I'm not covering up for Prescott!
There are two serious allegations doing the rounds about the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of John Prescott's office antics that need to be laid to rest.
False allegation 1 - The 91Èȱ¬ censored the Prescott story on the day it broke
The Prescott story ran prominently on Radio 4's morning news bulletins, was the subject of the Radio Five Live phone in and was the third element of the Ten O'Clock news coverage of "Labour's Black Wednesday". On the 91Èȱ¬ News website, the story received over 500,000 page views.
It's true that it ran less prominently on some other 91Èȱ¬ outlets. This proves there was no "censorship". There is - and was - debate and, yes, even some disagreement between and within programme teams about the significance of a politician having an affair, when compared with the significance of foreign prisoners being released without being considered for deportation and nurses having lost faith in the Health Secretary.
As a result the 91Èȱ¬ has offended some who believe that Labour is guilty of double standards for attacking Tory sleaze, and that the 91Èȱ¬ appears to be in the government's pockets for not pursuing the story as vigorously as we did "Tory sleaze".
Equally there are others who complain - and ring, email and text the 91Èȱ¬ to say so - that they are simply not interested in the sex lives of politicians (yes, even if, like Bill Clinton, they do it in their office).
For what it's worth, I believe that because the Deputy Prime Minister's affair was with a civil servant paid for by the taxpayer, and because he was vigorous in attacking the morality of Tory ministers, this is a legitimate story for us to cover.
False allegation 2 - The 91Èȱ¬ was rewarded with an exclusive interview with the Prime Minister
Downing Street rang me last Monday to offer a day's filming with Tony Blair on the campaign trail. This is standard fare in an election campaign. They usually offer an exclusive day's filming to each of the 91Èȱ¬, ITN and Sky. This was before the Mirror had told them about Prescott's affair.
I thought they'd probably scrap the arrangement when the story broke. I'm delighted they didn't. Not everyone else is. Journalism's a competitive business!
I'm 
Comments
I for one am one of these people who does not really care about the private lifes of politicians, but when the affair has been with a civil servant and deeds have been done of civil property i think that is serious. However, the way the press blows things out of proportion is unacceptable; a view shared by Mr Scolari who refused the title as england football manager on grounds of press intrusion. These people have tough jobs as it, let alone having to deal with far fethced allegations from the press on a regular basis. I think the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage was adequate on the subject or Mr Prescott's affair, there are surely more pressing matters in the world at the moment- such as the state of the NHS, 91Èȱ¬ Office and DEFRA's farm subsideries crisis. A re-shuffle in surely inevitable, and i think it will see Mr Clarke taken away from the 91Èȱ¬ Office, and- just maybe- Mr Prescott moved to be the country's football ,manager, he has the revelant qualifications; he has had an affair with his secerety.
Ordinarily I wouldnt care about these kind of things but on this occasion as Prescott is alleged to have used his office and government owned residence to conduct his affair it is our business because as taxpayers we are paying for these.(and rememebr he didnt even pay council tax on this property until recently!)Also he is making the whole government look a laughing stock,and I dont think hes been very effective in his job either.For all these reasons he should therefore resign when Tony Blair conducts his cabinet reshuffle a week tomorrow,and Charles Clarke should too.
The Prescott affair cannot be fobbed off as a 'private matter'. It shows a cabinet minister cannot be trusted. The trust betrayed is that of his wife, and if he cannot honour that trust what attitude does he hold to the trust put in him by the Prime Minister and the people of Britain?
When the Tories made 'errors in judgement' John Prescott was baying for blood with phrases like 'Tory Sleeze'. Now the boot is firmly on the other foot he should do the honourable thing and stand down from cabinet. That is of course unless honour is something that is just preached, not done.
Why is it always the newspapers that break these scandals and never the 91Èȱ¬ Nick?
I am not convinced that Prescott's affair justifies any publicity. It is a private affair for him and his family. I cannot see why Nick Robinson thinks that because his affair was with a junior civil servant it changes anything. And I do not believe that the majority of criticism of Tory sleaze in the past was about their sex lives - it was about money in brown paper envelopes. The public need to judge whether Prescott is an effective politician and cabinet minister not what sex life he has. In America we have the recent example of President Clinton in a sex scandal but did that make him any less effective? And I know who I would prefer as President when you compare Clinton to his successor!
Whilst I think that anyone who has an affair has made a very foolish decision indeed, and in Prescott's case the nature of his job makes it even greater stupidity, there are already enough blunders within his ministerial work to convince me his department, and the government, is failing the country.
I don't think you are in any better position to judge than the general public. Have you spoken to the people who were responsible for what was broadcast; and, are you reporting what they told you ? I think you should make it clear on whose behalf you are speaking.
What gladdens my heart is your recognition that criticism of some 91Èȱ¬ political coverage is fairly widespread. Of course, some of that criticism will be unfair because the question of balance is always going to be a difficult one. There needs to be more open recognition of it though if the 91Èȱ¬ is going to escape from the perception that it has an 'agenda' of social engineering and reporting that supports and protects current elites rather than challenges them on behalf of the country as a whole (not just the young, feminine, ethnic minority, celebrity parts of it).
I agree with the last poster - marriage is one of the most important commitment in someones life. At least it is in my opinion. If a man is capable of ignoring the unique bond of marriage, and lying to his wife and family, then it's logical that he has the capacity to break the bond between voters/politicians.
Yes, it is a private matter. But the way somebody behaves in private reflects a great deal on their real self. An affair brings into question trust, judgement, honour and decency. Prescott benefits a great deal from his public position, so he should behave in a way that befits this. You have to earn respect, in my opinion. You also have to earn grace and favour apartments, country estates and ministerial cars!
As for the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the affair, I think in relation to 'Black Wednesday' it was justified. Considering what I've just said, the mess at the 91Èȱ¬ Office was the more important story.
Watching News 24 today (Sunday), people can hardly say the 91Èȱ¬ is covering the story up, it's the first item on the bulletin!
As for those who say that the affair was leaked to cover up the story of the foreign prisoners, surely the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage show that the black arts of spin are losing their potency!
In power for all this time and with no prospect of losing the next, distant, general election, some members of the government must feel invincible. Hardly surprising that some of them do stupid things.
I do feel that allegations of media closeness are a greater concern at present given the reputation New Labour has for spin but we have been here before. The Conservatives have long argued that the 91Èȱ¬ is pro Labour and anti-Tory, think back to those Panorama stories of right wing extremism twenty years ago. AS an interested observer from overseas I think the 91Èȱ¬ has a long way to go before it becomes as partisan as say, the Fox News Channel.. It seems to me that as long as the bBC receives funding from the state it is going to be open to charges like this though and that is not likely to change though.
It's quite amusing to watch Tony Blair's government slowly metamorphosise into John Major's ailing Tory Party. There's the same slow, inevitable build-up of sleaze, hypocrisy and old-fashioned incompetence. I don't much care who John Prescott sleeps with, the story of his affair just adds to the build-up of sleaze, lies and deception that hangs around the current government and refuses to disappear. John Prescott has always marketed himself as an old-fashioned, bluff, unpretentious Northerner who calls a spade a spade. His talent has been in appearing genuinely morally outraged at whatever policy the Tories favour - and I suspect the news of the affair has seriously undermined his place on the moral high ground.
Perhaps even more worrying, not least for Pauline, if you're to believe today's newspapers, is that this isn't the first time Mr Prescott has acted inappropriately with a colleague. If those further allegations are true (and if they are, it's likely that there are further stories to be told), surely it casts doubts upon the Prime Minister that he should appoint (and so heavily rely upon) an individual with such a fragile character.
And what now for the Labour Party if the DPM were to be moved on? Surely it's him who's be able to keep a lid on the TB/GB 'cold war' for so long? And 4 May looms large, but although many (most?) local elections are won and lost on local issues, I predict that there's even more bad news to come.
When will these people learn their lesson? You would have thought by now that at the first sign of trouble they'd hire Max Clifford, not wait until the other side get him and then try damage limitation afterwards.
As entertaining as Prescott's sexual
adventures maybe there is a serious
issue here and it is the same one we
in the US had with Bill Clinton.
Character is not divisable into public
and private parts. That was clear with
Bill Clinton's denial. He lied to his
cabinet, he lied to his wife and he
lied to the American people. Where was
the dividing line between Clinton's
public and private life?
Prescott's behavior with a very junior
government employee is not only wrong
it is reckless. Prescott has shown he
does not have the judgement necessary
to hold high office.
I don't know whether the 91Èȱ¬ 'played down' the John Prescott story.
However, I do believe that ever since the Gilligan -vs- Campbell battle which the 91Èȱ¬ lost, they have tended to be somewhat reluctant to report news of which Number 10 might not approve.
I believe that the 91Èȱ¬ is not impartial . . . sorry :-(
If someone is an effective minister and has been caught with their trousers down/skirt up then it's to the former that we as the electorate must turn. Is this person good at their job? Is this person trustworthy? Is this person making a positive difference in the political arena? If the answer is a resounding YES to those questions then that should be all that matters, unfortunately it seldom is.
I didn't believe in these allegations (and watching some 91Èȱ¬ coverage I don't know how others could reach that conclusion; the foreign prisoners and nurses conference stories are clearly more important that what the DPM has been up to) but I think many people will appreciate the post and the explanation Nick.
Of course the 91Èȱ¬ is in the pocket f the gvernement that is why n the broader matter the licence fee shuld be scrapped. To try and ignore the story as the 91Èȱ¬ did, whatever Nck Robinson says, try to ignore the story of John Prescott,this morning Five Live led on the Wayne Rooney injury , yet there are so many important political stories it defies belief, the Tories were fair game for the 91Èȱ¬ but they are so pro Labour ,especially on Five Live ,what used to be a great radio station but is now just an extension of the Labour Party.
Did you notice how Paxman on Newsnight said 'we dont want to talk about John Prescotts problem do we'. and no one then did. Imagine if it had been about a Tory. The 91Èȱ¬ is to the left and you can see it all the time. So I think the 91Èȱ¬ does not want to realy push these issues it is to cosy to labour. So yes I think I believe they tried to minimise the story.
You have to be kidding! The 91Èȱ¬ are always downplaying bad news for Labour. Ever since Hutton you have been running scared of upsetting your masters.
I read it elswhere on the 91Èȱ¬ that part of the ministerial code is that one has to have high standards of personal conduct. Now I think being unfaithful to a partner matters when personal conduct is judged, even though people seem to be easy on cheating I guess until they or their loved ones become affected. Otherwise people can just do whatever they want, eh, and it's not our business. Still, when famous people cheat, less famous people will think it's ok, especially in this society that follows celebrities' lives obsessively...
So I would say Prescott should resign because he disregarded the Ministerial Code.
I might sound like someone really old, but I'm only 31 and I'd love if there remained some values that are upheld and respected by most of the people in this society especially for my future children's sake. So they won't grow up thinking cheating is ok, or be cheated on by someone they love...
Tony Blair, politically, is dead in the water. I couldn't give two hoots about what he says or does on the campaign trail, with or without a 91Èȱ¬ presence.
But what I'd really like to know..; if someone is riding his secretary across a table in working hours, what exactly does he put down on his timesheet. I feel that we have a right to know that.
Andrew
Had it been a police officer or civil servant having sex in an office at work, they would have been prosecuted for such an action (abusing position in a public office related matter). I don't see it happening in this case, so it smacks of double standards to me.
Nick, don't worry - I don't think it's possible to cover-up John Prescott, at least not in the physical sense.
Private conduct is one thing, but I personally won't tolerate a hypocrite which (as you have rightly pointed out), Prescott is guilty of because of his vigorous attacks on the Tories over similar sleaze.
It seems to me that the media and other forces behind the scenes are doing their utmost to grease the wheels of change. This broadside of scandals hit the Government with not much time left until the County Council elections.
Its a dangerous game. This isn't algebra - reducing the amount of support for X won't necessarily guarantee an increase of votes for Y.
My fear is that with so little to choose from the political positions of the three main parties, any benefit will go to an inapropriate party, or worse... voter apathy will increase yet again.
Are there any journalists in the 91Èȱ¬ 6pm newsroom?
I agree, it is not a case of the 91Èȱ¬ "censoring" the Prescott story on the day it broke - it is simply a case of journalistic incompetence!!!
ITV News at 6.30pm placed all three stories (Clarke, Hewitt and Prescott) together.
Channel 4 News at 7pm placed all three stories together
91Èȱ¬ News at 6pm hardly mentioned the Prescott strand
The following day's Daily Telegraph had the best headline for the three strands - "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered"
So every other jornalist could see the three elements but not the 91Èȱ¬ news editor for the 6pm news. A change of editor perhaps for the 10pm news saw all three strands reported
Are there any journalists in the 91Èȱ¬ 6pm newsroom?
I agree, it is not a case of the 91Èȱ¬ "censoring" the Prescott story on the day it broke - it is simply a case of journalistic incompetence!!!
ITV News at 6.30pm placed all three stories (Clarke, Hewitt and Prescott) together.
Channel 4 News at 7pm placed all three stories together
91Èȱ¬ News at 6pm hardly mentioned the Prescott strand
The following day's Daily Telegraph had the best headline for the three strands - "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered"
So every other jornalist could see the three elements but not the 91Èȱ¬ news editor for the 6pm news. A change of editor perhaps for the 10pm news saw all three strands reported
I agree that some of the tabloid coverage has been excessive. The 91Èȱ¬ coverage has been reasonably fair, but I would expect them to return to the critical problems of the MHS and the 91Èȱ¬ Office. Perhaps I am cynical, but I have a feeling that a certain Mr Campbell has highlighted this story to deflect pressure on Charles Clarke and Patrica Hewitt. Likewise, the non-story that £0.85 of cannabis had been found in John Reid's home. Distraction, distraction. Send in Jeremy Paxman.
There is absolutely no double standard in John Prescott attacking the sleaze of the Tory years and having an affair.
Nobody on the Labour side in the mid 1990s ever claimed that ministers' private lives should as a rule be part of their public role.
The reason Tory ministers got into trouble for having affairs was because of John Major's wish to get private and family morality onto the political agenda as part of a wider push to stigmatise single mothers. I remember Peter Lilley's 1995 (was it 1995? i can't actually remember that well clearly!) conference speech when he sang that grotesque song about single mothers.
It's a bit rich for ministers to stigmatise people for having children without the father being around and then for government ministers to go around having affairs left right and centre.
John Prescott however has never done this and therefore his private life should remain so. All he did was attack those ministers for hypocrisy. Which is not something he can be accused of in this case as he's never moralised about the public's lifestyles.
Is this the Labour party that shouted about Tory Sleaze..??? Well enough should be enough .How much more do we , the suffering public have to listen to before the Opposition parties decide to come out fighting . If members of the public had done half what these miscreants have ... they would be behind bars ,certainly not governing our beloved Country
How can the PM possibly sack his deputy when, in his own words - "he (Prescott) is vital for the Labour Party"
I read an editorial in the Daily Mail which criticised the 91Èȱ¬ for it's coverage, telling me that there had been no mention of the affair, even when I had watched it for myself on the Ten O clock news. The article was laughable, it's just a shame such an arrogant and hypocritcal paper is taken seriously by so many. Before you ask, my father buys it and I couldn't resist reading their editorial for it's entertainment value.
I for one am really bored of the continued news coverage following this week's events. Let's take each story in turn :-
John Prescott. Agreed, he made a serious error of personal judgement - but surely he's now paying the price now and won't be such a fool in future?
Patricia Hewitt. Whatever way you cut it - the NHS HAS had more funding and things have improved no end since Labour got in. You've got to feel a little sorry that Nurses are underpaid and have been left out of recent reforms - but where is the investment really required? Surely incentives for the GP's and consultants -- those that have devoted more time in study, education and the science of medicine – make a bigger impact and cure more patients than paying nurses more? Patricia obviously needs a few lessons on empathy and presenting though.
Finally, Charles Clarke. I still see him as pretty new in the role. His statement was woefully inadequate, but getting rid of him right now would be the wrong decision. His first focus should be sending home the offenders, then initiating a full-on restructure to cure the 91Èȱ¬ Office of the issues that have bugged it for so long.
All of this weeks events remind me of a quote from Ramsey Clark : "Turbulence is life force. It's an opportunity. Let's love turbulence and use it for change". Whether Tony and the irksome threesome decide to embrace this turbulence, face-up to the challenges and move forward will be the real test...
I think some of the apparent allegations that have been doing the rounds about the 91Èȱ¬ covering up the Prescott story are rather harsh. Considering Wednesday was a very fast moving news day I think the 91Èȱ¬ got the balance about right. Given the wealth of news media that is available for us all I think those people who wished to find out more about the Prescott story could have done so.
Putting aside the Deputy Prime Minister's extra-marital business one does have to question his exact role in Government, how much is the DPMO costing the taxpayer? Is it not time to have smaller more focused Departments say a specific department for the 'Environment', 'Regional Affairs' and a 'Counter-Terrorism Department’?
You can't be serious. I even remarked to my husband on the morning the story broke that I couldn't believe the Today programme only gave it a one line story. It seems only too convenient that Prescott's daughter-in-law works for the policital team. Hmmm.....
If Prescott worked in a private company and behaved like this, he would have been sacked immediately. It seems this government doesn't give a toss about reputation. Only their own skins.
Dear Nick,
It is surely unprecedented that you felt it necessary to defend the 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the Prescott affair.
I for one have no doubt as to your impartiality.
I think this perception all stems from the 91Èȱ¬'s climbdown over the Gilligan affair, and the gnashing of teeth thereafter within the 91Èȱ¬ hierachy, a huge mistake in my opinion.
I am a Conservative voter and have always perceived the 91Èȱ¬ to have a left wing slant, and that ITN are slightly to the right, but then I guess that is because my own views have a habit of getting in the way of complete impartiality.
Nevertheless, I have to say that it is my perception over the last few months, that when Sky News have been prominently running stories that are not in the best interests of Labour, the 91Èȱ¬ has been running them as story two or three and vice versa.
That is down to the Editor of 91Èȱ¬ news, and its about time in my view that the 91Èȱ¬ caught up with the perception outside of 91Èȱ¬ Towers, and heard what vox populus is thinking and saying.
Oh,... and Prescott should resign.
You feel it necessary to rebut allegations of a cover-up by the 91Èȱ¬.
You must then be aware of the growing credibility gap when it comes to 91Èȱ¬ news output.
Eventually we will finish up with a situation akin to the US where few bother with the left of centre output of the mainstream media and put more faith in blogs.
The revenue generated by the licence tax will then be in jeopardy.
The ironic thing about all the trouble that the Labour Party is in is this, 'where is the oppostion'? The Tories have a new leader, he is a good talker, but he comes across as a shallow opportunistic upper crust twit. Could one honestly be expected to put trust in this buffoon or his silly schoolboyish 'Shadow Chancellor with a squeaky voice' Hague is grooming Cameron and I fear he will go the same way, people liked and laughed at Hague's one-liner jokes, but had more sense then to vote him into office. In the meantime I hope things start to omprove in this country and we get a decent opposition leader soon.
Some people pay for sex. It's seems that Mr Prescott was perfectly happy to have the taxpayers pay for it for him.
I think it is time to stop knocking the 91Èȱ¬. As an institution it is without compare anywhere in the world and its reputation for honesty and integrity is respected across the globe. Nick Robinson is someone who gets the political news across without dumbing down, sensationalism or spin. He is not a man for the cheap storyline, but an able and shrewd commentator. The government creates its own troubles by and large. Commentators have a duty to report on them according to professional standards. Nick and the 91Èȱ¬ do both things very well.
It is self-evident that the Prescott 'story' is a smoke-screen to cover up the real event namely, the Government's policy of not deporting criminals of foreign nationality in order not to increase the number of asylum applications. There was no accident or incompetence here: this was (and still is?) a POLICY implemented by no fewer than three 91Èȱ¬ Secretaries. As usual with these idiocies, the members of the Government are completely unaffected by the results of their policies: none of them are burgled, assaulted, raped or murdered.
I think post-David Kelly a good number of managers at the 91Èȱ¬ are being neutral to the point that they're biased towards neutrality.
I know news is supposed to be free of bias, but I don't see how that is possible when the very concept of news relies upon public interest. Although the 91Èȱ¬ is isolated from that somewhat by the license fee.
Personally I don't care who John Prescott has bedded. My interest derives from his pomposity towards the Conservatives in the past, and that this couldn't have come at a worse time.
It's almost as if New Labour have generated a story that appeals to ever group of righteous nincompoops in the UK. Immigration, infidelity and the NHS. Way to go!
Nick you can't seriously be surprised about accusations of 91Èȱ¬ bias regarding the reporting of New Labour sleaze. The 91Èȱ¬ is institutionally biased against the Tories and there are now so very many examples of this, and equally of the 91Èȱ¬ playing down stories that make Labour or the LibDems look bad, that the only real surprise is that you are reporting these Labour bad news stories at all. No-one of truly independent mind can honestly believe that the 91Èȱ¬ is fair balanced and unbiased in its political coverage, not of course that any British media outlet really is balanced, but since the 91Èȱ¬ is publically funded it is the one broadcaster that has a duty to fairness and it is, and has been for some considerable time, failing miserably in that duty.
Nick,
Why has no one asked the primeminister why when he was told about the foreign prisoners saga last year, he didn't go public? It seems an obvious question. The obvious answer is 'cover up', but I'd like to hear the Tony Blair try and bluff an answer. Could you ask him for me?
Nick, if Prescott survives unscathed then any civil servants discovered 'in flagrante' in the office will be able to avoid being disciplined by arguing that it's just a private matter. This will become known as the 'Prescott defence'.
I heard rumours about John Prescott's affair, back during the fireman's dispute. One of the attempts to broker a deal is said to have failed because Prescott was in bed with his lover and they couldn't track him down. How come it has taken so long for the story to come out?
I was disapointed to see that an excellent indepedent journalist such as yourself Nick has joined such a blatently biased organisation with its left wing social enginerring agenda.
Nick, you say: "I believe that because the Deputy Prime Minister's affair was with a civil servant paid for by the taxpayer, and because he was vigorous in attacking the morality of Tory ministers, this is a legitimate story for us to cover".
If that's the case, why didn't you (or another journalist in the 91Èȱ¬) break the story...
Could you (Nick) please post a comment telling us (the license fee payer) when the 91Èȱ¬ first heard that the DPM was having an affair and why the 91Èȱ¬ chose not to break the story.
I'm in full agreement with Crispin.
All three ministers are doing a fair job under difficult circumstances. By remaining calm they're setting a better example for the more ignorant and rude elements of the media and public. Far from weakening them, if they have any insight, this difficulty will be a useful learning exercise.
Remain firm. Keep your eyes on the ball, people.
pointless expressing ones views on Prescott - BBc have decided to 'doctor' the comments received on the subject
This may be prurient nonsense, but when posturing a pugilist poses as a Prima Dona, the safe pair of hands seems to wander. Deputy Dog showing signs of sniffing the wrong scent. Poetic Justice, Prescott style.
What a contrast to the Profumo Affair!
You wrote: "This is standard fare for an election campaign."
Standard fayre, shurely?
Is it just me or are quite a lot of people missing the point about whether or not the Labour Trio should resign? It's about competence to carry out an important public role isn't it? Prescott has to be terminally naive to conduct (and then initially deny} an affair at "the office" and think the press are not going to get hold of it.
Clarke new about the deportation problem and failed to solve it, "I told the civil servants to do something but they didn't" is not a comment that inspires one to believe he's the man to put it right.
Without doubt the NHS has had a dramatic injection of funds - so where are the dramatic improvements Ms. Hewitt?
Somehow we need to hold the politicians (from any party) and senior civil servants to account: if you take the big rewards and priveleges you have to perform, and if you publicly display poor judgement or don't get the job done then you have to go.
The Ministerial Code begins "Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct in the performance of their duties." (1.1)
It also says: "Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality" (3.1), "Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise." (5.1) and "it is the responsibility of Ministers individually to order their own private lives in such a way as to avoid criticism" (5.2)
Prescott has thus clearly broken the Code in 4 places and must go.
Since no-one has ever seriously suggested that he has his department because of any ability to run it, this would be a huge gain for the country.
I would suggest that a balanced approach by the 91Èȱ¬ would be to devote the same amount of publicity about John Prescott's affair as Prescott devoted to Tory MP's affairs.
This would require the 91Èȱ¬ to spend about three months covering every detail of the affair, door-stepping Prescott and every member of the cabinet with intrusive and obnoxious questions.
Unfortunately, I suspect this will be squelched by the 91Èȱ¬ running a planted anti-Tory story on Thursday morning, juct before people vote.
If, as Trevor Kavanagh has alleged, John Prescott's "multiple infidelities" were common knowledge at Westminster, why is it that the 91Èȱ¬ is lagging behind in letting the public know what all its political journalists know? To find out what's really going on, I have to read the political blogs such as Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale - and I can't believe that Nick Robinson doesn't know as much as they do. The conclusion I draw is that the 91Èȱ¬ deliberately censors itself so as not to upset the government whenever the licence fee agreement is due for renewal. This should not be a surprise to anyone, because the 91Èȱ¬ has consistently behaved like this since the days of the 1926 General Strike. As always, one has to rely on many different sources of news to get a rounded picture - but it is a shame that the 91Èȱ¬ feels it necessary to be so timid.
I think the 91Èȱ¬ got the balance just right, and (more importantly) allowed that balance to change as events unfolded.
I had to laugh when I read the current headline article on the 91Èȱ¬ News website. It says that Ms Temple thinks 'The pair were "lucky" to not have been caught'.
Lucky? The luckiest people are those civil servants that failed to spot them. Just imagine the sight - enough to cause nightmares!
P.
Prescott was very vociferous in his condemnation of Tory morals when he was in opposition so he rightly deserves any criticism - and there will be plenty - heading in his direction in this instance. The fact that he exploited a junior employee in his own department does not say much for his behaviour and judgement or for the coercive power he employed as Deputy Prime Minister. To kill the innuendo and restore some vestige of respect to his office, if that is possible, he should resign.
When someone tries desperately to make others believe that there was no "covering up" to prevent more embarrasment to the Blair Administration, YOU KNOW THE PERSON is lying through his teeth.
Mr. Robinson, you are a liar, like the British PM, so put a sock in it, stop making and finding excuses for the mis-conduct of your so called elected leaders, who make Rasputin and Casanova look like saints.
Prescott is a Minister of the Crown. He has a duty to be honourable in every way when holding that office. If he can lie to his wife and kids then how can we trust him to be the honest politician he has always claimed to be?
And is the 91Èȱ¬ in the pocket of the Government? Of course it is. We, the public, see that as clear as day, despite their desperate protestations to the contrary.
Here is a clear case of 91Èȱ¬ bias. After all you 91Èȱ¬ correspondents have dined out for years on the Neil Hamilton taking backhanders story it is now clear that it was all made up by the grauniad. Will you do a Panorama report on this to clear his name? Not a chance.
Martin Bell knew the truth but ignored it in his headlong rush for personal publicity. Will the 91Èȱ¬ be making that clear? No, I thought not.
It's important because although few people know what Prescott is actually paid to do, fornicating with his secretary in his office certainly is not it. What an insult to the working classes that the link between them and the ruling Labour elite is, apparantly, this rutting hog.
A bit disingenuous, Nick. The 6 o'clock news on Wednesday failed to mention Prescott at all (apart from the briefest of brief asides from you during your talking head) even though it was all over the media elsewhere - including this website. That can't be put down to journalistic incompetence, pace Anonymous above, but can only have been an editorial decision. Cold feet at the Beeb? Bloody freezin', mate!
I am definitely concerned.One, becasue it is being financed by taxpayer s money as it happened at the work place and secondly,because it simply demonstrates the misuse of power which common man awards to the politicians.Admitting what he did isnt good enough for me.Doctors will get struck off for this kind of behaviour.Why not politicians then?
Well, well, what hypocrisy - you admit that the 91Èȱ¬ has not pursued 'the story as vigorously as we did "Tory sleaze"'.
It bothers somewhat that the new philosophy for resignation as explained on Andrew Marr's show yesterday by Alastair Darling is that the greater the issue, the less need to resign. As far as I'm concerned, Charles Clarke has committed a capital offence in not only failing to control his own department, but also lying to his boss, the Prime Minister for three weeks. If you or I were to mislead our employers so disgracefully we would be forced to go!
Prescott and Clarke are yet more hypocritical politicians who have no principles and are desperate to hang onto the trappings of power.
If they won't go Blair should sack them, he won't until he has no choice.
He is the most hypocritical of the lot and he wants these 2 Blair puppets to stay and help him also maintain the trappings of power.
No principles or honesty apparent, who voted for them last year??
What is it about the British psyche equates marital infidelity with sleaze? How do the two become automatic bedfellows (pun intended)?
Men of power have always enjoyed the rewards that brings - in the case of ministers: lucrative non-exec seats, a slot on the blah-blah circuit when their time is up. Now we know that having a 'bit on the side' is an as yet undisclosed benefit for some in office. Who cares?
To Nick's point about Presoctt sha**ing the help as a legitimate story - to me that's a journalistic stretch.
But, I saw what it did to an otherwise perfectly good senior manager I worked with some 30 years ago. It's called cra**ing on your own doorstep.
Prescott should have been sacked long ago because he is a spectacularly useless, self-important fat-cat. (Has anyone seen any improvement in the environment or transport since he took these roles?) He doesn't do a good job, and he's clearly got too much time on his hands. Sure, the affair story is a typical tabloid beat-up, but the country should take advantage of this opportunity to throw out this pile of bad rubbish.
I remember watching one episode of Newsnight when the presenter said that they were too 'high-minded' to talk about Prescott's private life. I'm sorry but there are double standards at play here. Newsnight ridiculed Cameron's private life when they mocked the fact that his suit and suitcase had to be brought to work by a chauffeur after he cycled to parliament (as if this was some serious surprise to people). Seems as if its ok for Newsnight to investigate politicians' private environmental lives but ignore adulterous liaisons because in the Beeb's world green credentials has replaced family values as the new morality.
Why should I pay the licence fee if the 91Èȱ¬ cannot abide by their side of the contract...i.e. impartiality?
Nick, you are so wrong. In the normal world outside of the media bubble, the 91Èȱ¬ has been mortally wounded by the WMD issue and subsquent events. Until the 91Èȱ¬ mounts full scale balanced output on all political scandals, then the current view that the 91Èȱ¬ is in the pocket of Blair et al will remain.
I ask you, the second in command of the UK, has an affair with a civil servant! The civil servant is briefed against by Labour, which the 91Èȱ¬ bought into.
The defense secretary has canabis found in his house, not much coverage for such a serious event. Is the excuse, 'it could have been there for years' now available to all?
Why has the 91Èȱ¬ not asked Clarke why he did not ask the police to find these individuals 12 months ago?
Quite amazing (and friendly) lack of questioning really.
Good Luck and always find the truth
I think Crispin very much hit's the nail on the head. Especially in concern of the NHS, I was frankly amazed that nurses felt the need to be so rude to the Health Secretary. What do they want a Tory Government in power? One does get the feeling that some people will be very ungrateful whatever the Government does.
I also agree about Charles Clarke, I really do feel he should be allowed to remain in his post and sort out the 91Èȱ¬ Office. He is one of the better Labour Cabinet Ministers highlighted by his recent appearance on Question Time. Would changing the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary really achieve a great deal? I believe it far better that he sis allowed to stay on and sort out the 91Èȱ¬ Office.
I personally have thought 91Èȱ¬'s coverage of the Prescott afair has been good. I'm rather suprised that people have felt the need to make the various allegations that Nick Robinson describes above.
Personally, I think it is just as good as any coverage, it lets us know the moral standards behind the people this country is supposed to be relying on.. First of all, someone in a high position in this country should set examples, if this is the way the ministers carry on how can they expect the people of britain to lead healthy relationships within their marriages, keep families together.etc.
Maybe he should have a course on self control and loyality to his family unit...SHOW BY EXAMPLE. This may then lead to no end of money saving within the health service.etc. sexual diseases will go down, as gov. will realise the importance of keeping faithfull, and not tempting teenagers to divulge in sexual activities with all the obscene programes that are on Tv... Infact the gov, need to clean up their act and set examples within the broadcasting of such materials in films etc. because while all this is on display to the young folk of britain, there will be high levels of followers, thinking it is the right thing to do, as it is acceptable because everyone does it......What a misconcept they have starting out in life!.......
I have no worries you covering this sort of news, you expose them, they have the option then to come clean and act in a social manner that is acceptable to society.....
How much more can you find out?
What lies are behind the other ministers?
How many have criminal records?
How many have perverted the course of Justice with their influence?
Answers no doubt a lot will secretly be intrigued to know!!!!
Keep up the good work..
Nick
It's understandable that Gordon wants to keep his head down and not get himself tarnished with the present debacle.
However, given what we now know about the performance of the 91Èȱ¬ Office and various satellite organisations, when I next hear him waxing lyrical re the Public Realm, I won't know whether to laugh or cry...!
Lions led by donkeys according to the PCS; or the blind leading the blind more like. :'(
When you next get the chance, could you ask him about the limitations of the blessed Public Realm?
I agree with Nick's points wholeheartedly and believe the 91Èȱ¬ got it about right in this case - unlike the printed media who once again embarrassed themselves and shame us as a nation.
People who have posted here have, I believe, misunderstood what Tory sleaze in the 1990's was all about - it was hypocrisy, not the acts themselves (other than the criminal ones, of course), which caused the political troubles.
Portillo banning gays from serving in the military despite an 18 year gay relationship. The entire cabinet coalescing around a 'back to basics' message, which criticised the electorate for single parent families and marriage breakdown, whilst at the same time doing it all themselves (Cecil Parkinson having a child with his unmarried secretary, for example).
The point is this - Labour have succumbed to personal weakness, probably in the same ratio as the rest of society, but they haven't spent their time in office preaching to the electorate about having affairs or illegitimate children or blaming people who do for society's ills. Whilst they may have been proven to be human beings, with human failings, they are not guilty of the hypocrisy we saw in the awful sleaze years.
Are you intending to report the discovery that the IND *deliberately* didn't consider prisoners for deportation in order to avoid their inevitable asylum claims showing up in the figures that the PM had promised to halve?
To risk the safety of the public by incompetence is one thing. To deliberately place people in danger for spin is a completely different level of scandal.
K.
I cannot believe Prescott who once said "to the tories, morality means not getting caught" will be able to survive this, he is one of the "right Honourable" gentlemen that we should be looking up to to look after the country showing good judgement, honour, all the things he showed he clearly doesnt have by revelations made in the past week, all 3 of these incompetant ministers should go
If Prescott, Clarke, Hewitt, and indeed Blair were managers of private companies, they would have been hung out to dry weeks, months or even years ago.
As for the 91Èȱ¬ and its coverage - at times the 91Èȱ¬ is totally biased as opposed to C4 news. But considering the three stories all effect the way politicians act in public, it isnt surprising that the Prescott story was hot property for all parts of the media. As one commentator has said on here - if a minister can lye and break the bond of marriage, then surely MR PRESCOTT has the capability of being economical with the truth on matters of public policy. If politicians sorted out their morals then perhaps more people would take an interest in politics and not see it as a punch n judy show!
Nick - I don't believe the 91Èȱ¬ covered anything up, you just reported the important stories of the day. However, your post did get me wondering if the following scene was played out in the DPM's office that morning!
Cast:
Sir Humphrey Appleby - Peter Housden (Permanent Secretary, ODPM)
Jim Hacker MP - John Prescot (DPM)
Personally, I don't believe there's such a thing as scandal anymore. Everyone has their fifteen minutes of infamy. Unless he actually abused his position (as in the case of Blunkett) I don't think he should step down.
Appart from anything else, Prescott's position is pretty much the only think keeping the old-left on side with New labour. the man has caused countless faux-pas during his ministry. He wasn't removed from office on account of them, and I sincerely doubt he will be on account of this!
Hi Nick, Yesterday news of a second affair involving John Prescott was extensively reported across all media...the 91Èȱ¬ news at ten however, chose to report nothing. If there isn't a cover-up at the 91Èȱ¬ regarding our sleaze ridden Deputy Prime minister, there is some seriously shoddy journalism going on.
Slightly off subject for this thread I know, but.....
The suggestions for who is going to get what post in the inevitable reshuffle that follows this have started. The woeful lack of quality candidates is there for all to see, but the thing that fascinates me is that one obvious name never gets mentioned.... Brown.
Brown is determined to become PM, but all he has to his CV is an over-long period stuck in the bowels of the Treasury and the occasional love-in meeting with Angelina. In any other business, he would be told to get out and deliver something in the real world before he could be ready for the top job. Well, the 91Èȱ¬ Office is just shouting out for a strong character to shake it out of its problems. Why not put him in there and give him 18-24 months to sort it out and prove himself.... and if he's not capable of it, why would he be any good as PM?
There would be the added bonus of no longer needing Prescott around to keep knocking his and Blair's heads together.
Nick,
The 91Èȱ¬ has a history of covering up about the private lives of New Labour ministers, the most blatant example being Peter Mandelson's sexuality.
In light of that are you really shocked that we might think the 91Èȱ¬ covered up for Prescott?
Perhaps you could post on when you first heard that Prescott was having affairs and what you did to investigate it to prove all those who think you are either biased or inept wrong.
John Prescott is no hypocrite. Sure, he made jokes at Steve Norris's expense, but his main objection was to Tory financial sleaze. Also this was ten years ago, and we are - rightly in my view - moving to the situation which has prevailed for decades in countries like France where politicians are judged on their public performance not their private affairs.
I think that the hypocrites are those who really want to hound Prescott out of office for his private affair, but pretend it is for some other reason, eg the fact his ex-mistress is a junior civil servant.
On the matter of the foreign prisoners, there has clearly been gross incompetence, and Charles Clarke has admitted responsibility. However, it is worth bearing in mind that these prisoners had all served their sentences, and thus posed no more danger to the public than British ex-cons. And remember there are far more of the latter.
Chris wrote in message 51...
"If Prescott, Clarke, Hewitt, and indeed Blair were managers of private companies, they would have been hung out to dry weeks, months or even years ago."
I've been thinking that since this all along. I'm sure that every one of us with positions of responsibility in the private sector would love to have the protection these incompetents have. What I find startling is the apparent lack of focus on what can only be described as John Prescott's sexual harrassment of his staff/others.
From what I have read Mr Prescott first 'introduced' himself to Tracy Temple by lifting her skirt and was regularly witnessed groping other female members of staff or political helpers. If I or (just about) anyone else in any walk of life was to behave in that way we would be summarily dismissed and possibly charged with harrassment thereafter.
It seems Mr Prescott falls in the 'just about' category. His behaviour is appalling and he shouldn't even be given the oppotunity to resign. He should be sacked for gross misconduct and suffer the consequences of his behaviour. Yet what he actually receives is the protection of the Prime Minister and other cabinet colleagues.
It just beggars belief.
Come on, Nick, get real! Of course it's "a valid story" for you to cover!! Surely that isn't the point any longer - especially as even more dirt rises to the already scummy surface. Only the obtuse, uptight and/or New Labour-decorated of this society would deny that now. Just as the 91Èȱ¬'s Israel-Palestine coverage needs beefing up, your mass audience ought to be being better informed about Prescott's hypocrisy and lack of professionalism in order to make informed, critical decisions for the upcoming local elections. A little more spunk from you would be nice on these vital issues!
No complaints that you cover up for Prescott from me. I do think you've been manipulated by downing street. The tories had been asking for the foreign criminals information for months. Suddenly it gets released just when Patricia Hewitt is about to get hammered all week over the NHS crisis. The foreign criminals would have had to come out anyway, and if released on another week would just have resulted in a second week of damaging news. Did they manipulate you into burying the NHS fiasco? If this was the intention, it has certainly worked. Personally I find billions extra being spent on the NHS followed by cuts and redundancies a much more damaging story, and you have scarcely mentioned that for the last week.
Hello Nick
nfortunately the 91Èȱ¬ can't help 'covering up'; everyone knows it follows a 'Guardian' editorial line. This 'institutional bias' is to be seen not only in the way stories are reported, but also in what is not reported, for example:
Why has Sudan been so under-reported, and only half the story told?
Why did it take so long for the NHS crisis to be reported as a whole, rather than segmented into little local difficulties of Trusts?
Why is reporting on Israel so unbalanced?
And so on.....
Can someone please tell me where the supposed future Prime Minister is? I have been disgusted by Brown's absence throughout the last ten days, and I wonder if I am alone? Perhaps Mr. Robinson would be so kind as to answer this on the Ten O'clock news!
Wow! A lot of posts for this topic - it is evidentally a hot one. The problem for the 91Èȱ¬ is that it is funded by the licence payer and that leads to resentment if bias is detected. The 91Èȱ¬ does have a liberal-leftie culture, but not I think an overt and conscious bias. However, it recruits staff via the jobs pages of the Guardian and is more congenial to the Polly Toynbees of this world than to the robust right. Everybody has an angle on the world, so a certain bias is "built in" so as to speak, but perhaps the 91Èȱ¬ could advertise for staff in the Telegraph on occasion, instead of the Guardian.
The problem is Mr Robinson that no one takes the 91Èȱ¬ seriously any more. It is perceived as having a political correct, left wing, pro EU, pro ethnic minorities, pro homosexual, anti English agenda. The 91Èȱ¬, once so trusted by the British people, has become a joke, indeed any the 91Èȱ¬ will censor any point of view it happens to disagree with.
I don't think that the present labour spin machine has really got to grips with when to bury bad news. I thought the idea was to bury it in other parties bad news not in your own!
Considering the clamps you have had imposed since the Hutton farce I think you are probably doing the best you can. Who knows, when we get rid of this sleazy mob all of your reporting restrictions may be lifted.
What goes around...
Yes I believe the 91Èȱ¬ has been treading warily since Labour got into power; initially it was probably because many of the 91Èȱ¬ were New Labour and recently it's the fallout since Hutton; however the same thing happened in the US where the press were afraid to criticise until the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina fiascos. The 91Èȱ¬ have a slightly more difficult job given their mandate comes through government but I believe they/you should be more brave because otherwise you will lose the affection of the people and that will be far more serious than losing the affection of whoever is in No. 10.
"False allegation 1: The 91Èȱ¬ censors..."
Right, so this is a false allegation?
Don't you think it's hypocritical to write stories about internet censorship in China and yet have dozens of employees censoring content on here all the time?
The thing that irks me so much about the Prescott saga is that calls for his resignation have come about not because of his incompetence, but because of his infidelity. On one level, I couldn't care less about two consenting adults doing whatever they consent to do. However, doing that on the taxpayer's time (and furniture?) is quite another thing. Moreover, Prescott's previous moral stance on the Tories singles him out for special treatment.
The irony, of course, is that he should be called to account for the appalling performance of his department and himself - Prescott is far less competent than the 91Èȱ¬ Secretary, yet his affair seems to have overshadowed that. He should go, and Blair is showing great weakness in holding onto him.
One final throwaway line. Is it any surprise that voter apathy is at an all time low, when all we've got is this lot?
I believe this government is more incompetent and sleaze ridden than any other before it. I do not think that those members being called upon to resign should be given the opportunity to do so, I believe they should be sacked as by the very nature of their actions they bring the high office they occupy into dis-repute. If Blair believes he can no longer remain in office then he should resign and call a general election if he dares or carry on as PM; to merely step aside and hand over the premiership to Gordon Brown (assuming he intends to) is wholely unacceptable. Perhaps HM The Queen could send for Blair and dissolve Parliament, I wonder what the 91Èȱ¬ would make of that?!!!!
Hear hear, Mick Williams. I am not particularly concerned about Prescott's private life but it is increasingly galling that no 91Èȱ¬ journalist seems able to tackle him rigorously on his department's growing underachievement, most notably in the field of housing provision. Dull perhaps for Westminster groupies, but a vital issue for people priced out of the housing market. Given politicians who fail to live up to their promises and journalists who fail to hold them to account (often in favour of trivia) it is no wonder people turn to parties like the BNP.