I am aware of the "tender" nature of this thread potentially, so I'll try and be careful what I write. One of the problems with the BBC f-up on Newsnight is that the underlying story is now very confused (from my perspective anyway). Can I therefore ask others opinions/facts on the following: > I don't believe Newsnight actually named anyone, but said it was a high level Tory MP of the Thatcher era. > A name then appeared on social media. The person concerned denied it. It has now been accepted that it was not him as it was a case of mistaken identity. > So the BBC are condemned even though they didn't name anyone. Is this because the person concerned was most certainly *not* a Tory MP of the Thatcher era, or > It was, but it was someone different? The difficulty is of course that now news agencies are treading extremely carefully which is not helpful as I believe it is accepted that abuse did go on, so will this current outcry against the BBC make it more difficult to prosecute the people who were actually guilty? I don't accuse anyone, but it does seem that the original inquiry went out of it's way not to name anyone, and no prosecutions followed. I hope this (IMHO overdone) reaction against the BBC dies down so that those originally guilty can be found as they've gotten away with it far too long!
First of all they took their "evidence' from someone who has a history of lying and has been described by his own lawyer as a "fantasist". It doesn't take much imagination to guess that the Tory's name was on Twitter so quickly because it was "leaked" from someone at the BBC. Clearly, there is a problem with evidence gathering and decision making at the BBC and at Newsnight in particular. Child abuse is a very serious allegation and more should have been done to verify the so-called victim's proof. They were reticent to publish details of Savile's abuse despite the overwhelming evidence yet were quick quick to hint at a Tory being involved in the same dispicable crime with scant evidence.
This, however, is a frivolous forum with no editorial integrity or legal comeback to worry about. Which is why I can exclusively reveal that DLT raped Bonnie Langford repeatedly in the dunghatch and that Nigel Lawson plundered the brown tunnel of his own daughter. EDIT: That lassie that died from Four Weddings and a Funeral was severely boabed on the set of Worzel Gummidge.
"I'll thqueam and thqueam and thqueam until jizz comes roaring out of my nothtrils" please log in to view this image
My understanding is that the accusations against Lord McAlpine were first made to the police in 1991 and that plenty of people in politics and journalism knew about that. Could be wrong?
It's odd that the accusation is now being reported as a "false accusation". I was not aware of any Police investigation into the matter. Or, were the cops, for once, really on the ball and the investigation reached it's conclusion so very very quickly.
That struck me too. It might turn out to be like the time news outlets had to pay Jeffrey Archer for suggesting <shock> that he was a liar.
So one minute we have allegations that "senior people" have been involved in abuse and that there might have been a cover up by "the establishment", next minute it all goes quiet after we find the person named is 'mistaken identity", the main accuser is "a fantsist", and the BBC are being slagged off left right and centre even though they didn't actually name anyone. Are we now supposed to accept that there was no abuse? Is this new inquiry now going ahead? There are serious questions to be answered. Also I don't actually see what Newsnight did that was new. I heard the main accuser the week before late on Five Live one night making the same accusations (without naming anyone).
