McAlpine, Newsnight and All That ...

[ahinton]

Well in Entwistle's case he could be sacked on grounds of incompetence. And if he's been either sacked, or resigned, I see no reason for the bonus salary-for-a-year. Makes you wonder if he's had his pension nicely buffed up to 40 years.

In theory, he could - and I hold no brief for him in the position that he now no longer occupies for whatever reason and on account of whatever circumstances - but the brevity of his tenure might make this somewhat problematic in practice; after all, there's only so much incompetence that you can accomplish in a rôle such as BBC DG in a mere 54 days and it's pretty obvious in any case that the incompetence of which he is being accused in certain quarters is not something of his own sole making.

[Budapest]

The list that Phillip Schofeld handed to Cameron last week on that morning show contained five names, all people who were at high levels of government, and one of those names is now a minister in Cameron's government.

I find it sad that this BBC stuff about McAlpine has distracted attention away from real matters. The Cabinet Office has been putting out injunctions left, right and center to stop people talking about it on the internet. However, I think I can say, with regard to the BBC stuff, that it's one of McAlpine's relatives against which there are allegations of child abuse. How Newsnight/the BBC could get it so wrong is another matter!

[Flosshilde]

However, I think I can say, with regard to the BBC stuff, that it's one of McAlpine's relatives against which there are allegations of child abuse.

See my previous post -

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.

[eighthobstruction]

So will Helen Boaden now get her full £340 K if she resigns??....(And George has been on £200-350K this last decade)

[Budapest]

Flosshilde, this is a long thread which I've only had time to skim read. My apologies for missing your earlier post that it's one of McAlpine's relatives who is the subject of child abuse allegations.

I suppose what many of us are asking is that this BBC stuff, along with the Nadine-whats-her-name on a reality tv show stuff, is acting as a smokescreen for serious allegations that there were high level political figures involved in paedophilia.

[ahinton]

along with the Nadine-whats-her-name

Dorries - as in "Dorries a jolly good fellow"...

[Lateralthinking1]

Contracts wouldn't usually include pay-off rights to those who resign of their own accord and where the post in question isn't being axed. Presumably in such circumstances generally, whatever is taken is gifted. So isn't the statutory six months pay referred to by Harriet Harman about applying a decent principle but not necessarily the law? The question is therefore about judgement?

Now that many hours have passed, I am concerned about the absence of any balanced critique of the Newsnight programme. Clearly the BBC should be above tabloid journalism of the very worst kind and it didn't meet its usual standards. At the same time, no individual was mentioned. The allegation is that people could go on to the internet and put two and two together.

But in the past the BBC has reported on:

- Alleged misdemeanours involving members of the royal family and those close to them.
- Alleged incidents and affairs involving footballers.
- Senior figures allegedly having BNP membership.
- People allegedly being questioned by the police in regard to the Leveson inquiry.

In every case, names have been mentioned in parallel on the internet.

So is this in truth less a concern about McAlpine and more a concern about the Conservative Party having been mentioned?

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde, this is a long thread which I've only had time to skim read. My apologies for missing your earlier post that it's one of McAlpine's relatives who is the subject of child abuse allegations.

I suppose what many of us are asking is that this BBC stuff, along with the Nadine-whats-her-name on a reality tv show stuff, is acting as a smokescreen for serious allegations that there were high level political figures involved in paedophilia.

Budapest - I'm sorry, I really shouldn't have been so snippy. As you say, it's a long thread & it's very difficult to keep up with it. There have been times when I've been readin a backlog of posts in a thread & responded to one only to discover further on that someone else has made the same point, so I shouldn't have been so quick to jump on you.

[teamsaint]

Distraction is a powerful tool. Here we have multi layered distraction, with many powerful and able players.

We need to be very aware of this.

The reasons why saville was being protected for so long are very worrying.

[Budapest]

Flosshilde, no problem, and once again I'm sorry that I missed what you said earlier.

Now, let me play devil's advocate (and give french frank a nightmare): [Deleted by moderator - ff]

I fully understand that there shouldn't be 'trial by internet', but at the same time if we don't talk about it in cyberspace it all gets covered-up. It's a tricky one to judge on. For my money we're talking about child abuse here. If the names I've sort of mentioned are innocent let them clear themselves. The onus should not be on the people who name them.

[Budapest]

ahinton, did you see Louise Mensch's latest piece on the Guardian about Nadine Dorries (see here). Any Mensch piece on the Guardian is guaranteed to attract a mountain (or perhaps lake) of bile. This is one reason why I think it's a smokescreen for allegations of child abuse against high level figures in the Tory party.

[scottycelt]

So is this in truth less a concern about McAlpine and more a concern about the Conservative Party having been mentioned?

Maybe that is true in certain quarters, and it's just as possible that his name was bandied about on the internet simply because of his links to the Tories

I think we all agree child abuse is one of the vilest and most evil of all crimes. Unconnected third parties accusing a totally innocent person of such a vile crime is certainly one of the vilest and most evil of all accusations.

A plague on both ...

[mercia]

rather an odd choice of quote in the profile of the new acting deputy director of news

"I never tell people senior to me in the chain what we are doing day-to-day. They'll hear it - like everybody else does - when they put the radio on."

I thought that was the problem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20300267

[Lateralthinking1]

Maybe that is true in certain quarters, and it's just as possible that his name was bandied about on the internet simply because of his links to the Tories

I think we all agree child abuse is one of the vilest and most evil of all crimes. Unconnected third parties accusing a totally innocent person of such a vile crime is certainly one of the vilest and most evil of all accusations.

A plague on both ...

That is why I have made a clear distinction between the BBC's role and the extent to which it commented and how the matter has been discussed elsewhere. The BBC shouldn't be accused of doing what it didn't do.

It was naive though. Internet contributors can't be expected to know how much influence historically a person might have in a political party. That is another reason why, with respect, speculation on the internet is highly questionable, however well-intentioned.

The BBC should know its history. All journalists really needed to do was google "the Shrewsbury Six". That would have been more than sufficient for deciding to hold fire. As it is, the best it can do is say ITV were arguably worse.

[french frank]

If the names I've sort of mentioned are innocent let them clear themselves. The onus should not be on the people who name them.

Budapest - don't play games. Your post has been edited.

You've got your own blog where you can test the legal limits.

The onus is on people who accuse to be able to produce the evidence, not for innocent people to prove their innocence.