After the recent exposure of Prescott's extra-mural activities on official premises, he was widely tipped to be a prime candidate for the sack in Blair's reshuffle.

Well, he has been stripped of his posts, with the exception of the role of a kind of roving Ambassador in East Asia which, are far as is known, will consist largely of junketing around the region at lavish expense. What he has not been stripped of are the pay and perks of office, including his 160k+ salary, his chauffeur driven jags, his lavishly equipped, grace and favour (i.e. rent free) pads at Dorney Wood and Admirality Arch and his heavily subsidised pension contributions. There is of course no need to worry about losing his contribution to governmental work - he has an appalling record anyway of messing things up and leaving things unfinished, as his records on transport and housing clearly exemplify. But awarding such lavish remuneration for so little clearly raises serious issues.

One issue of course is why Blair did not sack him altogether. One theory is that it is for reasons of social class - with Prescott being one of the very few working class politicians in the Cabinet, or indeed in the modern Labour party. This is of course ludicrous if it is true. Prescott's lifestyle has nothing in common with that of ordinary blokes - an ordinary bloke he ain't. Another reason possibly is that Blair realises that he needs allies in the coming rift with Brown, who knows? What we do know is that it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill for his lavish lifestyle.

What is abundantly clear also is that this gross, grubby, greedy, grasping, grab-assing toad of a man should have no place in government and certainly does not deserve the trappings of office.

Local news said he may be the subject of a police investigation for having sex in a public place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4981400.stm

Cannot stand Prescott.

Blair has done more damage to the party by keeping him in than Prescott did by sleeping with his secretary.:loopy:

If the retired Glasgow cop had his way a think a lot of bosses would be in big trouble! Wonder if he'd count the stationery office as a public place...........

Lord C,
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said about the oafish 'Presser'. What a vale of tears this world is , when lecherous, moronically-stupid peasants like Prescott can rise to the rank of Deputy Prime Minister and tenth-rate musical entertainers like Geri Halliwell are United Nations Ambassadors.

You might like my imagined encounter between Prescott and the equally inarticulate and slobbish Sarah Cox in my 'Most Slappable Face in Entertainment ' thread in the Entertainment section [two days ago].

Perhaps there are people in high echelons protecting people in even higher echelons.....................who knows?:suspect:

Interesting gossip on the role of Heeley MP, Meg Munn:

Despite his behaviour, it seems that most women MPs are too overawed by Prescott’s weight in the party to speak out against him. Certainly the minister for women is not breaking rank.

Meg Munn, who is overseeing new legislation that will tackle sex discrimination and harassment in the public sector — although specifically not at Westminster — has maintained an embarrassed silence.

She would not even be goaded into commenting, according to Linda McDougall, wife of Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP.

“I found myself sitting opposite her on the train up to London,” McDougall said yesterday. “My husband and I were joking about Prescott and his behaviour. It was perfectly obvious she ought to respond, but she just went bright scarlet, looked at her husband and didn’t say a word.”

This is not how Munn recalls it. “I didn’t say nothing. But at the end of the day we are in a situation where John Prescott has done something in his private life which he has said he regrets. And that’s it really,” she said.

McDougall is in a good position to joke about Prescott’s sexual predations. She says she had first-hand experience of his behaviour long ago. “It was 1978, just after my husband had become an MP. I was 35. There was a memorial lecture for his predecessor, Anthony Crosland, and we were welcoming guests into our house. I opened the door to Prescott and showed him in. It was the first time I’d met him. As he came through the door, he pushed me quite forcefully against the wall and put his hand up my skirt.



More:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168926,00.html

Angle20, I'm not in the least surprised.

The exclusion of the Houses of Parliament from potential legislation tackling sex discrimination and harassment in the public sector will be the second time it will have happened.

A month or so ago, new anti-smoking legislation also excluded "that place" from the new law, with the excuse that it was "a Palace".

Of course Buckingham Palace and the other Royal Palaces were excluded, despite the loud trumpeting of " the need to protect employees at their place of work"...............

Prescott has damaged the working classes and socialists no end.

Not the affair especially but proving socialists are such hypocrites when in power and just aren't up to the job of governing.

Once they get in power they lap "grace and favour" up more than any centre-right MP would dare.

After the recent exposure of Prescott's extra-mural activities on official premises, he was widely tipped to be a prime candidate for the sack in Blair's reshuffle.

Well, he has been stripped of his posts, with the exception of the role of a kind of roving Ambassador in East Asia which, are far as is known, will consist largely of junketing around the region at lavish expense. What he has not been stripped of are the pay and perks of office, including his 160k+ salary, his chauffeur driven jags, his lavishly equipped, grace and favour (i.e. rent free) pads at Dorney Wood and Admirality Arch and his heavily subsidised pension contributions. There is of course no need to worry about losing his contribution to governmental work - he has an appalling record anyway of messing things up and leaving things unfinished, as his records on transport and housing clearly exemplify. But awarding such lavish remuneration for so little clearly raises serious issues.

One issue of course is why Blair did not sack him altogether. One theory is that it is for reasons of social class - with Prescott being one of the very few working class politicians in the Cabinet, or indeed in the modern Labour party. This is of course ludicrous if it is true. Prescott's lifestyle has nothing in common with that of ordinary blokes - an ordinary bloke he ain't. Another reason possibly is that Blair realises that he needs allies in the coming rift with Brown, who knows? What we do know is that it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill for his lavish lifestyle.

What is abundantly clear also is that this gross, grubby, greedy, grasping, grab-assing toad of a man should have no place in government and certainly does not deserve the trappings of office.

Or maybe he’s got a spicey piece of gossip about Tony Blair that Tony wouldn’t like to see in the newspapers? I know I’m a cynic, but what other reason could there be?

Or maybe he’s got a spicey piece of gossip about Tony Blair that Tony wouldn’t like to see in the newspapers? I know I’m a cynic, but what other reason could there be?

Could be, but from angle20's article:

Although his pay and perks will be funded by taxpayers, much of his role will be party related. He remains Labour’s deputy leader. Had he been forced from this, too, the party would have held an election for his post — threatening to bring the fragile edifice of Tony Blair’s power tumbling down.

Possibly a case of 'better the devil you know', for Mr Blair

Prescott's perks (the monetary kind I may add-just so you know what I mean) are being questioned in high places.

The consensus seems to be that, since he has been retained to smooth Brown's accession to Blair's job, and keep the rebellious back-bencher's happy, it is work solely for the Labour Party, and should be paid from the funds of the Party, not the taxpayer.

Two shags may well have kept his office and managed to shed his departmental obligations but it looks like the wheels of justice turn in his direction:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-07T120536Z_01_L07763855_RTRUKOC_0_UK-CRIME-BRITAIN-PRESCOTT.xml

I'll be the first to say that the investigation will go nowhere, the inquiry into the iinvestigation will go nowhere and the ombudsman's inquiry into the inquiry into the invesitgation will also go absolutely nowhere.