Sunday, January 17, 2010

Peter Watt on Boulton

Peter Watt does battle with Stephen Pound MP on Adam Boulton's Sunday Show.


Cate Munro said...

I thought he did well against Pound's rather fumbling performance. Certainly continued to put the boot in!

BrianSJ said...

Typical Pound - we can't have honesty before an election. The sheeple just aren't entitled to know what goes on.

Oldrightie said...

BrianSJ, on the button.

Anonymous said...

Whats the point of telling the world that Brown is a lying egocentric mental inebriate AFTER the election??

What is the point of questioning motive - the point is, is it true? Pound et al know full well what a useless idiot Brown is (he has never, not ever, come up with any idea which actually made sense and worked), they are the cheap ones for wanting to keep it secret.

bnzss said...

@BrianSJ... couldn't agree more. The patronising git.

Ean Craigie said...

He does not stand for anything I believe in but my respect for Peter is unbounded. As for Pound he looks and sounds more and more ike a tired old man the more I see him. Did Number 10 or the party put him up??

Unknown said...

Ahh, Steven Pound.

Labour Whips: "Quick, we need someone to go on TV and defend the indefensible"

Labour MP's: *runs away like rats from a fire"

Stephen Pound: "I'll do it! Every single time, in fact! :) "

I hate Steven Pound. The guy has become a parody of himself. Having Stephen Pound on TV is now as close as you can get to a cast iron guarentee that:
a)The topic is indefensable and as such;
b)They couldn't get anyone else

What a belly scraping snake that guy is.

Richard Manns said...

Good effort, Pound:

If you're supportive of Labour (e.g. Blair, Campbell), then publish away, whenever you like! But if it's negative about Labour, oh noooo, due publish after the election, there's a good minion.

Pound, you hypocritical old fool. Anyone noticed that, with a majority of 6,000ish, his seat is on the line in May?

Mirtha Tidville said...

The really beautiful thing about this is the timing....its damaging Liebours morale and showing them up for what they are...lets have more of it please Iain

Barking Spider said...

Labour's very own nonsensical numpty tortoise impersonator sent out to talk utter bollocks again. We don't want the inside story on Brown after the election, we need it now!

Martin Wellbourne said...

The vile Pound was doing the Sky paper review a while back, along with Kelvin Mackenzie. Pound was doing his usual "Hey - call me a fluffy old liberal, but whaddya know..." etc. and Mackenzie cut right in there and said "But you're not a liberal, are you - you're a socialist. Pound looked daggers - he REALLY didn't like that one. Horrible man.

golden_balls said...

The Acolytes are out in force in this thread i see.

Pound said what every labour supporter thinks peter did it for the money he can deny it but it won't persuade people.

Unknown said...

As much as I dislike the Labour party I think that Mr Pound does have a certain point. If Mr Watt still claims to be a member of the Labour party then he ought to be bound by a certain loyalty not to damage it. If Mr Watt were to resign from the party then obviously he would be free to criticise away (and I certainly wouldn't criticise him for wanting to do that!)

Don said...

golden balls, NA Berry, rather than disparage the messenger how about pointing out which parts of the message are incorrect.
When you have done that please point out why you feel that the information he has put into the public domain should be hidden until after the election.

Not a sheep said...

I wouldn't worry about Stephen Pound, he's an irrelevant embarrassment now and will be an unemployed irrelevant embarrassment after the general election.

NA Berry: "If Mr Watt still claims to be a member of the Labour party then he ought to be bound by a certain loyalty not to damage it." Gordon Brown is British but seems to have no qualms about damaging Britain.

Unsworth said...

Yet more golden_bollox.

"peter did it for the money"
Well, maybe he did. So what? So doing something for money is wrong? Out of interest, what do you do for money? Or do you just collect your 'benefits'?

"he can deny it"
He can. Has he? Quite the contrary, he clearly said that this was the best time for his story to be published - because after the election there would be many other books being rushed to publication. Maybe Brown will be 'writing' another tome on 'courage', setting the record straight, eh?

Even that cretin Pound seemed to think it was OK to tell the truth - but only after a General Election.

Secrets and lies. The stock in trade of NuLab. 'Transparency' WTF do they mean by that, then?

Jimmy said...

He did it partly for the money and partly because he still refuses to take responsibility for what happened and knows that it suits the right to help him point the finger at his former colleagues. Unless there is something more than the thin gruel gossip he's provided so far then I think his fifteen minutes are up.

Unsworth said...

@ Jimmy

"he still refuses to take responsibility for what happened"

Usual Jimmy bollox. Take another look at the two clips which Iain has posted. It's quite clear that Watt accepts his failings in not checking the source of cash as he might. But he also, rightly, is extremely pissed off with Brown who - as usual and in his customary grandstanding mode - accused him directly of criminality, without any evidence or even any knowledge of the circumstances.

And, Jimmy, where do you get your in depth knowledge of Watt's motivations from? The NuLab sewer, or is there some other more creditable source?

Jimmy said...

@ Unsworth

Yes he says he should have "dug deeper". It doesn't appear to have "dug" at all. I accept the party has to take a share of the blame for putting in someone so plainly out of his depth but nevertheless it was his responsibility and he screwed up. What exactly are you arguing should have happened? Try and nobble the police investigation? Give him a peerage maybe?

Unsworth said...

@ Jimmy

I'm not arguing that anything 'should have happened' for God's sake! Where did I anything at all about what 'should have happened'? So don't try to put words in my mouth - although I know this is a NuLab habit.

As to the failings or otherwise of the Labour Party in selecting its own officials, well incompetence is its stock-in-trade.

'Plainly out of his depth', eh? As are all of them.