Guto Bebb, David Jones and North Wales Police
Yesterday in Parliament, Guto Bebb (Tory MP for Aberconwy) made very serious allegations about North Wales Police and a colleague of fellow Tory MP David Jones. These allegations were made during a debate he secured about an anonymous local blog called The Thoughts of Oscar are outlined in Hansard.
Bebb did so using parliamentary privilege. We do not have the same protected privilege to comment on those allegations but draw your own conclusions.
Bebb’s previous libel threats against The Thoughts of Oscar have prompted the blog to close – these related to an article that can be viewed here. Curiously, we’re not aware that Bebb has taken steps to remove this article, which suggests his concern was primarily with The Thoughts of Oscar.
The most serious allegation regarding North Wales Police is of “collusion” with the blog:
“I have many constituents who are now adamant that the reason why the police in north Wales did nothing was that this site was being afforded a degree of protection.”
Politically the most incendiary information is that he names a Colwyn Bay solicitor who works with David Jones MP as a contributor to the aforementioned blog:
“The private investigation company, Lewis Legal, is a north Wales-based civil and criminal evidence-gathering service that numbers among its clients local authorities in North Wales and which has worked with and for some police forces. I met Mr Michael Naughton from the company to discuss the names mentioned in his report and the nature of the evidence gathered. On a scale of one to 10, with one being “no confidence” and 10 being “absolute confidence”, I asked him how certain he was that a Mr Nigel Roberts, a local business man, and Mr Dylan Moore, a solicitor at David Jones and Company, were involved. In both cases, he stated that he would rate both names as a 10 and would be confident in his evidence in any court of law. Indeed, this morning, I received an e-mail from Mr Nigel Roberts confirming his involvement with the blog site in question. The third name mentioned was classed as being rated at eight on a scale of one to 10 and despite parliamentary privilege, I do not intend to name this individual.”