McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[french frank]

Many folks are salivating for the names, because many, many people have been abused over the decades.

I hope history doesn't see both you and I as cowards, because neither of us have the balls to publish the truth.

Astounding! Speaking for myself - I have no idea whether what you said was the truth or not. The idea that I "know" because you've told me - when you've already said you lack the hard facts - is, well, a lot of things that I'm too polite to say. It was utterly irresponsible of you to post comments which pointed directly to one well-known, living individual.

The trouble with the internet is the more times the same thing gets repeated and repeated by people just parroting what they've read - on the internet, the more people think it MUST be true.

Interestingly, the same applies with medieval manuscripts: the more there are with one particular reading, the more tempting it is to see it as 'correct', when in fact all those manuscripts go back to the same dud original.

[Pabmusic]

I'd not looked in on this post for some time, and I am astounded at the behaviour of one member. Simply put, if you have evidence of wrongdoing, you should report it to the police, not post it on the internet. That is the behaviour of someone who does not have the evidence, but who wants to create innuendo and suspicion, whilst trying to avoid any blame. Shameful.

[Tony Halstead]

I'd not looked in on this post for some time, and I am astounded at the behaviour of one member. Simply put, if you have evidence of wrongdoing, you should report it to the police, not post it on the internet. That is the behaviour of someone who does not have the evidence, but who wants to create innuendo and suspicion, whilst trying to avoid any blame. Shameful.

Agreed!

[Nick Armstrong]

balls

Quite.

You broke the Terms & Conditions for this Forum. If you don't like it, go and... tell the truth elsewhere.

[ahinton]

Many folks are salivating for the names, because many, many people have been abused over the decades.

I hope history doesn't see both you and I as cowards, because neither of us have the balls to publish the truth.

Many people quite understandably feel the need to know the names, in order that at least some retrospective justice might be dispensed (insofar as it can be), rather than "salivating" for them, which is mere desire for vengeance at all costs (including those of the abused) and which will get nowhere. It is now indeed becoming increasingly clear that "many people have been abused over decades". I have published no accusations against any such abuser; does that fact alone risk identifying me as a "coward"? It is vital, especially in the interests of the abused and those closest to them - but ultimately also to society as a whole - that every effort be made at all times to ensure that material does not get published about this unless it is demonstrably the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, just as it is that when such truth has finally been uncovered, it be published with no holds barred but only as a consequence of its prior submission to the correct channels. The fact that particular accusations are widely published by the media including (indeed especially) the internet does not of itself make them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If you have any decency and grasp of the sheer gravity of this situation (which at least in terms of its scale and duration you seem to do), you would surely want to prevent any inquiries from being sullied by salacious gossip repeated sufficiently as to convince the more lazy minded among us is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, wouldn't you?

Anyone who genuinely believes themselves to be in possession of valuable and relevant evidence in this matter should report it to the police rather than publish it; only if the police ignore it or dismiss it (which, as we know, has happened in the past) should any other action be taken and, even then, the next port of call is not the media but MPs. Only if everyone charged with some kind of responsibility in such issues refuses to have anything to do with it should anyone address it to the media and, if that is done under such circumstances, whoever does it had better be 110% certain of their ground in advance before even contemplating such a step.

[Flosshilde]

french frank you are painting yourself into the corner of being complicent with regard to child abuse. You are calling-out people like me who are trying to shine a light on it. I will name these lowlifes. It appears you won't.

You sound like a Sun journalist. Saying that you are "trying to shine a light" on child abuse is nonsense when you won't say anything on your blog (which I assume has, or you hope has, rather more readers than this forum). In a later post than the one above you say that "Many folks are salivating for the names, because many, many people have been abused over the decades.
. NO; if people are 'salivating' for names it's because people like you are whipping the hysteria that sees innocent people being attacked - like paediatricians being attacked because those people 'salivating' don't know the difference.

I hope history doesn't see both you and I as cowards, because neither of us have the balls to publish the truth.

I don't know about French Frank's position in history, but I think you are nothing but a self-publicist, & I doubt that you will be remembered at all by history. French Frank was perfectly correct to censor your post.

[MrGongGong]

Anyone who genuinely believes themselves to be in possession of valuable and relevant evidence in this matter should report it to the police rather than publish it; only if the police ignore it or dismiss it (which, as we know, has happened in the past) should any other action be taken and, even then, the next port of call is not the media but MPs. .

and it was going so well until the last three letters
I guess one of the main problems is that there is simply no one to trust
I wouldn't make my MP the ruler monitor let alone trust him with anything of any significance
there is no "right" answer is there ?
though in the grand scheme of things I would rather a few rich folk were a offended by being falsely accused than it was all swept under the carpet again.

False accusation is a serious business but it seems that for some (who have the power and ability to try and get even more money by suing ) its seen to be more significant. The internet is full of stuff, some nonsense, some true, some amusing, some offensive its a total waste of time to try and stop things appearing given the global nature of it. Which doesn't make it right at all but it's the other side of us being able to buy boxed sets of archive recordings from Australia at knockdown prices.

[Flosshilde]

there is no "right" answer is there ?

maybe not, but there are certainly 'wrong' answers, & flinging unsubtantiated accusations around on this forum is one of them. Perhaps the new (English) police commissioners should be the next step?

False accusation is a serious business ... The internet is full of stuff, some nonsense, some true, some amusing, some offensive its a total waste of time to try and stop things appearing given the global nature of it. Which doesn't make it right

& doesn't mean that where possible it should not be removed, which FF can do & has done.

[MrGongGong]

maybe not, but there are certainly 'wrong' answers, & flinging unsubtantiated accusations around on this forum is one of them. Perhaps the new (English) police commissioners should be the next step?

I'm assuming that was intended as a joke ?

& doesn't mean that where possible it should not be removed, which FF can do & has done.

What people don't realise is that it's more or less impossible to remove anything from the internet
it might not be visible here
but it's still there ............. and searchable , and visible for ever

[french frank]

What people don't realise is that it's more or less impossible to remove anything from the internet
it might not be visible here
but it's still there ............. and searchable , and visible for ever

Which is why people should think very carefully about what they post. It's very much the downside of the internet.

(Actually, things can be deleted. If they go promptly before the search engines find them, I don't think they can be searched and found even if traces remain somewhere in the ether).

[Bryn]

Which is why people should think very carefully about what they post. It's very much the downside of the internet.

(Actually, things can be deleted. If they go promptly before the search engines find them, I don't think they can be searched and found even if traces remain somewhere in the ether).

However, Google appears to pick up new messages here very quickly.

[MrGongGong]

Which is why people should think very carefully about what they post. It's very much the downside of the internet.

(Actually, things can be deleted. If they go promptly before the search engines find them, I don't think they can be searched and found even if traces remain somewhere in the ether).

I guess (and i'm not a geek wizard so wouldn't know) it all depends on how fast and how many search engines there are in the world
though i'm sure there will soon come a time when they are faster than anything we can physically do ..........

Why DO the BBC insist on using Facebook and Twitter which are companies with very dodgy approaches to data security ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Many of the cases being reported took place before Childline. When the Savile story broke, the Government and/or the police should have immediately put in place a similar line for adults who were children in that era.

Perhaps they have done. If so, a good use of the BBC or the internet by any contributor would be to publish that telephone number. And if they haven't, then perhaps questions should be asked about that soon.

[french frank]

I guess (and i'm not a geek wizard so wouldn't know) it all depends on how fast and how many search engines there are in the world
though i'm sure there will soon come a time when they are faster than anything we can physically do ..........

Just now there were a couple of Google bots, a Yahoo Slurp and a lot of Bingbots . But they have the entire forum to cover (many are looking back in the archives) and can't see what's hidden.

If anything is deleted the search engine will pick up the current version of the page. I suppose earlier version may be cached somewhere, but they will be more difficult to search and find.

[MrGongGong]

Just now there were a couple of Google bots, a Yahoo Slurp and a lot of Bingbots . But they have the entire forum to cover (many are looking back in the archives) and can't see what's hidden.

If anything is deleted the search engine will pick up the current version of the page. I suppose earlier version may be cached somewhere, but they will be more difficult to search and find.

Interesting stuff

(not that i'm doing stealth publicity for this book ..............http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delete-Virtu.../dp/0691150362 but it is worth reading )