The BBC has decided to break cover and attack John Whittingdale openly for his relationship with someone who turned out to have been a sex worker…..Mistress Kate, aka Olivia King….a story finally reported by ‘Byline’ after having been on the internet for two years…..
Byline can reveal a year long relationship between a senior figure in David Cameron’s government and a dominatrix which potentially jeopardized government security and left ministers open to blackmail. John Whittingdale, now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was involved in a long relationship between at least November 2013 and January 2015 with Olivia King, a well known escort who specializes in domination and sado-masochistic practices. It is unknown whether the relationship continues.
Whittingdale says he did not know she was a sex worker and the evidence is that he had no idea as he openly travelled with her in public and to very public events where the media would have been omnipresent…
Whittingdale was accompanied by her at locations including the MTV Awards in Amsterdam in November 2013, the SportBall, attended by Kate Middleton, also in December 2013 and a New Years Eve party at the House of Commons in 2014/15.
Not sure Byline can have its date right…claiming it was a year long relationship and at a new years party 2014/15 as Whittingdale says…
“Between August 2013 and February 2014, I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. “She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship.
The newspapers are being accused of a cover-up and using the story as a lever to pressure Whittingdale over Press regulation…it’s a right-wing conspiracy…but then the Mirror refused to publish as did the Independent…no story in the Guardian and of course nothing on the BBC.
Here is the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire on the appointment of Whittingdale to Culture Secretary…
Daily Mirror associate editor Kevin Maguire wrote: “I oppose statutory regulation of newspapers but John Whittingdale as culture secretary is payback time for Tory press barons.”
‘Tory press barons’? Who they? Murdoch supported Labour for a decade, the Telegraph is more and more left-wing and the Mail is purely commercial and will take anyone down if there is a story in it.
Here is Roy Greenslade of the Guardian defending him…
The BBC itself are claiming a Press cover up…
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said it raises questions about his role in press regulation, given some papers had the story but did not publish it.
The BBC claims the story first surfaced on Byline but that’s not true, the BBC itself must have known about the story as it has been widely circulated on the internet for over two years…revealed by a well known person, Natalie Rowe, also a dominatrix, who published a book on Osborne and ‘kinky pasts’…..
Natalie Rowe John Whittingdale MP- google him, familiarise yourself , and in the coming days , I’ll be exposing him and what Press have been hiding
Considering the very obvious public nature of the relationship, and Whittingdale was single at the time, it is obvious he knew nothing about her job….unless he is very slow to catch on, which I doubt.
Amused to see the odious Max Mosely sliding into view deriding Whittingdale for having done the same thing as him….well no, he didn’t pay for sex with several prostitutes dressed up in what were definitely not Nazi uniforms.
Despite not liking the licence fee funding method Whittingdale was always in fact rather friendly towards the BBC ….
At its best, the BBC is the finest broadcaster in the world. Its reputation for quality and creativity as well as accuracy and objectivity is rightly admired across the world.
The BBC plays a crucial role in projecting Britain’s image across the globe. And it provides programmes which are enjoyed by millions every day.
Did the BBC have the ‘sword of Damacles’ hanging over Whittingdale’s head pressuring him to toe their line?
A BBC spokesperson said: “We’re looking forward to working with the new secretary of state.”
Newsnight finishes its piece with the sanctimonious …..’Whatever happened to the public’s right to know…Not only in Fleet Street but in Westminster too?’……..they missed out the obvious……and in the corridors of the BBC.
BBC political correspondent Ben Wright says the fact the story stayed out of the press has raised questions about a potential conflict of interest involving the man in charge of media regulation and the motivation of newspapers and broadcasters not to report it.
‘Broadcasters’? Welll yeah…but not just Sky which I’m sure is what the good Ben Wright was alluding to really.
The BBC covered up this story as much as anyone else….and they had very good reason to. The BBC has tried every dirty trick in the book to undermine the Charter review and yet not published anything about Whittingdale’s private life….why? They must have known about it and seen the photos. The BBC monitors all the possible sources of news and scours the social media for stories….how did they miss this from someone who was a very high profile source whose story was picked up by so many others in the media business? Rowe was still publishing stuff about George Osborne just before her tweet about Whittingdale…she was in Vice news the day after her tweet. The BBC seriously didn’t know anything? The same BBC that in 2011 was reported to be going to make a film with her about Osborne? They really weren’t keeping tabs on her?
BBC plan film on Tory links of vice girl in George Osborne ‘cocaine’ pictures
A member of the flagship Panorama investigative team met Natalie Rowe, 47, with a view to making a film about her links with the Chancellor and former Downing Street spin doctor Andy Coulson.
The meeting was part of a new BBC probe into claims about phone hacking on the News of the World when Mr Coulson was editor.
Just 4 months ago the story was resurfacing in a big way….why no interest from the BBC?
It seems Labour knew all about this story in 2014 as Guido reveals….
tom_watson Why are you not using your Parliamentary Privilege in relation to John Whittingdale, we spoke in detail on the phone – USE IT
— Natalie Rowe (@RealNatalieRowe) July 11, 2014
The BBC can’t possibly claim they didn’t know and then claim the right-wing Press were involved in a cover-up…what are the BBC hiding?
Were the BBC blackmailing Whittingdale?
Osborne reckons that he BARELY knew me, here he is in my flat, off his trolley, a client looks on,who looks a plonker
Whilst I agree that Aunty appears to have had Whittingdale in her drawers all along. It would be a very difficult thing to prove unless some sort of “smoking E mail” turns up – and I dont think even Aunty is that stupid.
I can only form my opinion from my own experiences. I have worked for firms where for various reasons the staff were suddenly under extreme scrutiny from management. As soon as we were aware of this – of course our behavior changed to observe the rules more strictly than before. Despite Aunty certainly being under scrutiny at the moment, there is scant evidence of much behavioral change in this regard.
It will be interesting to see where this one ends up. At least not having a tv I wont have to suffer Newsnights Evan Davis licking his lips over any details about stains on “little blue dresses” or QPR football strips.
No time for any of them.The BBC was always safe under this government. As for right to know. We have no rights they tell us what they think we should know.
Quite revolting to witness the sanctimonious BBc at work over Whittingdale. An organisation so dedicated to the pursuit of unreality and obscuration and whose affection for the nation and it’s traditions and people is entirely absent.
A juicy story to amuse the BBC viewers. I cannot see why the BBC would need to blackmail Witteringbum, as any threat to reform the BBC would be removed by the Cameron Government.
It is worth comparing BBC treatment of Whittingdale with that of Jeremy Corbyn, now that it has been confirmed that he understated his income on his tax return.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyn-admits-failing-to-include-state-pension-income-on/
One is a non-story, where two consenting adults get together via an online site to share time and experiences as they see fit. Who knows whether she is trying to change her life, move away into some a bit more “respectable” or not, the fact remains that it is a non-story with the left trying to whip it up into some that resembles some kind of controversy.
The other is a genuine story involving a hypocrite who has tried for a week or more to tar the PM and his father with incredible wrong doing in their financial affairs. He has been found to have done precisely what his prey was supposed to have been doing, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Are you prepared to guess which story is front page news across all BBC news outlets and programmes, and which one has been eradicated from the news as if the whole story simply never happened?
Can’t seem to find anything on the BBC’s website about Corbyn’s failure to declare his pension income on his tax return. I would have thought that is a big news story ?
Racked off has issued a statement through their mates at the BBC =
It has come to our attention at Facked off that a VHS sex tape has been re-found [by Huge Grunts mom in the closet no less Ohh get her] involving a rich celebrity and a sex worker! the film shows financial and sexual exchanges and this disgusting intrusion of privacy [50p at all good charity shops ] has been widely circulated in the cat loving wine drinking sect and we demand a stop to this immediate action banning all press we don’t like, that Jeremiad Corbit be made PM Today and the burning of all copy’s [plus our tax returns ] !
This so called ‘pretty woman ‘ sting is just the sort of right wing Murdoch fed hate we deplore .
Now onward and up with the Tory sex scandal auntie .
Your unfaithfully
Max ‘Von’s a night’ Mosely
Is it possible that this non story is being bigged up because Whittingdale is pro Brexit.
Every little helps and the remainians will hope mud will stick.
They are really pulling out all the stops what with the IMF, propaganda booklets, lists of rich people saying stay in, Obama, Bono, all being used.
Notice all the weasel words used like could and may.
They are desperate and will use anything to further their hapless eu.
Apparently, 70% of the Tory party do not support the remain lot, only those interested in furthering their careers plus a few misguided nobheads support Cameron yet this booklet supposedly is the government’s view.
If you look at absolutely any part of the whole eu situation the common sense arguments all strongly say leave. I guess that’s why they want to get off the actual facts and push all the little distractions, they simply cannot win any argument on facts and logic.
If it isn’t fiddled then surely out must win.
The BBC hardly started this story!
It came via Byline.com and Popbitch (which I reported here and wondered were the Press waiting for the offshore sbusiness to subside). When the Press gazette queried the silence last Friday, the countdown had started.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/why-fleet-street-would-rather-report-injunction-celebritys-threesome-culture-secretary
Byline went for thr jugular on Sunday, the BBC only after it started breaking in nationals.
The question is simple enough. was Whittless being held to ransom by the press in return for going easy on press regulation? Plus if a man in the public eye can be so reckless in his private life when he must have known he was under scrutiny should he be trusted.
I did say last week that he had gone quiet and that’s the angle the reports are now suggesting wasn’t a coincidence. He’s now finished as Culture secretary but won’t be sacked until the post brexit reshuffle.
(I’ve never gone out with anyone who I didn’t quickly find out about their jobs and life. How could a Govt minister be so utterly stupid when he had such a key job? Power goes to their heads.)
You are failing to distinguish the very significant difference between ‘breaking’ a story and ‘bigging one up’.
I think you are missing the point of the story appearing. Was Fleet Street blackmailing him as the Press regulatory stuff is in his brief (no pun intended). Reporting on the news is what any news outlet does. By last Friday the Q was WHY Fleet St had gone cold turkey and suddenly ‘honest’.
So if I get you right the BBC/guardian also deliberately covered this up ?? hmm and yet you defend them and bleat about the wrongs of every one else in the media except them !
No, the BBC controls 70 per cent of the news consumed in this country. As the Americans say it makes the weather. If it decides to major on a particular story it effectively sets the agenda for the rest of the media.
Time and again we have seen this, stories broken by other papers (usually the Mail) and pushed to the bottom of the page by the BBC, which chooses some Guardianista talking point in preference.
We are seeing this happen daily as the BBC campaigns for the Remainiacs and we are seeing it with Whitingdale, who has clearly been targeted for special treatment.
The irony is that Whitingdale is the best gift the Tories could have given the Corporation. Anyone with a backbone would have done what is really needed, which is to take an axe to that bloated, Leftist empire.
The irony is that Whitingdale is the best gift the Tories could have given the Corporation’
It is odd.
a) Licence fee fee no longer avoidable at all, on either council tax or ISP fees
b) Oversight moved to a quango stuffed with BBCphiles and ex-Beeboids
c) Minimal accountability moved too open season
vs.
Sticking up a Brexiteer.
Bet Whitto feels they really had his back.
Clearly priorities at play.
‘Was Fleet Street blackmailing him as the Press regulatory stuff is in his brief’
Good question. And precedent.
Does astounding lack of coverage imply blackmail underway by even the most trusted, professional, impartial media? Or just lack of time. Or space?
Over to you.
Reckless? No excuses for Whitto but are you suggesting he knew about her job and was lying? He went out openly with her.
It seems to me that he was set up.
Whitless is not a liar but plainly stupid. He picked her up on Match.com (what on earth did did he put as a job!) and I’d assume she saw him, recognised him and saw a paycheck. Having never used these sites, I can see they are great for people wanting to blackmail others. Surely he could have met somebody normally or am I showing my age? And does the Govt not provide a vetting service? She must be known to at least HMRC!
This screams set up, and the involvement of Ossie’s ‘friend’ reinforces that.
http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/watsons-fingerprints-all-over-whittingdale-story/
‘He picked her up ‘ what a very BBC condescending turn of phrase he didn’t pick anyone up they met she liked him and they publicly went out ! is your problem he is straight/Tory/not BBC approved or uses a website to meet dates funny that millions also use these websites so are you and the moral inquisition condemning them as well for their foolishness ? plus not sure I like all the BBC moralising exactly what is wrong with a woman who chooses to work in that industry ? why should she be treated as a ‘wrong un ‘ or untrustworthy ? maybe the BBC and a few others are showing their puritanical side or maybe the new Sharia modesty police has got them toeing the line ?
This is as disgusting a show of moralistic hypocritical preaching as when they did it to Labours Simon Danczuk and all because he upset comrade Corbie
After last night’s Newsnight’s, murky, pre planned takedown of Whittingdale, I was interested to see how the BBC would take this forward this morning. The Today news bulletin was typical BBC- half the story, innuendo and the Omni present hand wringing from the controversial Norman Smith.
So what did we learn from the BBC 8:00am news?
– Labour said Whittingdale should stand aside from any further decisions on press regulation (Take 1)
– Whittingdale had admitted having a past relationship with a sex worker (Take 1)
– Labour said Whittingdale should stand aside from any further decisions on press regulation (Take 2 – just in case you didn’t get it first time)
– Whittindale had admitted having a past relationship with a sex worker (Take 2 – for the hard of hearing)
– Whittingdale had denied the story had affected any of his decision making
– Four newspapers had declined to publish the story (Take 1)
– Labour’s Maria Eagle said the story left him vulnerable to pressure from the papers
– Whittingdale had admitted to having a six month relationship with a ‘sex worker’ which he ended before becoming Culture secretary (Take 3 – for the really hard of hearing)
– Four newspapers (named) declined to publish the story as it was not in the public interest (Take 2 – just in case you’ve not got where this is going)
– Labour said that this was a ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over Whittingdale to deter him from further regulation and the second part of the Leveson Inquiry (Labour’s fourth bite a this particular cherry so far in this bulletin)
– Maria Eagle said that Whittingdale should stand aside as there was a conflict of interest (Labour 5 Whttingdale 1)
– Labour was supported by ‘Hacked Off’ (I think that’s 6-1 now – I’ve lost count)
– The public (that’s me and you) cannot have faith in Whittingdale’s judgement and independence according to Hacked Off’s resident idiot Brian Cathcart
– The world has changed and the press were justified in not publishing the story according to Neil Wallace former editor of the NoW.
– Whittingdale denied that the ’embarrassing ‘ affair had affected his decision making.
– Number Ten said that a single man was entitled to a private life and they had confidence in Whittingdale
What we didn’t learn from the ‘World’s most trusted broadcaster’s’ heavily weighted and innuendo ridden report was;
– The context of Whittingdale’s relationship with the ‘sex’ worker’ that he had ‘admitted to’. They could have read his statement – they didn’t, allowing listeners to conclude that he may have been paying for the services of a prostitute.
– How the relationship came about. They could have obtained this from his statement but declined to report it.
– How the relationship came to an end. It’s in his statement, they could have reported it but didn’t.
– That the relationship was open for all to see. That’s a matter of public record
– This story has been an open secret for at least two years.
– We don’t know when the BBC first knew of this story and why they didn’t pursue it then
– Why the BBC / Hacked Off and the Labour party have opened up now.
These material and inexcusable omissions are typical of the way that the BBC works now; half the story (the half that suits them, their and their client’s agenda), bias, innuendo and a lack of integrity define them
In the past few weeks we have seen it with;
– the Glasgow murder where the BBC withheld information that they knew about, allowing listeners to form a wholly incorrect view of what might have happened
– Offshoring. Conflating perfectly legal overseas investments, wills, bequests and gifts with money laundering and wrongdoing.
– And now the BBC wilfully misreport the Whittingdale story.
This blog has for years provided examples of unacceptable bias at the BBC. This past few weeks has seen the bastards take it to an even more breathtaking level. But who will now tackle them? Not Whittingdale or the Tories. The BBC have a ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card
Number 88,
Could you repeat that ? I didn’t quite get it first time !
Ask the BBC. I’m sure they’ll be along shortly to run the story some more.
Number 88,
LOL !
Wittingdale claims he didn’t know she was a hooker specialising in S&M and maintains the moment he found out he ended the “relationship”. He is clearly lying about this, but that is his only “crime”. If he is bit odd and wants to engage in legal sexual activity with a fesity hooker….so what? It is none of our business and only becomes our business if there is something illegal about it. The French, for all their froggy sins, adopt a much more healthy attitude to politicians sex-lives. Odd times these days, the BBC’s Evan Davis parades around in dubious gay quasi-bondage gear with nary a mention of disapproval. Given his choice of clothing one can only surmise the type of high-jinks Mr Davis gets up to when not fronting BBC programmes. Perhaps if Wittingdale only frolicked around with rent boys this story would never have gained traction.
‘He is clearly lying about this’
And your evidence?
If you chose to have a relationship with a hooker specialising in S&M do you honestly think that over a two year period you wouldn’t pick up on this aspect of her profession? Of course he knew, but as I stated earlier, so what? Also, don’t you think he chose to become involved with her precisely BECAUSE of her profession?
Two year period? Did you read Whitto’s statement? Are you calling him a liar?
He already has.
I agree with you Number 88. Although it’s the only thing I take issue with in Paul Weston’s comments. The only things that should be at all relevant are 1) Did he do something illegal?. 2) Has his relationship impinged upon his job? Answers 1) Probably not. 2) Is it what caused him to go easy on the BBC despite their behaviour?
The one about whether he lied about it (only he knows) is only as relevant as the fact that most politicians seem to do so. Corbyn lied about his taxes, so if Whittingdale must resign for lying then Corbyn should take the lead and resign first as his was a far more serious lie.
Paul,
It is what Davis gets up to when he IS fronting BBC programmes which worries me !
Maybe the bbc don’t like Mr Whittingdale because he’s heterosexual.
Whittingdale had a relationship with a woman.
So what!
An irrelevant pathetic non story.
I presume Profumo was before your time. Look it up. And Lord Lambton, Thorpe, Archer, Mellor, Aiken,, Ron Davies, Mark Oaten. I’ll save you the bother: they are all here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom
All in involve prostitution. So fleet St never considered such stories as unfit to print in the past. why now?
Why no mention of Wilson, Cook or Blunkett? What is it that these three have in common that makes them exempt from your list? Hmmmm, I wonder what it could be…..
Thank you LDV, my comments via a computer screen must suggest to you that I am young, in truth I am in the twighlight of my years on Earth although in rude health. Unfortunately, I can remember only too well Profumo. I believe he was a very decent man despite his indiscretion with a prostitute. He never forgave himself and spent a portion of the remainder of his life cleaning out public toilets as what he saw as penance.
Profumo was married, Whittingdale is a single man. Marriage in Profumo’s time was then, a bond to be respected much more than it is today. Times have changed. Furthermore, Profumo’s position in the cabinet was as the Secretary of State for War where some secrets could not be divulged even at cabinet level. Whittingdale’s position compared to Profumo, so soon after the ending of the War and the ongoing Cold War bears little relation in terms of importance.
Your question is of benefit to my thoughts however, if one was to follow your line of inquiry one would question whether any politician should meet any person in order to either have sex of move into a deep and meaningful relationship. How could a politician do it?
I am minded of my friend who many years ago,had a relationship with Kruschev’s neice when lecturing in Russia, despite being deeply in love with her and her with him he was told in no uncertain terms to leave the country as he was deemed as an unsuitable suitor. Love was not deemed important. He never married and although in his late eighties he still thinks about her every day, he has often told me that it was impossible to love anyone else and it would be unfair on them.
Your preferred world is clearly that from which my friend has shed many tears where freedoms we take for granted are ignored.
In your Orwellian world LDV, politicians would be vetted, monitored,watched and not free to make mistakes in participating human relationships from which they can learn and grow. This is part of being in a free world, free to express speech and thoughts.
LDV, I do hope you don’t mind me saying this, but the world you seek seems to be more inclined to one of secrecy,communist,stasi,nazi state regulated relationships. I’m sure you will deny this but those who seek utopian societies always end up supporting the evolution of dictatorial state regulated countries, China, USSR, N.Korea,etc.
On the subject of secrecy, I think LDV should be more concerned about the true motives of Hacked Off which ex-BBC man Andrew Gilligan exposed so superbly in this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9963263/The-truth-about-Hacked-Offs-media-coup.html
But though Hacked Off acts in the name of victims of the press, victims are not its central concern. Unknown to most of the people it lobbies, Hacked Off is a campaign not just to tame the press, but to claim the country for the authoritarian Left. It does want to stop newspapers victimising individuals. But it also wants to force the press to serve defined social and political objectives – at the expense, if necessary, of the right to free expression.
But then I’d guess, judging by his posts on here, that LDV is probably sympathetic to the Hacked Off cause, and that does not bother his conscience one little bit.
Maybe… it was a different time? 🙂
Aaah! I’ve just realised, wronged. That’s it! You’ve got it. Whittingdale, it turns out, is a heterosexual. That’s why the BBC are after him.
Shock! Horror!
“Unmarried heterosexual man has sex with woman” (mind you, probably quite unusual in bBBC la la land)
It’s nearly as much of a story as “Man with modest investment is revealed to have paid all his tax correctly”
What we are seeing is the disgusting, odious Far Left biased BBC newsroom student Marxists promoting Jezza’s strategy of continual mud-slinging in the hope of discrediting and undermining the government by attacking them personally rather than their policies.
In other words the very opposite of what the Far Left usually state. Total hypocrisy.
Sluff,
LOL ! And not much reporting of Corbyn’s failure to declare his pension income on his tax return. The BBC must have, rightly, concluded that the Tories are going to do nothing to curb them, so they have a free hand. They have really given up any pretence of impartiality.
BBC news just one minute ago. The business news begins. The introduction runs. The presenter begins to talk about tesco. What ‘s on the main screen in the background?.
John Whittingdale! He wasn’t even in the previous news report. So how did his picture end up there?
The presenter spoke along the lines of
“The big news today is…, no not him “, pointing at the photo behind him, “that Tescos is back in profit”
Just what is the BBC. It seems more interested in flouting its Charter rather than sticking to it. Childish, vindictive, bullying,overblown,self-righteous, sinister, undemocratic, deluded pile of shite.
The time for action has well passed.
It does it because it can.
Poacher and gamekeeper.
Thought I`d look around to find someone who sees the Hacked Off pansies for the lying hypocrites and conspiracy theorists that they are….and all this is a NEWS story?
Divorced bloke sleeps with woman-only she`s not what she said, and is a prostitute.
And THAT makes the headlines on the BBC and the Independent?http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2016/04/hacked-offs-hypocrisy-reveals-their-true-nature.html
chrisH, If it had been a muslim rent boy that really would be news !
Prostitution is a difficult subject for the liberal media. On the one hand, a woman’s choice to do whatever she wants with her body is a sacrosanct right, but on the other hand, they don’t like the idea of men being able to purchase sexual gratification as it takes away a woman’s power in a relationship. Hence the topic always has to be muddied with concerns about ‘trafficking’, ‘exploitation’ etc (which are legitimate concerns but which are not specific to prostitution).
Mrs Essex , wears leather trousers , & high boots in Sainsbury`s , during the winter months , does that make her a sex worker in the BBC`s eyes . She is only 50 , but when you visit Germany , lots of old women over 65 , seem to wear similar attire . The Evil BBC ,fucking hypocritical tossers.