It was reported in 2008 that Nigel Waterson, then the Conservative MP for
Eastbourne, had been arrested for allegedly assaulting his teenage children.
The Metropolitan Police has now apologised to Mr Waterson, and agreed to
pay him damages and costs. It accepts that the accusations made against him were
"wholly unfounded", and apologises for any distress caused.
Mr Waterson said -
I welcome the apology from the Metropolitan Police. They now accept that there was no basis for my arrest. I have always been a great supporter of our police. But this sort of incident can undermine the public’s faith in them; especially as at the time my arrest was leaked to the media.
My family and I can now put this distressing episode behind us.
I do hope those who wrote some terrible things about Nigel Waterson at the time, might have the good grace to follow the Met's lead and apologise.
Well I never wrote anything terrible about him. I mereley assumed he was at the wrong end of a teenage strop, in which the vapid plod got all excited about.
ReplyDeleteYou can't do anything these days without some toss pot reporting it to the police because they are "offended"
What makes this kind of thing worse is the reaction of the police. Really, they have better things to do. Don't they?
How I hate the weasily for any distress caused which suggests that conceivably no distress has been caused.
ReplyDeleteSo, less than a fulsome apology from an official body and none from the individuals acting for it, far less any sanctions.
The apology costs them nothing. And so, they will learn nothing from this.
ReplyDelete@ Mark Turatian, please go and look up what 'fulsome' means. it does not mean full or anything approximating full, in fact it means almost the exact opposite, insincere and oleagonius.
ReplyDeleteI have tired of emailing Sky News every time they make the same mistake.
I wonder whether this nonsense helped lose him the eastbourne seat. The Met Police have a lot to apologise for
ReplyDelete>startledcod: thanks for the lesson in vocabulary. I had assumed the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI expect "abject" would meet requirements,
I wonder what (if any) disciplinary action has been taken against the officers involved. Any chance of the Met providing such detail?
ReplyDeleteThought not.
Golly Gosh...Another Cock -Up from the Met.....Well what a surprise....
ReplyDeleteI hope this Gentleman and his family sue the Met heavily for what happened. From My experience the only time the Senior Officers `learn` anything is when the Force has to pay a financial penalty.
There were several days of peak coverage of this incident. Have all the consequences been considered? i.e. a constituency swing of 4.0% From CON to LD
ReplyDeleteStartledcod
ReplyDelete1) It's 'Mick' not 'Mark'
2) It's 'oleaginous' rather than your bizarre offering.
3) You're wrong about 'fulsome'.
4) The loss for Sky News is a gain for me.
...might have the good grace to follow the Met's lead and apologise.
ReplyDeleteTalking of apologising, are you going to, Iain, over the 'EU bans dozen eggs' story?
This was your article:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/07/eggs-nothing-to-apologise-for.html
and here's the PPC resolution:
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following article which clarified the situation:
Eggs by a dozen are safe
Brussels has vowed it has no plans to ban Brits buying eggs by the dozen.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/case/resolved.html?article=NjU5OQ==
One wonders why it has taken over two years for the Met to come up with their apology.
ReplyDeletehttp://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/02/nigel-waterson-cleared.html
If the Met really feel sorry they should be totally transparent and give a full account as to the circumstances that led up to the wrongful arrest. Otherwise what is the point of the apology as no lessons will have been learnt.
Obviously the police are responsible for leaking his arrest, but they're hardly responsible if his two children both choose to make separate (apparently false) assault allegations against him.
ReplyDeleteI blame the parents.
@ Boiling Frog
ReplyDeleteWow! That's truly stunning! When did you get to hear of this?
Sorry, Mick Turatian, but startledcod is correct about fulsome. As you are such a good speller you probably don't need a dictionary, but if you possess one you will find that they tell you the meanings of words as well as how to spell them.
ReplyDeleteTerry Hamblin: ... you need a bigger dictionary with more extensive definitions.
ReplyDeleteShorter OED offers:
1 Abundant, plentiful; full, copious, rich. Now rare. ME.
2 Full and plump, well-grown; derog. overgrown. LME. b Overfed, surfeited. M17–E19.
3 (Of food) coarse, heavy, filling, cloying; gen. satiating, wearisome, tedious. LME.b Having a sickly or nauseating taste. obs. exc. Sc. E17.
4 Physically disgusting; dirty, foul, loathsome. obs. exc. Sc. LME b Foul- or strong-smelling; rank. L16–E18.
5 Offending against accepted standards of morals or taste; repulsive, odious, obscene. LME–E19 b Lustful, wanton. rare (Shakes.). Only in E17.
6 (Esp. excessively) complimentary or flattering; (too) effusive, (too) lavish, overdone. E17.
Thanks for helping to advance the frontiers of pedantry.
Fascinating as this semantic argument is, I'm more interested to know what deficit hawks make of a politician who (if we accept his version of events) raised two children to believe it was acceptable to lie to the police being rewarded from public funds for having done so.
ReplyDeleteYou really are scum, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteCharming.
ReplyDeleteThere was me thinking the Cameronian Big Society was keen on family responsibility. Obviously terms and conditions apply.