I’m not sure I will have made any friends among Watford Conservatives but I have given people a little time to recover their equanimity, equilibrium and sense of reality, while getting at least a few answers to the questions that jumped into my head when I read about Oakley’s admission of guilt. I have used my thirty odd years experience in the Conservative Party to rebut some of the more outrageous allegations while engaging in a semi-civil debate with some of the key players on the Liberal Democrat side.

Currently they are in a froth of self-righteous outrage. They want to see heads roll and grovelling apologies made. I’m sure Conservatives in Watford would prefer the whole thing to be a bad dream. It’s an issue that won’t be going away, at least until all the facts are out in the open. If by some chance CCO or the area organisation doesn’t launch an enquiry it will be up to people like TD to call for a full internal one.

Personally I’d shoot all politicians who hadn’t had at least 10 years in a real private sector non-political job.

1. I’m not the ThunderDragon. I’m a darn sight better looking for starters. Nor am I from Watford, infact, I’m not sure if I’ve ever been there.
My views are those of an a-political outsider with no extra knowlege of the issue; no personal relationship with Ian Oakley; and no membership of any political party.

2. I am, in no way, trying to understate the serious personal effects of what Oakley has done. Harassment is distressing for all concerned. It is only a good thing that he’s been found out, and therefore (hopefully) the harassment will now stop. The magistrates have said that custody is an option for his punishment. That shows how serious it really is.

3. I think my “so what?” line has been misinterpreted. As I’ve commented over at Sara Bedford’s blog (Awaiting moderation at time of this posting):
“As regards my “so what”, I’m looking at it from a political perspective. I’ll use the same cliché from my posting - Oakley’s done the crime, so he’ll do the time. It’s not “so what, it’s nothing major”. It is, and it’s good that he’s been found out and will serve a suitable punishment. Hopefully it’ll go some way toward recompense for the affected persons.

So, instead of just “So what?” - “So what if he was a Conservative?” He could have been a Tory, LibDem, Labour, or Monster Raving Loony. He’s been found out, as others will in the future….”

4 - @ Mark specifically - “Shady dealings” is just my choice of words to cover the multitude of underhand tactics that some people resort to to get where they want to be. Most don’t have the same personal affect as Oakley’s actions. Some have wider political consequences. Just a choice of words, I do understand the seriousness.

As I said in the post, and simon said in comments, this is going to hit the Tories hard (specifically in Watford IMHO). A lot of constituents will be left questionning if the local party is as clean as it could be, even though that guilty party has now been found out.
But, from a national perspective - that’s where I’m saying “So what?” The actions of a single person should not have effects on an entire political party. That’s all….

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

And I’m happy to accept that this kind of thing isn’t normal Tory practice. I’ve heard about various incidences of intimidation over the years but nothing of this type or for so long.

But your ’so what’ comment really underestimates the very serious impact this had on the individuals that were targeted and the fact that this was a serious attempt to undermine democratic politics in Watford.

I think you’ve badly misunderstood the seriousness of what happened. Here’s an extract from http://sarabedford.com/blog/2008/08/removing-the-cancer-from-watfords-politics/

The incidents have included:

* anonymous leaflets, alleging that LibDem councillors and candidates were convicted child sex offenders;
* fake leaflets purporting to be from the LibDems, alleging that another mosque was to be built on public land, close to where the town’s second mosque had recently been erected. Another leaflet issued a ‘denial’ that a candidate was a convicted fraudster or that he had been convicted for assaulting his ex-wife (he is happily married);
* repeated late-night silent phone calls;
* sexual and racist graffiti being sprayed on cars, walls, doors, fences and hedges;
* damage to cars, including slashed tyres, smashed lights and offensive graffiti;
* anonymous letters distributed to councillors, suggesting that the parliamentary candidate should be dropped;
* hard-core pornography sent to activists;
* poster boards broken and/or daubed with the words ‘f**k the LibDems’ or ‘c**ts’.

There are many ways of describing that. “Shady dealings” doesn’t get close in my view.