McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[Pabmusic]

Why? Not all 'victims' are honest.

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

Experience has shown that we have been very poor at taking complaints of rape and sexual abuse seriously. The culture needs to be one where complaints are treated seriously from the start. Most importantly, we must not put up an initial hurdle that complainants have to overcome before their complaints are taken seriously.

That said, complaints should always be investigated rigorously and dispassionately.

[french frank]

I think the former is shorthand for the latter

It may mean that the same course of action is followed, but the latter indicates an open mind on the subject: the former doesn't.

[amateur51]

Experience has shown that we have been very poor at taking complaints of rape and sexual abuse seriously. The culture needs to be one where complaints are treated seriously from the start. Most importantly, we must not put up an initial hurdle that complainants have to overcome before their complaints are taken seriously.

That said, complaints should always be investigated rigorously and dispassionately.

Agreed 100%

[Pabmusic]

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.

Spot on, though I'd rather say the starting point is not belief that the complaint is true, rather than that it might be.

[french frank]

Spot on, though I'd rather say the starting point is not belief that the complaint is true, rather than that it might be.

I approve of this forensic splitting of hairs: there is a difference.

[amateur51]

It may mean that the same course of action is followed, but the latter indicates an open mind on the subject: the former doesn't.

If you believe the victim and demonstrate it to him/her you will get maximum co-operation which will lead, one hopes, to the truth under rigorous examination, surely.

[Lateralthinking1]

Along with much of the news, I find the whole subject thoroughly depressing. A cynic might say that increasing systemic harshness in recent decades could be explained by some of the current allegations and revelations. Some national policy decisions, and decisions on what to broadcast, are justified on the basis that anything goes in respect of adults. While I am very opposed to knee jerk censorship, there have been times when it has been clear that some who make the decisions have no moral compass at all.

If some with responsibilities in Government or broadcasting can't comprehend cause and effect in regard to some adults' feelings, particularly vulnerable adults, then they are not very likely to have normal, ordinary, sensitivities in regard to a child.

But this website is principally about broadcasting. There is clearly much criticism of Entwistle. Initially, I was critical of him too. Now I think that he looks like a man who wasn't given adequate preparatory advice by Mark Thompson. That doesn't surprise me.

[french frank]

If you believe the victim and demonstrate it to him/her you will get maximum co-operation which will lead, one hopes, to the truth under rigorous examination, surely.

It's a matter of professionalism that you treat the alleged victim with respect and concern. You cannot either believe them or disbelieve them until you have investigated the allegations.

[amateur51]

It's a matter of professionalism that you treat the alleged victim with respect and concern. You cannot either believe them or disbelieve them until you have investigated the allegations.

How would the differences in these two approaches manifest themselves in the actual subsequent investigations?

[eighthobstruction]

It is strange that over the 30-40 years that Messham never looked up a photo of McAlpine....or as someone else said above was never shown one by the Newsnight team....hmmmmm???

[french frank]

How would the differences in these two approaches manifest themselves in the actual subsequent investigations?

Well, if you really did believe the alleged victim, you would be seeking to convict the alleged offender - and that could lead to looking for the evidence that s/he was guilty and, having apparently found it, bring the investigation to a close with a charge. But consciously assuming it is an approach, and a good one to allow you to display sympathy towards the alleged victim and gain their trust. But your aim won't be to convict the accused but to discover the truth.

It all hinges on what you understand by 'to believe' (and perhaps a distinction between 'to disbelieve' and 'not to believe'). If you're of a sceptical nature, you 'believe' what you know to be true or what on the overwhelming balance of evidence appears to be true.

[pilamenon]

I just don't think this is true at all. The BBC is if anything over-cautious and desperately trying to provide balance, particularly on economic and political views (which is not unreasonable for a public service broadcaster). With Paul Mason, I am certain that the BBC are quite aware of his sympathies and his reports are usually followed by a panel discussion reflecting quite a spectrum of opinion. I have not noticed in these discussions that there has been particular dissent from the content of his reports (especially the European ones) and they have been praised and quoted by far-from-leftist commentators such as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard who writes in the Telegraph.

The BBC cannot win on political bias - it will always attract criticism from those on the right who suspect a leftist agenda and those on the left who are impatient with its seeming conservatism and caution. 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.

As to the suggestion that the matters should be passed to the police and not the media, the problem (as ahinton mentioned) is that the police/authorities were alerted and failed to act - in the Savile affair, police did not prosecute on allegations by four people in 2009, in the North Wales children's home case complaints to the police and local authority got nowhere. Presumably those who have suffered abuse feel that the media is the only refuge.

In total agreement with this. In addition, the Newsnight mea culpa is a healthy sign of a BBC willingness to admit mistakes that few areas of the press can rival in this country, and certainly many other areas of the world. We should be grateful for that.

The rampant speculation that has been going on ever since the Jimmy Savile accusations first surfaced has been fuelled across all sections of the media, not just Twitter and the internet. It is turning into a witch-hunt, as Cameron rightly said, and I am depressed at constantly hearing about it. Most abuse takes place within the home and amongst people known to the victims, and as in the past things are getting out of proportion because of a handful of notorious cases from the past. There is a danger of all sorts of false accusations being given credence, and I hope (but doubt) that this example will give all media outlets pause for thought.

[amateur51]

It is strange that over the 30-40 years that Messham never looked up a photo of McAlpine....or as someone else said above was never shown one by the Newsnight team....hmmmmm???

Perhaps not if he was shown a misattributed one first - accidentally or otherwise.

[amateur51]

Well, if you really did believe the alleged victim, you would be seeking to convict the alleged offender

OK we'll have to agree to diasagree because

It all hinges on what you understand by 'to believe' (and perhaps a distinction between 'to disbelieve' and 'not to believe').

[teamsaint]

Just on the BBC for a moment, It is surely self evident, that there isn't a general bias to left or right, since it gets flak from both sides in pretty equal amounts.
Its bias is surely towards the established system.In this case, it has sought to protect itself(by keeping quiet all those years about saville), and now it is protecting the people implicated in the rumours etc.

My own view is that, in typical establishment way, it protected its own greater good by trying to hang an individual (Mcalpine)out to dry. They will always do this, in the same way that political parties do.
Now that the BBC is feeling the heat of the establishments anger, they are wriggling.The problem for those with real, important points to make is there are multiple worthwhile targets ...the BBC, Politicians, and all the others who are implicated in the online rumours, that proved to be so accurate about cigar man...Its hard to keep all the targets in the sights at the same time....