rank hypocrisy". This is, to be fair, a re-writing of history: Prescott's attacks on Tory sleaze were made in the context of the "back to basics" campaign. Labour has, in contrast, not moralised on the importance of the family (etc); thus there is no hypocrisy on the part of Prescott.
The second (and last) argument worth responding to was made by the remittance man. I appreciate that there may have been some conflict of interest in his affiar with the civil servant. However, this should be investigated via the official channels; it should certainly not be subject to a media witch-hunt.
To spl, are you aware that government servants, aka civil servants, are so constrained by having to be above suspicion that they could not even accept a team dinner being paid for by our private sector company. This has happened on multiple occasions over the past 5 years, despite having worked in a team with them for all that period. What's this all about John Prescott accepting hospitality and cowboy outfits etc etc (there's an old joke in there somewhere)???
The rank hypocrisy is what beggars belief!!
SPL wrote,
I appreciate that there may have been some conflict of interest in his affiar with the civil servant. However, this should be investigated via the official channels; it should certainly not be subject to a media witch-hunt.
It is my understanding that an investigation was asked for and refused by the dear leader through one of his many mouthpieces. The very fact that Pressa was screwing about on government property when he, and his secretary, should have been working, was enough grounds to justify an investigation, but New Labour are a law onto themselves.
spl-----say it isn't so. You aren't at Oxford are you?
Are you from Hull?
Do you by any chance know John Prescott?
Enquiring minds need to know.
You have done well for yourself with your limited comprehension skills, but of course, so has Prescott.
SPL is quite right. The labour party have never said getting preferential treatment by shagging people in power is wrong. And - bless his cotton socks - he has to believe that, for there is not much hope of his succeeding on his wits alone, on the evidence presented.
SPL - as to "no hypocrisy on the part of Prescott" - fortunately for me Prescott is not my MP. However I imagine that when he produced his election leaflet last year for the people of Hull it contained lots of information about what a stand-up chap he was, happily married to his darling wife Pauline for umpteen years etc. Bet it did NOT say he was a serial adulterer who had constantly betrayed the said wife with any female he could get his hands on, and hadn't paid his council tax for years and didn't intend to do so unless found out.
If you can't understand that this is rank hypocrisy, think you're going to find your forthcoming course rather too complex.
SPL, thank you for maiking us see the light! You're right - NL has NOT moralised on the importance of the family. Indeed, it has been doing what it can to destroy it. That makes it OK then? What about their 'Whiter than white' 'promise'?
I reckon that you are having a laugh. Either that or you need to see your therapist. Now.
spl wrote: "However, this should be investigated via the official channels; it should certainly not be subject to a media witch-hunt."
Uh. Why not? That's what a free press is all about. Not letting the government get away with a thing. Of course this government's misdeeds and dishonesties are like mice scampering all over the floor; it's impossible to catch them all. But Prescott's been caught by the media, to their credit, because Tony Weak-Kneed failed to act. And in this instance, the blogs played a major role.
Tony Blair failed to act because Prescott has an iron grip over Blair. People say he knows where the bodies are buried. I think he knows where just one body is buried.
Verity said: Prescott has an iron grip over Blair.
With tweezers?
Will Prescott now be issuing an Erection Manifesto?
SPL. You're getting a bit of a kicking here - but then again, you said some pretty stooopid things; 1) Media witch hunt? So, do you support the gagging of the media and the surpession of investigative journalism? I hear the Chinese government and Vladamir Putin are always looking to recruit bright graduates. 2) New Labour never moralised about family values like the Tories did. Hmmm - I'll give the benefit of the doubt here - but they did initiate a raft of legislation which deals with (i.e.outlaws, condemns etc) exactly the kind of behaviour Prescott has admitted too. Also, Labour is 'suppossed' to be pro-women, but Prescott is the kind of man who, when introduced to another MPs wife, grabs her, pushes her against the wall, and sticks his hand up her skirt and tongue down her throat (if you want to know who, mail me and I'll tell you). 3)Screwing someone who is suppossed to be your staff member is bad management - and probably illegal. So is screwing her in the office during work hours. Screwing her in an office with an open door - running the risk of getting caught - might be a bit kinky, but it also pretty distatseful (and probably runs the risk of giving anyone who caught him with his pants down post-traumatic stress disorder). Finaly, it shows zero respect for his wife! 4) As for the 'proper channells of investigation', these would be the same 'proper channells' which Tony BLair over rode and refused to allow to investigate? 5) The fact that so many people so close to Prescott have been advanced so far, so quickly, or have prospered from his patronage, or in fields which he has a personal political remit over is clearly suspicious. If you can't see that - should have gone to Specsavers!
Injuredcyclist - great question? Can I have one of Lee Harvey Oswald's magic bullets that go through one person and into another?
Anybody can be forgiven in thinking the 'Consrvative men only club', didn't shag its way through 18 years of misrule 1979-1997.
It was debauchery on a caliguan scale.
You lot weren't satisfied with shafting the public, you shafted each other with impunity.
Gary
SPL
So what about the New Labour "whiter than white"? Is it not hypocrisy to complain about opponents sleeping with the wrong person when campaigning on family values, then sleep with your junior, incidentally causing her to break her terms of employment while in a government that campaigned for higher standards in public servants?
You seem to have narrowed the terms of reference just to let Prescott off.
Post a Comment