There are times, when the longer you look at something, the less sense it seems to make.
When that happens, I have found that sometimes, a fresh pair of eyes can bring a new perspective, to something that should have been only too obvious all along.
A case in point.
A YouTube video, recently posted by an obviously angry guy, who seemed to have taken issue with an article that was printed in Scallywag Magazine.
Fair enough, I guess, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but there was something about the video that just did not ring true.
He was trying a little too hard to persuade the viewer, that the article he referred to, which incidentally named Derek Laud as an alleged Paedophile, who had abused a boy from a Care Home in north Wales, was simply ‘A pack of lies.’
He then went on to give a potted history of the accuser, a Stephen Hashim, painting him as a wholly untrustworthy, violent thug who ‘battered his kids’ and ended up in jail for it.
He did not elaborate on how he knew the content of the article to be untrue however, he must have just assumed that his words were to be taken as the truth.
I was well aware of the Scallywag article in question, having read it a few times over the last few months, finding no clear reason to doubt the accuracy of some of the content.
So I read through it again, coming to the same conclusion, that it seemed entirely plausible when compared against similar stories that have been emerging.
While talking to a friend a few days later, it became abundantly clear that the doubts I had initially felt about the content of the video, were in fact, justified.
During that telephone conversation, it was pointed out to me that the Scallywag article was published in 1994, a time when Derek Laud, would have been virtually unknown to anybody outside of the Conservative Party.
*The same year as the Gordon Anglesea libel trial*
He had only started to become ‘known’ during and following his appearance on ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ in 2005.
So my question is, why would a virtually unknown, Tory ‘Fixer,’ be named by somebody who was undoubtedly, not aware of the inner workings of the Tory Party?
Surely, if it was just another ‘Embroidery,‘ or a completely made up story, he would have named somebody who, would at least be recognised, in order to ensure a decent readership?
It would be pointless otherwise.