McBride, Draper and the Ian Oakley link
I know exactly the day on which Gordon Brown should comment on the shameful antics of Damian McBride and Derek Draper – 8th Spetember 2009. That’s exactly 150 days from the date of McBride’s resignation from the Prime Minister’s office. Why 150 days? Well that’s how long it took for David Cameron to mumble a half-hearted apology of sorts for the criminal acts of Ian Oakley, acts which were committed whilst he was the Conservatives’ parliamentary candidate for Watford. As the Watford Observer mocked on its front page:
150 days after Ian Oakley admitted to an appalling catalogue of harrassment and criminal damage, David Cameron finally says … ‘Sorry’.
This weekend, Cameron has been demanding a personal apology from Brown to himself and every other person who may or may not have been slurred in some way by Damian Dastardly and sidekick Muttley. But how was his belated ’apology’ made?
Did Cameron apologise personally to Sal Brinton and the tens of other councillors and members of the Watford Liberal Democrats who were subject to criminal damage to their homes and cars, graffiti accusing them of being paedophiles and sexual deviants, vile anonymous letters and leaflets making unfounded allegations about the probity of councillors and of being prosecuted for wife beating, receipt of hardcore pornography and silent phone calls in the middle of the night? Did he heck as like! The Conservative leader’s silence was as deafening as that of his colleagues here in Watford. The ‘apology’, if you can call it that, was slipped out as a brief answer to a ‘vetted’ audience at a meeting in Watford last month. As the Watford Observer reported:
‘He told the room: “I am extremely sorry about what happened. Of course I regret what has happened. I think everyone on the Conservative Party regrets what has happened”.’
Not only was this ‘apology’ rather belated, it wasn’t actually an apology. Cameron said that he was sorry ‘about’ what happened, not sorry ‘for’ what happened. So why was he sorry? Because it may have harmed Conservative electoral chances? Because it made a few bad headlines? Because the whole saga made his party look tawdry and him a twit? Certainly not because dozens of real people had suffered for two years from a revolting campaign that Oakley admitted was done to improve the political climate of Watford to benefit the Conservatives?
For the past nine months, the Conservatives both locally and nationally have maintained that whatever Ian Oakley did was nothing to do with them – he had resigned and that was that. Behaviour that had come close to wrecking real lives could be dismissed as almost a prank for which only the direct perpetrator could be responsible in any way. But when two idiots do no more than send a few silly emails – juvenile and reprehensible though they might be – the Conservatives get their pious knickers in a twist. So Mr Cameron, while you continue to raise the political stakes demanding apologies from the top to all and sundry, just take a look at your own conscience and into your own backyard. Not just the nasty party now – but the priggish, two-faced party too.
Related posts:
- Conservatives admit that they didn't do enough to stop Ian Oakley
- Ian Oakley charged
- What message should we send, Mr Oakley?
Comments
14 April 2009, 11:22 am
McBride was paid for by us tax payers whilst spreading his filth. Oakley was not.
McBride is still a member of his party. Oakley is not.
McBride worked directly to his party head. Oakley did not.
McBride spread his filth on a national scale. Oakley spread his in one constituency.
The first time McBride was found out for inappropriate briefing he got moved. The first time with Oakley he had his membership cancelled.
McBride, Draper etc are still members of their party…..
14 April 2009, 1:15 pm
Spot on!
The hypocrisy that Labour and the Tories are showing over this incident is disgraceful!
14 April 2009, 1:59 pm
To all posters: I will not be positively moderating messages that either use pseudonyms or which are multiple posting pretending to be from different people. Don’t you lot ever learn?
14 April 2009, 6:39 pm
With respect, how do you know when someone is posting under a pseudonym?
14 April 2009, 8:56 pm
Why are senior Lib Dems silent on smeargate?
Afraid the infamous local election campaign guide will come back to bite them?
14 April 2009, 10:09 pm
hahaha. He said sorry! Now that it seems isn’t enough. He said it in a non partisan, non selected crowd (as usual) answering any questions that came. And of course not forgetting what LS alludes to in the comment above this…ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the country that has worked in local politics KNOWS (not assumes, not thinks but KNOWS!) what the Lib Dems are like…and it ain’t nice (as I suspect you realise)
15 April 2009, 9:51 am
This is childish nonsense.
Did Oakley work as Cameron’s personal adviser? No.
Where then is the similarity.
15 April 2009, 2:28 pm
Haha. You guys make me laugh.
16 April 2009, 2:47 pm
Oh dear me thinks the Tory trolls protest too much.
In terms of smears Oakley’s are far worse than anything devised in the back rooms of Downing Street – criminal damage, vandalism and slander of the most outrageuous and dangerous kind.
More than 150 incidents were being investigated by the police, but Oakley only pleaded guilty to 75 and it was clear in some of these 75 that he had an accomplice. So there is clearly someone at large in the Watford Tories who committed the other 75 and/or Oakley still hasn’t told the whole truth.
Senior Tories close to the leader allowed this guy to appear on David Cameron’s so-called ‘A’ list – and he was interviewed by very senior people to do so. David Cameron was informed directly of Oakley’s activities by Ming Campbell but he took no action. Oakely was arrested and charged with these offences and Cameron took no action. Oakley was found guilty and Cameron took no action. After Oakley resigned from the Tories Cameron was asked to investigate the Watford party (particularly as there are still a large number of offences unaccounted for) and Cameron took no action.
So I’d say Cameron authorised this guy to stand, turned a blind eye when told of his activities and is happy for the Watford Party to continue with these tactics. And he has the gall to take offence at some dodgy e-mails. Oh dear. Actions speak louder than words…
17 April 2009, 10:30 am
I am not a Tory troll – I am a Tory and what I say has to be seen from that viewpoint.
Firstly, what Ian Oakley did was wrong – I completely and utterly condemn his actions and the motives behind them. An apology was called for from David Cameron, it took too long but I am pleased that he issued it. I think the point about whether he apologised “about” or “for” is rather irrelevant – he apologised and that’s the main thing.
My main points are to do with the inaccuracy of what Dan is alleging. I can only say what I know to be the case – I was the Deputy Chairman of Watford Conservatives at the time Ian Oakley was arrested and convicted and was an officer of the association at the time of Ian’s adoption as candidate.
Ian Oakley admitted to 75 offences – if he had committed another 75, he would have admitted it as he would have left himself open to prosecution for the remaining 75 if evidence showed he committed them. The police have stated categorically that they were not searching for anyone else and that Ian Oakley committed his crimes alone. Therefore, to allege that someone in Watford Conservatives is clearly still at large is stupid and wrong.
I can also tell you that the police did not even interview senior members of Watford Conservatives. If they thought that someone had been helping him from within our ranks, don’t you think they might have thought to at least pick up the phone?
Ian Oakley was NOT on the so-called A-List. He was considered a local candidate. He was on the candidates’ list from the 2001-2005 parliament and was not therefore subject to the interview that Dan says he was.
I don’t know if Ming Campbell informed David Cameron of Ian Oakley’s criminal activities – I would have thought this unlikely. However, I do know that Ian Oakley resigned immediately as PPC upon his arrest and was subsequently expelled by both the Watford Conservative Association and the national party. This is not “taking no action”.
I make no excuses for Ian Oakley’s actions. To persecute people on the basis of the political party they support would be laughable if the hurt to people’s feelings and damage to their property was not so serious. The people who are members of the Watford Conservatives are good, decent people who without reservation condemn this sort of behaviour.
I hope that this makes the Ian Oakley saga a bit clearer and that Dan actually makes sure he knows what he is talking about before he tries to present ill-informed opinion as fact
30 April 2009, 12:27 pm
Andy, thank you for your frank posting, which as you say, is from your own perspective. I’m glad that you condemn Ian Oakley’s actions, but I and his other targets just wished that the Watford Conservative Association, and the Conservative party as a whole, had decided to do it after Oakley pleaded guilty. It’s been the total silence to those of us he targeted that has been bemusing.
Since August, three Conservatives, one local, one regional and one member of the House of Lords have privately apologised to me, and I am grateful to them, and their understanding of how horrific and unpleasant Oakley’s crimes were.
But let’s be clear. Oakley did not act alone. The police have evidence that, at the very least, two people were involved in the multiple tyre slashings. They don’t know who was with him, and Oakley wasn’t letting on. We don’t know who it was either, but we know there was someone.
We warned local Conservatives in Nov 07 that we suspected Ian Oakley might be behind it. We were told it we were making it up, and being hypocritical. There is an email exchange to support this, but we have chosen not to publish it. If you want to see it, Andy, do get in touch.
The police informed us that they did interview two other members of the Watford Conservatives, in 2006.
This is the reason we keep asking for an inquiry: our suspicions were ignored, Oakley’s word was taken at face value, and more and more crimes continued to be committed.
And by the way, it was more than 75 crimes. For example, the first charge, which Andy counts as 1, related to 14 incidents against myself. There were a number of incidents that he didn’t put his hand up to: either he wouldn’t own up, or some of the more outrageous incidents including racist slurs against us still lie unsolved on the books.