Am I being exceptionally dim here?
I watched the interview, but to the best of my awareness, the Newsnight interview did NOT name or implicate anybody by name at all. 'Senior Tory' covers an enormous field. I had absolutely no idea of names at all until the PRESS started both hinting and then indicating websites that named names. The interview alleged, it made some detailed statements, but names were not among the material. How is the Newsnight programme defamatory of someone 'un-named'???
Surely, the Newsnight interview only 'implicated' anybody to those who, ALREADY in the know, actually knew enough of the story from way back and thus some of the names in the frame. And the piece of paper handed to the PM on the ITV morning programme ALREADY had six names on it. I still have no idea what those names were or how ITV got hold of them.
It seems more and more to me as if a lot of people behind the scenes DID know these names / the events etc, and they are the ones who might / should be taking the rap. The actually Newsnight interview did not use names. I am NOT saying the abuse never happened, or that the abused man is inventing, or underplaying the awfulness of the whole filthy story, or any such thing.
Where am I going wrong here?
I watched the interview, but to the best of my awareness, the Newsnight interview did NOT name or implicate anybody by name at all. 'Senior Tory' covers an enormous field. I had absolutely no idea of names at all until the PRESS started both hinting and then indicating websites that named names. The interview alleged, it made some detailed statements, but names were not among the material. How is the Newsnight programme defamatory of someone 'un-named'???
Surely, the Newsnight interview only 'implicated' anybody to those who, ALREADY in the know, actually knew enough of the story from way back and thus some of the names in the frame. And the piece of paper handed to the PM on the ITV morning programme ALREADY had six names on it. I still have no idea what those names were or how ITV got hold of them.
It seems more and more to me as if a lot of people behind the scenes DID know these names / the events etc, and they are the ones who might / should be taking the rap. The actually Newsnight interview did not use names. I am NOT saying the abuse never happened, or that the abused man is inventing, or underplaying the awfulness of the whole filthy story, or any such thing.
Where am I going wrong here?
Comment