McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[Stillhomewardbound]

Lord McAlpine's personal statement was perfectly balanced and he was at pains to point out that his accuser had a detailed case to make, but what about the role of the police in this. A vulnerable witness is shown a picture of the wrong suspect, many years on from the events, and in all probability is led to believe that this man is his perpetrator. This flawed identification, further, in an ongoing investigation gets out into the public domain before the accused is even presented with the facts.

Now, who set that scandalous chain of events in motion?

[amateur51]

Ann Clwyd, MP for Cynon Valley, four of whose constituents were alleged victims of the Bryn Estyn abuse scandal, calls for the original Jillings Inquiry report, which was never published because of the legal concerns of an insurance company (!), to be made public if any copies remain.

This case gets more and more bizarre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20251861

[Petrushka]

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.

[Nick Armstrong]

It's pure Peter Grimes.

"Now is gossip put on trial,
Now the rumours either fail
Or are shouted in the wind,
Sweeping furious through the land".

Brilliant, Mary! That's just it!

I'm writing an article about the whole thing - may I use that reference? It's spot-on!

[Nick Armstrong]

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 agree ff... I've read your debate with ammy... I think I know what you mean. It seems to me that there is a distinction.

An additional complication is: who are victims? There are people out there claiming to be victims who weren't necessarily (I've been a bit involved in the various stories over the past week or two). The claims have to be subjected to some objective scrutiny, albeit on the basis of an "assumption that the person claiming to be a victim is telling the truth" (if I may re-word your comment slightly)

[Mary Chambers]

Brilliant, Mary! That's just it!

I'm writing an article about the whole thing - may I use that reference? It's spot-on!

You're welcome to, Caliban.

[french frank]

I agree ff... I've read your debate with ammy... I think I know what you mean. It seems to me that there is a distinction.

An additional complication is: who are victims? There are people out there claiming to be victims who weren't necessarily (I've been a bit involved in the various stories over the past week or two). The claims have to be subjected to some objective scrutiny, albeit on the basis of an "assumption that the person claiming to be a victim is telling the truth" (if I may re-word your comment slightly)

Coming from Rumpole ...

Most police investigations start off with a crime e.g. murder (a body); smash-and-grab (broken jeweller's shop window and all the costly bling gone). And if there were witnesses to what happened, they didn't recognise/know the criminals.

In cases of any kind of sexual abuse/crime, there is no obvious evidence of a crime having taken place; there will seldom be any witnesses; and there will often be an accusation against an individual. To 'believe' the accuser is then to 'believe' the accused guilty. And that is the difficulty.

There are some very, very odd aspects to this case: at least the police ought to be getting better at dealing with them

[french frank]

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.

Well, there is one candidate more obvious than GE, having been involved more closely in both Newsnight programmes. That would be the first head to roll and the BBC rumour mill has it that Entwistle had already wanted that person moved anyway.

[Resurrection Man]

.....
In cases of any kind of sexual abuse/crime, there is no obvious evidence of a crime having taken place;.....

Surely that's not strictly true ..certainly if the crime is recent ...forensics and all that?

There are some very, very odd aspects to this case: at least the police ought to be getting better at dealing with them

There was reference to the old enquiry into abuse in the N Wales care homes being limited to only abuse that took place 'inside' the homes which ruled out all the abuse that was carried out in hotel rooms etc. Was this because in those days people were more naive as to what was actually happening or a case of 'nobbling' (to use the vernacular) ?

[french frank]

Surely that's not strictly true ..certainly if the crime is recent ...forensics and all that?

I didn't say there was NO evidence, but no obvious evidence i.e obvious at the time the crime is reported. But that shouldn't affect the way the police treat the case - or the accuser.

[aeolium]

I don't think anyone has suggested that Mr Messham has completely invented the abuse allegations, only that there has been a misidentification of the abuser - a misidentification which he claims came about because the police showed him a photo of the alleged abuser but incorrectly told him that it was a photo of the peer.

Witch-hunts against alleged paedophiles in the media are certainly wrong, but it should not detract from the fact that there has been very widespread child abuse in many institutions particularly in the period between 1950 and 1980. The problem up to now has not been a mass of false allegations but a mass of genuine abuse without justice or compensation for the victims, as the Savile case shows.

[ahinton]

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.

I head the original broadcast interview which the often abrasive professional interrupter John Humphrys conducted better than he usual best and I have to agree that Mr Entwistle's position as presented by him not only stretches rather a lot of credibility but also raises serious fears and concerns if indeed what he claimed about his ignorance of such matters happens to be true.

[ahinton]

Why? Not all 'victims' are honest.

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

Fair comment - and what am51 perhaps ought to have written (and maybe meant in any case) is that "of course we should start by not disbelieving the victim".

[ahinton]

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.

Again, if you do not disbelieve the victim (at the outset) and make it clear to him/her not only that you don't but also that you accept that his/her accusations could be true, then "you will get..(&c.)..."

[ahinton]

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.

No, but you can indicate your preparedness to believe them and that you believe that what they claim is technically possible, subject to the outcome of proper subsequent investigation and, as I think am is trying to say, if you do this openly you may well get greater co-operation than might otherwise be the case.