McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[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.

In fact, the telephone number is here - http://content.met.police.uk/Article.../1400012036409

[Resurrection Man]

.....because neither of us have the balls to publish the truth.

Go on then. Put the name on your own blog and leave this forum in peace. Unless you've not got the balls, that is.

[MrGongGong]

Go on then. Put the name on your own blog and leave this forum in peace. Unless you've not got the balls, that is.

Profoundly depressed with the pedantry...who whom..who the f*ck cares. Of people saying 'I knew X who had a hard time therefore you are all basta*rds'. Of witterings. Even Radio 3 sounds sane at times compared to the inane drivel posted here. So good people....listen up. Go and get a f*cking life. Let others do what they want to do. Don't preach. You're not God. Or Jesus. Buddha. Muhammed.

RM...over and out.

You still here then ?

[eighthobstruction]

Budapest you have published in an hysterical and melodramatic fashion, accusing in an iresponsible way,with far too much self-importance....ff was quite right to bridle you....

[ahinton]

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 ?

I could not say with certainty but I would nevertheless suggest that even a wrong answer might be better than none on the grounds that at least matters wouldn't then so easily risk being

all swept under the carpet again

Each individual may well have a correct or incorrect view (or not) on his/her MP's trustworthiness and effectiveness in his/her capacity as an MP, but if you would rule out that route as a viable one in the event of dismissal by the police, what alternative course of action might you recommend instead and why?

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

Whilst I imagine that few if any people other than the surviving abusers themselves would wish this matter to be swept under the carpet again, I fail to understand and cannot therefore countenance your implication that it's arguably acceptable for "a few rich folk" to be "offended by being falsely accused" of anything, since it sounds uncomfortably akin to a backhanded endorsement of the notion of "one rule for the rich, another for the rest"; it might also be worth remembering that, as rich folk being falsely accused will usually be in a far better position to take legal action against their unjust accusers than might anyone else, it follows that, when they do so on a grand scale (which would be the case were their ire to encourage them to sue the police, the NHS, care homes, BBC and other media organisations alongside their actual accusers), they will end up taking a great deal of Court time, money, expertise and the rest which will accordingly be denied to the rest of us for the duration.

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.

I agree that "false accusation is a serious business", of course, but I don't see that it is regarded by wealthy accusees as any more "significant" just because they might happen to be in better positions to respond to it by initiating legal action which they have as much right to do as does anyone else who has been falsely accused; I therefore fear that your observation here amounts to something of a red herring which, given the gravity of the subject matter, strikes me as unfortunate at the very least. Do you not believe that every citizen - even including most if not all criminals - has an equal right to justice or do you believe that the poorer the citizen the greater his/her right to justice?

I do agree that trying to stop false accusations flying around the internet is a pretty hopeless prospect, but the mere fact that this can and does happen does not materially affect citizens' inherent rights either to justice or to freedom from being made a victim by means of the publication of false accusations, nor does it exonerate in principle anyone who happens to commit libel in cyberspace from being called to account by law and prosecuted; such accusers still take risks by publicising their accusations.

[Pabmusic]

...I fail to understand and cannot therefore countenance your implication that it's arguably acceptable for "a few rich folk" to be "offended by being falsely accused" of anything, since it sounds uncomfortably akin to a backhanded endorsement of the notion of "one rule for the rich, another for the rest"...

I'm slightly concerned that the abusers tend (in some minds) to be equated with wealth and privilege. It's not true, not at all. Most abusers come from the ranks of the 'masses'. All they need is a relationship characterised by (1) trust and (2) a difference in power.

They may be found anywhere, but some relationships have a greater potential for exploitation - family, teacher/pupil, nurse/patient, carer/cared-for, authority figure/frightened or confused person. Yes, and sometimes wealthy person/impoverished person. But when we get comments that suggest it would be all right if "a few rich folk were offended by being falsely accused", it seems to me that it's time to start understanding the sort of relationships that have the potential for abuse.

[Bryn]

Bearing in mind how far back the Saville abuse claims go, I think it worth reminding ourselves of the history of PIE, and its one time affiliation to what was then the National Council for Civil Liberties. Seems difficult to believe today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

[handsomefortune]

budapest's frustration at the shambles is understandable, but ultimately french frank's correct to moderate 'speculations' as this protects everyone, all posters, including budapest him/herself.

plus i can hardly criticise schofield, news corp etc if i am also advocating trial by internet, or by media.

whilst guesswork is tempting, especially in view of the previous failure of the police, the distractions of self referential beeb babble ... but guesswork doesn't necessarily help one iota, and is dangerous - especially when it's written down.

I'm slightly concerned that the abusers tend (in some minds) to be equated with wealth and privilege.

well i prefer this turn around frankly, the rich are at least a minority and have some clout.

but essentially i'd definitely agree that it's fixed stereotypes that are the problem..... regardless of public opinion, but where courts and institutions are concerned.

for example, the tabloids having homed in on specific targets made them stereotypes, making all sorts of people unnecessarily victimised en mass. 'one parent mum with pedo lover' was particularly ubiquitous and destructive...and, i think if anything, sort of legitimised an interest in very unsavoury porn online.....it seemed to send out a message that 'everyone's doing it'....which some might be ..... but ideally this has nothing to do with MOST one parent mums, or their children.

elderly gents ...is another fave assumption.

"a few rich folk were offended by being falsely accused", i'm afraid unfortunately that false accusations are par for the course, on the way to accusing real offenders....it's all part of the process, ideally no matter what your status/wealth. this, balanced against the fact that many children have had no access to any form of justice, purely as they don't have the status or money .... i can live with this assumption, and stereotype! especially whilst the current inquiry is in progress as someone who was both wealthy and privileged is at the very centre of investigations.

i'm sure the stereotype will revert back to more vulnerable people shortly! typically, the public have short memories, seem to enjoy attacking stereotypical targets, as directed by their favourite tabloids.

[Nick Armstrong]

a couple of Google bots, a Yahoo Slurp and a lot of Bingbots

Please tell me you made all that up....

[MrGongGong]

I'm slightly concerned that the abusers tend (in some minds) to be equated with wealth and privilege. It's not true, not at all. Most abusers come from the ranks of the 'masses'. All they need is a relationship characterised by (1) trust and (2) a difference in power.
.

I was NEVER suggesting that it was OK
more the observation that all of a sudden we have a great hoo haa in the press because it involves Lord Wotsit, or some other "Celeb"

power and status isn't necessarily to do with £
but I'll save my empathy for those who are more vulnerable

[ahinton]

I was NEVER suggesting that it was OK
more the observation that all of a sudden we have a great hoo haa in the press because it involves Lord Wotsit, or some other "Celeb"

power and status isn't necessarily to do with £
but I'll save my empathy for those who are more vulnerable

In so doing, would you not accept that there are two distinct vulnerabilities under consideration here, namely those of the abuse victims on the one hand and those unjustly accused of committing acts of such abuse on the other and that, regardless of their differences, they are equally valid? Suppose for a moment that you or I were falsely accused in public of committing such acts of abuse; does and/or should the fact that neither of us is a celeb, lord or other well-known figure make any difference in principle in respect of our rights not to be so accused?

[MrGongGong]

In so doing, would you not accept that there are two distinct vulnerabilities under consideration here, namely those of the abuse victims on the one hand and those unjustly accused of committing acts of such abuse on the other and that, regardless of their differences, they are equally valid? Suppose for a moment that you or I were falsely accused in public of committing such acts of abuse; does and/or should the fact that neither of us is a celeb, lord or other well-known figure make any difference in principle in respect of our rights not to be so accused?

Indeed that is the case
that we all have (in theory) the same rights
BUT in the world as it is we don't
which is not to say that it's how I would want it to be
but if lord wotsit did sue the people who falsely accused him would he give the money to help victims of abuse ?
which (again) is not to say that he hasn't been wronged

[french frank]

Please tell me you made all that up....

I frequently have the sensation that the world has moved on so swiftly that last week I wouldn't have understood what I'm saying now.

[ahinton]

Indeed that is the case
that we all have (in theory) the same rights
BUT in the world as it is we don't
which is not to say that it's how I would want it to be

So you are suggesting that, irrespective of all relevant laws, we do not all have the same rights in practice? and that, accordingly, you and I actually have fewer rights than Celeb A, Lord B, Sir C, HRH D or whoever in terms of seeking due redress for being falsely accused in public of grave crimes such as those under consideration here? If so, can you specify the particular flaws in the law themselves or in due legal process that you believe sanctions and endorses such inequality of treatment and can you cite examples of such inequality of treatment in practice?

but if lord wotsit did sue the people who falsely accused him would he give the money to help victims of abuse ?

That is another matter entirely.

For one thing, I do not know Lord McAlpine and happening to share his forename affords me no insights into what he might do with any monies received in damages should a Court award them to him and should they indeed be duly remitted under a Court order.

For another, I would assume that much might depend on how much the amount of damages awarded by a Court might be.

More importantly again, however, I am at a loss to understand the direct relevance (to the issues under discussion here) of what he might choose to do with any such damages that he might receive as distinct from what you or I might do with any that we might receive under Court orders following successful legal action in respect of such wrongful public accusation. You still seem to be trying to make some kind of sideshow out of the position of the Lord McAlpines of this world as distinct from the yous and Is of ditto vis-à-vis involvement in such a matter and, not only do I fail to understand your purpose in so doing, I also believe that you do rational debate of the subject itself a disservice by introducing such notions into the arguments where they appear to have no place to be.

[scottycelt]

Bearing in mind how far back the Saville abuse claims go, I think it worth reminding ourselves of the history of PIE, and its one time affiliation to what was then the National Council for Civil Liberties. Seems difficult to believe today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedoph...ation_Exchange

It does indeed and it again illustrates how three or four decades ago most people tended to think of child abusers as sad and pathetic figures, to be viewed with some pity. The PIE was generally considered to be simply a group of extreme, nutty libertines. In that respect things have changed very much for the better, the way we now view such matters with revulsion.

Those who talk of 'historic cover-ups' either forget that society's attitudes were quite different in those days or, more likely, they were not old enough or even around at the time to remember.