Lots of names and embarrassing detail is gloriously published in the Guardian’s WikiLeaks exclusive today. Yet the blushes have been spared of a Labour minister who was forced to apologise for sexual harassment and described as a “bully”.
The newspaper is witholding his name (do you think that would have been the case if it had been a Conservative or Lib Dem minister?), but I wonder if other news sources with access to these revealing cables will also fail to disclose his identity.
This is how the Guardian reports on the mystery minister:
“One cable reveals how the London embassy posed on intelligence about a British Labour minister, apparently picked up from civil servant contacts, saying he ‘reportedly remains a bit of hound dog where women are concerned’.
“The minister, whose name the Guardian is witholding, was ‘forced to apologise…to a female…who accused him of sexual harassment…and has had marital troubles in the last few years.’
“The confidential dispatch continued: ‘Contacts who know him well report he has manic depressive tendencies ‘ ‘he’s very up one minute, very down the next’, and at least one colleague has described xxx as a ‘bully’.
“The head of the office of intelligence operations cabled back gratefully, saying: ” ‘Washington analysists appreciates the excellent background and biographic reporting.’ They found ‘particularly insightful and timely’ the material about the minister’s ‘bullying, possible depression and scandals, as well as comments on the state of his marriage’.
“The cable continued: ‘We would greatly appreciate additional information, especially regarding how xxx works with other [other ministers and officials], assessments of xxx’s performance in office and information on his political goals.'”
I wonder if those answers are of public interest and will be disclosed in a future WikiLeaks report about Labour’s mystery minister whose untoward activities aroused such concern that his movements were monitored this way.
The Guardian’s front page publishes a quote from Simon Jenkins reminding us: “The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment”…..Uhhhmmm…..
*If Prince Andrew can be named and shamed in the WikiLeaks for his questionable behaviour, why not this Labour minister?
*Ivan Lewis is named as Labour’s “hound dog who is a bit of a nuisance where women are concerned.” Another name had sprung to my mind – and not John Prescott!
Hmm. I think there’s a lot more WikiLeaks to overshadow this one I’m afraid, Ellee.
Kevin, yes, but there’s a hint of double-standards here, which is why I flagged it up. I wonder how the leaks will impact on relationships between different world leaders, how damaging they will be, and if any repercussions could result in conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11861458
The newspaper is witholding his name (do you think that would have been the case if it had been a Conservative or Lib Dem minister?)
While I hate missing an opportunity to defecate on The Guardian, I really think they would have – or written a large cheque to the minister concerned, in care of Carter Ruck. If you’re going to accuse anyone of being a mentally unstable “sex pest”, you need a little more than what boils down to Foggy Bottom gossip.
Craig, of course, but the same could be said for many others who have been named and shamed.
Guido says its Ivan Lewis .
disaffected,
Here is the Guido link:
http://order-order.com/2010/11/29/it-was-ivan/
I actually thought it was someone else – and not John Prescott.
Well Ellee repulsive comes to mind , Ive heard that power makes blokes ” interesting to women ” but with this chap its stretching the imagination far too far dont you think !
They need to take away his computer ,I phone , whatever fast before he makes a complete ass of himself .
Id love to know who you had in mind bet it wasnt William Hague !
Ellee, I didn’t think you were that desperate, but if it’s sexual shenanigans you’re after I’m sure I can help. My fees are likely to be far more reasonable than that of an MP and I don’t charge for, ahem, ‘expenses’…