McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[amateur51]

According to the reports I heard the man in the picture was a McAlpine, a member of the family, but didn't say how close. It also said that he is now dead.

Blimey Flossie, how tortuous all this is

[scottycelt]

Am I being exceptionally dim here? ... How is the Newsnight programme defamatory of someone 'un-named'???

No, I don't believe any member here is exceptionally dim!!

The point here is that the BBC Newsnight programme simply dragged up old unsubstantiated material in a tawdry, sensationalist manner. That encouraged the gossip which ensued in its wake and the actual naming of individuals (and one in particular) elsewhere. Whether the BBC can be sued for actual 'defamation', I'm in no position to judge, but the BBC Newsnight programme was certainly the root cause of it.

It was a wholly irresponsible programme which left an elderly man's name bandied about on the internet and some newspapers connecting him to alleged vile crimes which the original accuser now admits was false.

If the BBC really had any concern for the victims of child abuse and thought they had significant new evidence concerning this case it should have involved the police immediately.

I challenge any member here to think how they would feel if his/her name had been bandied about in the media and internet in connection with such a horrible crime of which they had no knowledge.

In some ways innuendo is worse than actual defamation because it is downright cowardly as well as irresponsible.

The BBC deserves everything coming its way here if only to protect others wrongly accused in the future, imo.

[Anna]

She's merciless... merciless!!

I deleted my reply to you as I thought you, and I, were too frivolous (pay attention at the back) over a serious matter.

[Nick Armstrong]

I deleted my reply to you as I thought you, and I, were too frivolous (pay attention at the back) over a serious matter.

I know, I feel responsible for drawing this thread off into levity

However I saw your reply before it disappeared....

Tha's not wrong, lass!

[Mr Pee]

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?

Newsnight should not have run the story unless they were absolutely certain of their case, regardless of whether they named the individual or not; because as you say, the "names in the frame" were already out there for those who were in the know. So what Newsnight did, without really checking the story thoroughly, was give credence to the story, a story which, for the sake of a couple of telephone calls, they could have easily discovered to be based on very flimsy evidence. It also encouraged those who were not in the know to go online and discover the names for themselves- which is precisely what Philip Schofield did. If you want to know which names they were, just Google "Top Tory Paedophile" and see the names that come up. It takes seconds.

So as a result of the Newsnight program of 2nd November, a demonstrably false allegation was given huge publicity, and the identity of McAlpine and others whose names have been bandied about on the web, will have been seen by many thousands of curious people who were otherwise entirely ignorant of the allegations.

The fact that Newsnight didn't actually name them on the broadcast is academic in these days of the Internet and Twitter.

[amateur51]

The BBC deserves everything coming its way here if only to protect others wrongly accused in the future, imo.

Not disagreeing with you scotty but what about the Tweeters?

[scottycelt]

Not disagreeing with you scotty but what about the Tweeters?

Yes, them too, amsey, ... but we might expect something a whole lot better from our publicly-funded BBC?

[DracoM]

No, I don't believe any member here is exceptionally dim!!

The point here is that the BBC Newsnight programme simply dragged up old unsubstantiated material in a tawdry, sensationalist manner. That encouraged the gossip which ensued in its wake and the actual naming of individuals (and one in particular) elsewhere. Whether the BBC can be sued for actual 'defamation', I'm in no position to judge, but the BBC Newsnight programme was certainly the root cause of it.

It was a wholly irresponsible programme which left an elderly man's name bandied about on the internet and some newspapers connecting him to alleged vile crimes which the original accuser now admits was false.

If the BBC really had any concern for the victims of child abuse and thought they had significant new evidence concerning this case it should have involved the police immediately.

I challenge any member here to think how they would feel if his/her name had been bandied about in the media and internet in connection with such a horrible crime of which they had no knowledge.

In some ways innuendo is worse than actual defamation because it is downright cowardly as well as irresponsible.

The BBC deserves everything coming its way here if only to protect others wrongly accused in the future, imo.

But 'innuendo' surely only works if the listeners etc are in the loop of gossip / allegations etc and thus know or have a clue as to who the nodding is about!
If there are no names, if you have not a clue who may be in the 'likely loop', and / or what had been said / alleged / whispered years ago behind the hand, then please, tell me, how is it innuendo??

[pilamenon]

As a life-long supporter of the BBC it is painful to have to watch the slow, lingering death of the organisation. Sorry to say it but the writing is well and truly on the wall.

GE must resign. Newsnight must be scrapped. I expect both to have happened before Monday morning and wonder why this hasn't already happened. Neither have a shred of a reputation worth preserving.

Journalistic standards at the BBC and in the Press have nosedived in recent years to the point where both are a laughing stock both here and abroad. The Savile case wasn't the BBC's worst crisis but the McAlpine saga most certainly is. Many heads deserve to roll and I expect this to have happened by Monday morning as well.

I can't agree with any of this wild hyperbole. The BBC will survive the furore, and so should Newsnight. What ITV's morning programme did was true gutter journalism, and yet no-one is calling for heads to roll there. I'm not sure what the evidence is that "BBC standards have become a laughing-stock" either. The new DG hasn't looked in control, however, and that is a concern.

And Cameron was right to say what he did about a gay witch-hunt, though he could perhaps clarify why - that sadly many people assume paedophiles are all gay.

[Mr Pee]

But 'innuendo' surely only works if the listeners etc are in the loop of gossip / allegations etc and thus know or have a clue as to who the nodding is about!
If there are no names, if you have not a clue who may be in the 'likely loop', and / or what had been said / alleged / whispered years ago behind the hand, then please, tell me, how is it innuendo??

Because,as I said earlier, it is now a matter of moments for anybody with a computer or smartphone to get into that loop of gossip. The BBC must have known that by running this story they were giving credence to the allegations, and encouraging many people to go online and find the names for themselves.

[handsomefortune]

It bothers me that we seem to rely on newspapers and TV to do the investigative work that is the police's job.

i agree with the rest of your post and the above too mercia. but unfortunately the police have a poor track record in investigating sexual crimes, have very patchy specialist resources that differ dramatically from area to area. (this disparity is supposedly about to get worse as cuts and different priorities within policing unravel) even if a case gets to court, the accused can still go free, or receive a very light and/or vague sentence, or arrange financial settlements in a civil court.

where social status also enters the equation, the likelihood of the usual formal processes working effectively are pretty remote imo. where people are famous, and where the media runs away with the plot, as imo happened recently regarding accusations against both the wiki leaks founder, and a french politician, it is surely virtually impossible for the public to make any useful sound judgments as an ad hoc 'jury' .....even if the media wants the public to feel 'involved' in judging whoever on the basis of their reported info... unfortunately, it is often only about selling more papers/more viewers/etc, rather than actual justice.

the idea that the public, or the media can actually help solve crime is surely becoming a bit of myth, particularly viewed from the current perspective?

we don't exactly 'rely' on tv, newspapers (or twitter) to do the work the police should be doing, but whistle blowing is perceived by some victims of predatory behavior to merely suffice, the police etc having badly failed them initially. they ignore the fact that they may actually put themselves at (more) risk as a direct result.

as far as 'news making' is concerned there are far worse offenders than the bbc for both sensationalism and error....but really, the difference imo is that the beeb, as a psb, should be examining and reporting on legal evidence only ...if anything! instead, they have got involved with a random individual accusation and counter complaint.... unfortunately. especially, just at a time when all focus should be on savile and his sly accomplices.

i very much doubt claims that abuse is a thing of the past, 1950s-80s, personally, and neither should the methods for making accusations be based on old, faulty, or blatantly sensationalist ideas either! the fact that phillip schofield has apparently been instructed by producers to add 'personality' and 'dramatic flare' to the already lurid savile chaos, in his interview with the pm, discussion of a highly emotive subject and as listed on a scrap of paper, comes as no surprise. in fact, is perceived 'normal' by daytime tv standards, and the typical style of doing things in the very worst parts of the media. (hang em all i say! )

I challenge any member here to think how they would feel if his/her name had been bandied about in the media and internet in connection with such a horrible crime of which they had no knowledge. granted scotty celt, but simultaneously it cuts both ways: try living as an adult who has been refused justice, having been sexually abused as a child.... they can hardly issue the public announcements, legal threats that the rich can afford, and get listened to finally.... their emotional and sexual lives are often wrecked as a result of abuse remember!

whilst 'justice' is linked only with status, the public image of all sorts of institutions is at risk. therefore, i hope mr messham does prosecute the right person and soon....provided they're still living of course. if not, it's surely still worthwhile, some justice to name the offender posthumously? i also hope that the police manage to track down savile's chums, when the met aren't re-arranging their role entirely, due to new tory policies and cuts. as with the media, any mal functions in the police, come just when the public need their services most, which is a daunting prospect ...and for everyone tbh.

one positive aspect to come out of the savile chaos, is that the media's routine delight in 'pedo frenzy' now implicates all social classes again....rather than activity mainly being linked conveniently to 'dysfunctional economically excluded people in poor housing'....and prior to this myth, it was linked to eton school masters. at least recent news restores some realism to the most talked about form of sex crime, following centuries of complete silence, and social denial. as far as my own opinion is concerned i'm about halfway between what hewlitt and ranson say 'about the beeb' ....though i don't agree with either entirely. perhaps this is the kick up the backside the beeb needed to stop it pretending it's a tabloid newspaper, or crappy internet site, and in (fake)? competition with third class news vendors - not to mention twitter being revered as 'god almighty'.

[scottycelt]

But 'innuendo' surely only works if the listeners etc are in the loop of gossip / allegations etc and thus know or have a clue as to who the nodding is about!
If there are no names, if you have not a clue who may be in the 'likely loop', and / or what had been said / alleged / whispered years ago behind the hand, then please, tell me, how is it innuendo??

Are you therefore now claiming that the BBC Newsnight 'team' of journalists was so naive and unworldly it had absolutely no idea of the serious significance to particular individuals (and one in particular) that would result from the wholly unsubstantiated (and now undeniably false) allegations that the Newsnight Programme contained?

[kernelbogey]

George Entwistle has just resigned as DG.

Edit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ht-fiasco.html

[Petrushka]

And what of Tom Watson MP? It was his 'allegations' given in Parliament in the wake of Savile that spurred on the BBC to broadcast Messham's story. There are some people who should be examining their consciences tonight; this could so easily have lead, could still lead, to a suicide.

[DracoM]

NO!! I'm saying that the vast majority of the Newsnight AUDIENCE had no idea who was being 'implicated', and judging by statements made, I wonder if the Newsnight / Bureau team actually did not know? How did they go from 'an unnamed' possible candidate to a NAME within minutes, who knew, OR did they actually NOT know the name and somebody else told them once the prog had gone out? i.e. names then appeared on twitter etc AFTER the Newsnight prog. Or did anyone at the BBC know of the names before the prog went out? If they did know, and did not check with Mr Meesham, and get definite identification then, yes, heads should roll.

I am very uncertain of the exact chain of events / timeline here. I#d say that there is a hell of a lot that 'people' knew / know that we don't.