McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[scottycelt]

I am with Mercia on this, but I can't help but remember a similar hoo-ha about rape several years ago, when it was seriously mooted that the rules of evidence should be altered to make it easier to convict someone of rape (because more victims would report rapes if they there was a greater likelihood of the accused being convicted). Of course that wasn't done, but the very fact that it could be suggested demonstrates how easy it is to enter the realms of fantasy to court public opinion. And sometimes the fantasy becomes reality.

I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea that every alleged victim's story should be taken at face value ... The latest BBC fiasco is surely testament to that!

A person being associated with crimes as vile as child abuse and rape is a very serious matter indeed. Of course the police should take every alleged victim's claim seriously, but it's up to them to try and discover the facts.

That's why we both agree that the media and those idiots on Twitter should be very careful before they indulge in cruel and damaging innuendos about people before there is any real evidence or proof of guilt.

[french frank]

Even on these Newsnight failings, it seems that those people who criticised the BBC for not running a programme containing allegations against a public figure of sexual abuse of children are attacking it now for running such a programme: the BBC has been too cautious on the one hand and not cautious enough on the other. I am not saying that the criticism is not justified, only that these are sometimes more difficult decisions than hindsight allows.

Yes, perhaps there was a sense in which they were trying to make up for their previous misjudgement (if such it was).

Entwistle said: "This was a piece of journalism referred to senior figures within News, referred up to the level of the management board and had appropriate attention from the lawyers." Could someone briefly say what the problem was, considering that 'the film itself did not make a named allegation'?

[aeolium]

Could someone briefly say what the problem was, considering that 'the film itself did not make a named allegation'?

There was no named allegation, but there was an allegation on air that a then senior Tory figure, still alive, was involved in the abuse. That inevitably leads to others trying to work out who the figure might be and the fact that it did not take too long to make the association with the peer who is now taking legal action for defamation was clear when Channel 4's Michael Crick (either the same day the story broke or the next day) had interviewed him and reported that if his name came out he would be prepared to sue for defamation. The risk the BBC ran though was that they were relying on one person's allegations (not several, as in the shelved Newsnight investigation into Savile) and allegations directed at someone who though not directly named was alive.

[french frank]

Thank you. I think I see ... bit dangerous lighting the blue touchpaper, given the febrile attention of the press to such matters at the moment.

[amateur51]

I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea that every alleged victim's story should be taken at face value ... The latest BBC fiasco is surely testament to that!

A person being associated with crimes as vile as child abuse and rape is a very serious matter indeed. Of course the police should take every alleged victim's claim seriously, but it's up to them to try and discover the facts.

That's why we both agree that the media and those idiots on Twitter should be very careful before they indulge in cruel and damaging innuendos about people before there is any real evidence or proof of guilt.

Of course we should start by believing the 'victim'. However the primary error in all this is that no-one seems to have thought of taking a photograph of Lord McAlpine and saying to the accuser, Mr Messham: "Is this the man you mean?". Surely this should have been done during the initial Inquiry in the late 1990s? It should certainly have been done by the police and by the BBC.

The role of Twitter in all this is something of which I have no personal experience but I understand from accounts on the radio that the Tweet traffic re this Newsnight programme has been extremely provocative, of the "put up or shut up", "are you brave enough?" type of comment. I mention never having used Twitter because I don't know what sort of pressure this would put on some of the young turks on Newsnight. It shouldn't put pressure on them of course, but it doesn't mean that judgement isn't swayed by it. In which case I wonder where are the wiser calmer editorial heads at Newsnight in particular and at the BBC in general?

[ahinton]

Of course we should start by believing the 'victim'. However the primary error in all this is that no-one seems to have thought of taking a photograph of Lord McAlpine and saying to the accuser, Mr Messham: "Is this the man you mean?". Surely this should have been done during the initial Inquiry in the late 1990s? It should certainly have been done by the police and by the BBC.

Agreed - except that, had it already been done by the police, BBC would not have had to do it but would only have had to report it.

[Mr Pee]

I've just heard a replay of Entwistle on Radio 4 this morning, courtesy of Sky News, and I found it unbelievable that he apparently had no idea that Newsnight were going to run this story, hadn't been aware of the publicity about the broadcast in the newspapers and online in the days leading up to transmission, didn't see the broadcast because he was "out", and, rather like his evidence to the Culture commitee re. Savile, was blissfully unaware of what was going on in his organisation. One would think that, after Savile, a Newsnight story accusing a senior Conservative of being involved in child abuse would have been automatically referred to his office. The DG seems to be flailing around in a fog of ignorance. If curiosity killed the cat, it may be a lack of curiosity that does for Mr Entwistle's tenure as DG.

[Pabmusic]

I'm simply uncomfortable with the idea that every alleged victim's story should be taken at face value ...

So am I, Scotty. I doubt that we are very far apart on this. It's just that we do not have a good history of treating complaints seriously. I suspect much of the Jimmy Savile scandal arises out of such attitudes.

[amateur51]

Agreed - except that, had it already been done by the police, BBC would not have had to do it but would only have had to report it.

When I worked in grants assessment I did not simply accept that the auditors thought that a charity was a going concern, I read and tried to understand the accounts myself.

I've not worked for the police nor for the BBC but I would have shown Mr Messham a photograph of Lord McAlpine and asked for his identification confirmation had I been Editor of Newsnight.

[Dave2002]

Of course we should start by believing the 'victim'.

Why? Not all 'victims' are honest.

We should evaluate statements and combine with evidence before forming a pattern of belief.

[amateur51]

So am I, Scotty. I doubt that we are very far apart on this. It's just that we do not have a good history of treating complaints seriously. I suspect much of the Jimmy Savile scandal arises out of such attitudes.

But surely this is a reaction to a time in the very recent past when people alleging rape were treated with suspicion and disbelief such that they tended to drop the charge or they never reported the rape in the first place.

If your starting point is that you believe the victim's story and then treat a suspect on the basis of the suspect's being innocent until proven guilty then you will get maximum co-operation from both parties.

[Mr Pee]

Why? Not all 'victims' are honest.

We should evaluate statements and combine with evidence before forming a pattern of belief.

[french frank]

There's probably a difference between 'believing the victim' and 'starting off the investigation from the assumption that the victim is telling the truth'.

[amateur51]

Why? Not all 'victims' are honest.

We should evaluate statements and combine with evidence before forming a pattern of belief.

Why? For the same reason that we beieve initially that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

[amateur51]

There's probably a difference between 'believing the victim' and 'starting off the investigation from the assumption that the victim is telling the truth'.

I think the former is shorthand for the latter