to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?

(258 Posts)
isupposeimabitofafraud Thu 08-Nov-12 14:38:31

Hey Mr Cameron?

Care to explain your comments on This Morning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE67Zu9qOBw

The only thing I'm getting out of that, is his own prejudices and the whiff of a lack of leadership and yet another cover up.

If Mr Cameron wants to save his own neck and not drown in this sick sea of corruption then taking it seriously and not being dismissive of the claims and accusing people of homophobia, might be a good place to start...

Together with an overall inquiry into why there have been so many institutional failures with regard to child protection and to gather all the conclusions of the 6 million other investigations that have been started post Jimmy Savile, for their findings are scattered to the four corners of the country by the wind.

I'm fuming. I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively.

For weeks it was obvious that the Jimmy Savile revelations were going to spread and given what the government do know, and the fact they have both the intelligence and foresight to be able to see the direction it was going to head and act accordingly. Instead they have sat on their hands and hoped it would all die down, go away and we'd all forget about it. Well I'm not forgetting about it. I want PROPER answers and an institutional change of attitude and action. Not more crap.

Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, by officials dismissing those who did report or trying to discredit them?

Haven't they learnt ANYTHING yet?

/rant.

hiddenhome Thu 08-Nov-12 14:43:42

They're all running around like headless chickens because they're all in on it in one way or another. They're all starting to panic now as they just dig themselves in deeper and deeper.

Nancy66 Thu 08-Nov-12 14:44:39

I think Cameron was quite right to say what he said and Phillip Schofield acted really irresponsibly for the sake of a bit of shock TV.

Sparklingbrook Thu 08-Nov-12 14:45:56

I was shock that PS did that. He looked like a right idiot. Why did he pass that list over?

LFCisTarkaDahl Thu 08-Nov-12 14:46:14

I'm sure you are enlightened and educated enough but the vast majority of people are incredibly ignorant. Homophobia is very under reported but is a constant in most people who are gay's lives.

I know for a fact that he is trying to avoid people finding out which ex Tory MP's are gay in order that they are not linked to the Jimmy Saville fiasco.

Yes, there would be a massive witchhunt for example if people linked Michael Portillo to Jimmy Saville. They are NOT actually linked though I'm sure they may have been photographed doing charity work or something but there has always been rumours/smear about Portillo being gay or bisexual (though he was/is married to a woman).

Literally anyone who had been friends with JS or who has been photographed with him is at risk. And the fact is that in this homophobic society if that person is gay or suspected to be gay then they will be abused or linked.

Individuals are clever, people are stupid.

hiddenhome Thu 08-Nov-12 14:46:51

PS was defending them all a few weeks ago hmm

complexnumber Thu 08-Nov-12 14:48:03

I want PROPER answers

Not satisfied with the DM?

PS is just trying to make himself look better. DC can't now make himself look any worse.

Jingleflobba Thu 08-Nov-12 14:50:27

Individuals are clever, people are stupid
this

djelibeybi Thu 08-Nov-12 14:50:39

I suspect that the "investigations" will just be another cover-up, and this is Cameron's first step towards that cover-up.

Had the paedophiles involved been dealt with properly in the first place, there would be no need for a witch-hunt.

As for the four people named on the piece of paper, one is gay, and the other three seem to be a threat to both sexes. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant. It shouldn't be used to deflect criticism.

CrikeyOHare Thu 08-Nov-12 14:51:24

FFS! What was Cameron supposed to do? He's was handed a list of names that that dickhead had got off the internet. He was right - it should have been taken to the police.

Nancy66 Thu 08-Nov-12 14:52:14

quite a few of those stupid people on this thread it seems.

Sparklingbrook Thu 08-Nov-12 14:52:26

I felt for DC Crikey. Weird. But it was the cringiest bit of TV I have seen for a long time.

ouryve Thu 08-Nov-12 14:52:35

YANBU.

But I'm guessing he saw a few names of people he guessed or knew to be gay and either assumed that other people must assume that gay = paedophile or just plain panicked.

(Lots of guessing and assuming in my comment there, but there's lots of guessing and assuming in the whole affair)

hiddenhome Thu 08-Nov-12 14:52:59

Four people now is it?

How do you find out who they are then?

isupposeimabitofafraud Thu 08-Nov-12 14:56:17

FFS! What was Cameron supposed to do? He's was handed a list of names that that dickhead had got off the internet. He was right - it should have been taken to the police.

Perhaps say that, instead of a cheap dismissive line about homosexuality perhaps? Just a thought. Better just to say something about a witchhunt in general if you insist on going to go down that route (cos others have said that about Jimmy Savile stuff).

I personally don't care if its boys or girls being abused or whether the abuser is gay/straight/male/female - making remarks about the sexuality of the abuser is actually completely irrelevant.

CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 08-Nov-12 15:07:46

YABU.... quite a lot of people confuse 'paedophile' with 'homosexual'. Same sort of people that confuse 'paedophile' with 'paediatrician'. He's quite right to warn against this turning into a witch-hunt and ask anyone with information to call the police.

Pendeen Thu 08-Nov-12 15:11:51

It does depend on what you mean by 'we'.

The whole world?

The UK?

MN?

Something else?

YABU and cogito is exactly right. There are complete morons out there who think that a homosexual man is far more likely to a be a paedophile than a heterosexual man. Which is NOT, statistically, accurate. There are complete morons out there who confuse paedophile with paediatrician and there was at least one major case where a bloke who was a paediatrician was attacked. I thought Schofield's behaviour was lowest common denominator and Cameron is totally right - it is becoming a witch hunt and it is inevitable that some people who are completely innocent will get tarred with a brush by innocent association or because some nutters decide to join in.

Yes, the vast majority of people who come forward will be truthful but whenever this sort of thing happens there are others - often in need of other help - who make stories up. Isn't in interesting, for example, that the moment Savile was 'outed', lots of others came forward and it's been pretty much case closed. Yet one person named Leonard Rossiter last week, no one else has come forward, it's gone completely quiet. Which suggests to me the latter is total nonsense. But the mud will stick.

djelibeybi Thu 08-Nov-12 15:32:53

...there was at least one major case where a bloke who was a paediatrician was attacked...

No there wasn't.

CrikeyOHare Thu 08-Nov-12 15:36:51

making remarks about the sexuality of the abuser is actually completely irrelevant

Excuse me - but how the hell do you know that the list of names Cameron saw were "abusers"?

There's no question that there are rather a lot of people around who cannot distinguish between homosexuality & paedophilia - and that is becoming increasingly clear from threads all over the internet about the JS situation.

If PS is so impressed with gossip about famous names being bandied around online, perhaps he should Google himself.

SaraBellumHertz Thu 08-Nov-12 15:42:49

What happened confused

djeli - OK, so it wasn't a bloke and she wasn't PHYSICALLY attacked, but I still regard the spraying of paedo on a paediatrician's house an attack by moron or morons. And SHE obviously felt it was enough of an attack or a threat to relocate afterwards.

PerryCombover Thu 08-Nov-12 15:52:21

I think Cameron did the right thing there
(Washes out mouth)
Schofield was being a twit..."dear PM have you seen this (witch hunt)?" Ffs

For instance there was terrible abuse at a children's home in Norn Iron. Many people in NI tried to blame certain politicians on having and hiding knowledge of the abuse. They based these accusations on the fact that the politicians were aware that the head of the home was gay.
The, well if you knew he was gay it stands to reason he was obviously a kiddy fiddler, argument.

I'm concerned about how many people will be tagged into enquiries into csa simply because the are gay and politicians/authority figures.. especially if closeted.

People aren't all sensible and wise

AdoraJingleBells Thu 08-Nov-12 15:53:12

I've actualy met quite a lot of people, of all ages, who either can't understand or won't accept that there is a difference. Also agree that PS was out of line to do that.

BupcakesAndCunting Thu 08-Nov-12 15:57:48

Well two of the names on that list were of gay men. Most people with half a brain cell will know that gayness doesn't equal nonce but sadly there are dimbos out there who can't make that distinction. I think it's irresponsible of PS to be handing out a list of names on live television. He needs reprimanding for that. It's a job for the police, not a jumpe- tv presenter. Interesting about turn he's doing after defending Jimmy Saville the other week... hmm

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 15:58:50

I think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different so the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay.

Typical
Tory
Shite.

I am of course just guessing but it seems fairly typical to me that the tories would get all arse over tit about this in an attempt to explain why this was all ok.

dueling - wow. just wow.

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Thu 08-Nov-12 16:01:08

Have you seen the list Bupcakes?

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:01:38

"Isn't in interesting, for example, that the moment Savile was 'outed', lots of others came forward"

in what way interesting?

You think some of them or the majority of them might be lying? to gain what? publicity?

If I am correct most of them have gone to the police, not to the papers.

Victims of abuse often don't say anything about their abuse unless others do. You know, like all those kids who were abused by priests. Or perhaps they were lying too?

I think it was shit pseudo journalism by a crap tv programme. BTW am I the only person on the planet who only can guess at one of these people's identities? I feel like I have been living under a stone recently.

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:03:59

VoiceofUnreason - I don't agree with that way of thinking by the way but I do think that there will be attempts to cover all this up. I really do believe that it has previously been covered up and that it could be very damaging for all kinds of different politicians (maybe not just the tories) and that they will try anything to stop it coming out, even using the kind of 'logic' I described in my other post.

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Thu 08-Nov-12 16:04:02

Voiceofunreason, how do you know no-one else has come forward re Leonard Rossiter? If they've taken it to the police as they should have done, do the police have to tell the press the instant they get another report? (genuine question)

CrikeyOHare Thu 08-Nov-12 16:04:35

think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different so the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay

Biggest load of shite I have read on MN EVER. And that's saying something.

Mrcrumpswife Thu 08-Nov-12 16:05:24

Flags are waving here for Phillip Schofield. What a load of rubbish that people dont know the difference between a peadophile and someone who is gay.

Yet another bumbling idiot interview with Cameron who is drowning fast in a pit of his own crap by not being honest.

PS was asking him what millions of other people are asking. How can you go on the internet and find 5 names listed of high profile people being accused of a disgusting crime and will they investigate them. Nothing wrong with that.

its simple really, DC should have answered the question with 'everything is being investigated' even though no one would believe him. Why throw in the Gay comment?

dueling - you haven't read my post correctly, perhaps deliberately. I was not saying anything remotely implying the stuff about Savile is incorrect. I was pointing out that it is ALREADY becoming a witch hunt and that there are people who are being named, or may be named, who are totally innocent because there are some fantasists or unstable people who do make things up. We see people make up false claims of rape but mud sticks.

The point I made was that when Savile was outed, lots of others came forward to back it up. Yet NO ONE has come forward to back up the naming of Leonard Rossiter. Which suggests to me that while everything about Savile is correct, the likelihood of the allegation against Rossiter - of whom there were NO rumours or suspicions prior to last week, neither when he was alive or after he died in 1984 - is probably nonsense. But the mud will stick.

Which is WHY Cameron is right to be wary of people jumping on a witch hunting bandwagon.

BupcakesAndCunting Thu 08-Nov-12 16:09:45

Tunip, I haven't seen it but a quick Google will tell you a few of the names.

Tunip - bearing in mind the police volunteered info about how many people have contacted them about Savile, the fact that the whole abuse thing is becoming huge, the fact that many people are choosing to notify the papers with their stories about Savile, I find it extremely unlikely we wouldn't have heard more about the Rossiter suggestion if even one more person has come forward about it. The newspapers are just dying to dig up as much as they can on this.

Possibly to assuage some of their own guilt in not blabbing about Savile in the past when it seems almost guaranteed some people in the press had heard the rumours.

Dueling - sorry for the 'perhaps deliberately' in my earlier post but as crikey said, your previous posting was so astonishing, I was taken aback.

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:11:01

"you haven't read my post correctly, perhaps deliberately"

eh?

"there are people who are being named, or may be named, who are totally innocent because there are some fantasists or unstable people who do make things up."

How do you know which people are innocent? I am not sure who you mean.

"Yet NO ONE has come forward to back up the naming of Leonard Rossiter"

I hadn't even heard this particular rumour.

"Which is WHY Cameron is right to be wary of people jumping on a witch hunting bandwagon"

his statement that this may become a witch-hunt against gay people is completely ridiculous. He could have said that it might become a witch-hunt. I have no idea why he felt the need to single out gay people.

fluffyanimal Thu 08-Nov-12 16:11:27

I think part of the problem is the way the interview is being reported by news agencies and turned into an edited sound-bite: it actually encourages people to connect paedophilia with homosexuality. DC should have followed up thus: "we don't want to encourage a witch hunt against people who are gay, *because it is wrong to equate homosexuality with paedophilia*". But the way the interview has been edited will in fact encourage people to do just that: "there shouldnt be a witch hunt against gay people, but some of them are paedophiles."

Never thought I'd say it, but the boiled ham was right, ridiculous piece of "journalism" by the ps.
You only have to look at some of the threads that have been on here to see how tenuous connections can morph into "facts" by the paranoid tin foil hat wearers suspicious.

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:19:23

generally I am not a conspiracy theorist in any way, however I do believe that there has been a very big cover-up over who was involved with abuse in the North Wales Children's home. I do believe that names were buried/with-held etc. I believe those victims who have come forward telling similar stories about how the abuse happened.

The case against several people working in the homes has already be proven.

This is more than just hearsay, there is proper documented stuff from many years ago and it will be very damaging if it is shown to be true. It's not over the top to think that the current governement would want to bury this story.

Interestingly pop bitch has just commented that in the 80's it received many email rumours of ps being involved in a gay relationship.
How would he have liked it if his name was handed to the pm live on television on the basis of an internet search?

boschy Thu 08-Nov-12 16:22:41

Just watched the clip on Sky News, and for once I think DC has a point.

There IS a real danger that innocent people will be caught up in this; and too many very stupid people do think that homosexual=kiddy fiddler.

Obviously this is not the case. I want everything investigated with the finest tooth-comb and the brightest lights, and I want the guilty to be brought down; but I DONT want completely innocent men or women who are gay to be targeted, either because their sexuality makes them inconvenient to some or because some people are too fucking thick to understand that gay does not mean paedophile.

limitedperiodonly Thu 08-Nov-12 16:25:12

Totally inept as usual. His fury and panic were funny to behold.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Thu 08-Nov-12 16:26:10

Dueling is spot on I fear with her description of how people have (and will) justify the abuse of underage rentboys.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Thu 08-Nov-12 16:27:06

I didn't watch this btw.

PS has always struck me as an arse though and naturally I'm no fan of Dave either.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Thu 08-Nov-12 16:30:15

It certainly wasn't an answer to PS's question (the correct answer, of course, being "WTAF, you crazy shit-stirring loon?")

But he's right that too many people do seem to think that there is some sort of natural affinity between the two. So I presume it was on his mind anyway - it's certainly been on mine as this thing unfolds.

Nancy66 Thu 08-Nov-12 16:30:17

There was a big cover up but it was years ago and nothing to do with Cameron.

Sorry, but you really can't lay the blame for this one at his door.

Themumsnot Thu 08-Nov-12 16:30:45

There was a widely-read blog linked to on a thread on here last week that was throwing all sorts of wild accusations around including implying that at least one prominent politician was a paedophile purely on the basis that someone whose name was the same as the politician's middle names was once arrested for cottaging.
This conflating of homosexual and paedophile is already well underway amounting to trial by internet of people not in a position to defend themselves against innuendo and rumourmongering. So, much as I hate to say it, I can see where DC is coming from.

DuelingFanjo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:46:13

"Interestingly pop bitch has just commented that in the 80's it received many email rumours of ps being involved in a gay relationship.
How would he have liked it if his name was handed to the pm live on television on the basis of an internet search?"

My quetion would be, why on earth are Popbitch attempting to tie in the fact that some people thought PS was gay with anything that is happening now? What on earth would his gay-ness have to do with anything?

Of course, if he was a paedophile that would be different but has anyone ever suggested he is? What does being Gay have to do with anything?

Jingleflobba Thu 08-Nov-12 16:47:25

Just because David Cameron said it doesn't make it automatically wrong you know..
(Mostly he is, but not this time)

Alisvolatpropiis Thu 08-Nov-12 16:48:37

I think what Calle me Dave was saying was that these paedophiles happened,in some instances, to be gay. Or that the allegations had been brought against certain gay men and he wished to investigate further before revealing the names.

Being gay doesn't make you a paedophile. Being straight doesn't make you a paedophile. But you can have gay paedophiles just as you can have straight paedophiles.

Not usually one for defending Mr Cameron but I don't think he meant it as some have taken it.

CrikeyOHare Thu 08-Nov-12 16:52:20

Fanjo Possibly because Schofield's "in depth, investigative journalism" amounted to 3 minutes on the internet.

They are not tying in his sexuality - they are making the link between gossip about him & gossip about those politicians.

No idea about his sexuality, but Schofield is one of the rudest arseholes it has ever been my misfortune to encounter - as I did while a junior newspaper reporter.

DontmindifIdo Thu 08-Nov-12 16:55:39

I assume his comment meant that the 3 names were 3 gay tories. As I understand it, 2 of the names were visible when the paper was handed over and people have been replaying the clip to get those names.

I think that whatever you think of his politics, DC is right here, just picking a list of gay people and thinking that they must be abusers because they're different is disgusting, and if anyone has any allegations they should take them to the police. He's right, you know in this day and age the police aren't about to cover up child abuse because it was a Tory MP who did it. (even if that might have been the case 30-40 years ago).

PS should be ashamed of himself.

And can we please drop the really offensive assumption that when Tories are gay they must be having abusive sex with underaged rent boys, whereas gay men on the left are the only ones having consentual loving relationships with people of the same gender.

Mrcrumpswife Thu 08-Nov-12 17:01:39

DontmindifIdo And can we please drop the really offensive assumption that when Tories are gay they must be having abusive sex with underaged rent boys, whereas gay men on the left are the only ones having consentual loving relationships with people of the same gender.

The Labour party are being accused of far more than the Tories, the difference being the alleged man from friday was from the Tory party which is why he is constantly mentioned.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Thu 08-Nov-12 17:06:27

How did popbitch receive emails in the 80s? I sent my first email in about 1994, and I was a fairly early adopter. People thought I was well modern back than confused

djelibeybi Thu 08-Nov-12 17:12:23

The very first e-mail was sent in 1971.

Nancy66 Thu 08-Nov-12 17:13:40

Popbitch wasn't around in the 80s

seeker Thu 08-Nov-12 17:14:28

Being gay doesn't make you a paedophile. Being straight doesn't make you a paedophile. But you can have gay paedophiles just as you can have straight paedophiles.

No you can't. Being gay means you are sexually attracted to adults of the same gender as you are. Being a paedophile means you are sexually attracted to children. If you are a man who is sexually attracted to boys, you are not a "gay paedophile" - you are a paedophile.

BupcakesAndCunting Thu 08-Nov-12 17:15:15

Pip Schofield is obviously imagining himself as the face of hard-hitting exposé journalism.

Think Roger Cook but with a blow-dry/tinted moisturiser.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Thu 08-Nov-12 17:16:29

Well yes dje, but how many people used electronic mail in a personal capacity before the mid-90s?

I assume it's a typo and I'v ederailed the thread enough I think. Sorry blush

seeker Thu 08-Nov-12 17:18:23

Am I remembering wrong? Wasn't P Scofield prominent in the "well it was all a long time ago and things were different then?" when this story first broke?

djelibeybi Thu 08-Nov-12 17:21:29

Jenai

I used it at work in the eighties, I can't remember when I got a home account.

Popbitch wasn't around until 2000 or so.

gordyslovesheep Thu 08-Nov-12 17:22:07

Pop Bitch - has had emails suggesting that in the 80's ... it did not recieve emails IN THE 80's - hth

I dislike cameron , a well documented fact, but I think PS acted like an arse - the internet is not fact based for starters AND, sadly, I think DC has a point - many people DO think gay = peedow ...stupid people granted but there are those who think being gay is such a perversion it's an easy leap from that to having sex with children

So there needs to be some facts first - rather than rumor - gossip wont help anyone

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Thu 08-Nov-12 17:53:31

blush again.

Going back to what Dueling was saying, there really were and probably are people who conflated the historical abuse of rent boys with homosexuality.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that saying 'things were different then' is anything other than being a rape apologist (are you reading, Pippy?).

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Thu 08-Nov-12 17:59:57

Most of the main few names of living politicians that are being circulated online are not out gay men, of course - they're married.

Jingleflobba Thu 08-Nov-12 18:02:24

crikey you're kidding, PS is horrible in real life? <goes to mourn my childhood fantasies>

God sorry, Popbitch said early 2000's don't know where I got 80's from, and as Crikey explained it's about malicious rumours on t'internet not about linking homosexuality to being a paedophile.

hiddenhome Thu 08-Nov-12 18:43:31

Paedophiles can and do have relationships with adults though - either hetero or homosexual. How many women have had their children targeted by someone who forms a relationship with them just to gain access to their child/ren?

hiddenhome Thu 08-Nov-12 18:48:05

Can someone pm me with a link to who these people are? I've searched on Google, but I can't find anything.

Netguru Thu 08-Nov-12 18:55:20

Wtf.

Seriously. What in earth makes you think that Cameron who has kids would be any less appalled by paedophillia than you or I and would cover up some soiled old paedophilliac from thirty years ago?

Instead, you can read unadulterated filth and speculation about any number of MPs where people think they may be gay and may therefore be child molesters. I read on DM comments today that 'Gordon Briwn had been a suspect in a child rape and the police hushed it up'. Rubbish - unadulterated rubbish.

MPs have got themselves a bad rep since the expenses scandle and rightly so. That does not make them all either child molesters or content to cover for child molesters. Think about it - it needs just one to speak out - police, MP, minister (of both parties). Do you really really think the country has gone so low as to not have anyone, man or woman,who would yell? Or does that just derail spite and gossip.

djelibeybi Thu 08-Nov-12 19:08:00

...Do you really really think the country has gone so low as to not have anyone, man or woman,who would yell?...

Nobody yelled about Jimmy Savile. The kids who reported him were punished.

Mrcrumpswife Thu 08-Nov-12 19:11:34

Channel 4 news is absolutely horrifying. What they have hidden is unbelievable.

kim147 Thu 08-Nov-12 19:17:59

I do worry that there will be a lot of speculation about people who are completely innocent but stand out for some reason. And a lot of being assumed to be guilty and having to prove innocence.

I can see what Cameron was trying to say - I'd assume some people on that list are gay and some people in the internet are trying to link them to being a paedophile.

Nancy66 Thu 08-Nov-12 19:28:06

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were two of the names being touted last week...it was all getting pretty ridiculous.

Jux Thu 08-Nov-12 19:28:30

I'm afraid that a lot of the parents at dd's primary would quite happily equate homosexuality with paedophilia. Don't underestimate the level of ignorance stupid people are capable of aspiring to.

JaquelineHyde Thu 08-Nov-12 20:02:01

Am I the only person in the world who doesn't have a clue who any of the people on the list were. Or who anyone else being bandied around the internet is?

TheCraicDealer Thu 08-Nov-12 23:00:24

I almost don't want to know, and I'm usually a nosy cow. DC was right, and although the homosexual/paedophile point was clumsily made, he had just been presented with a list of people (quite possibly colleagues, people he knows well) who were being touted as child abusers on live telly. Hardly gives you ample time to think of a perfectly measured response. This could so easily turn into a witch hunt. Trial by media is not going to help anyone, he was right to tell PS to take his "evidence" to the police.

LOL at Phil thinking access to google makes him a hard hitting investigative journalist, though.

A glimpse at the headline on the front page of this morning's Daily Star (no, I don't read it, I saw it when at the garage) shows you just how DC was right and PS was wrong. Talk about fuelling the morons.

DontmindifIdo Fri 09-Nov-12 08:14:45

djelibeybi - yes Jimmy Savile was different, noone (other than the children he abused) had a good reason for wanting to bring him down. An MP on the other hand, has at least one, usually 2 people after his job and an alligation just before an election would normally be enough to do that. I find it hard to believe that if rumours were well known, then opposition wouldn't put that in the public domain, and that all the police who would have to be involved were all Tories, that none would want to leak it to get another MPs in.

And while I can believe if the whips office had heard about it, they would want to cover it up, but I also can't believe they'd let that MP stand for another election with a risk of it coming out at an inopportune moment, they would want to encourage them to stand down to minimise the risk. Remember, the Tories have always been far less loyal to their own MPs if they show the slightest weakness than the Labour party has been. Anyone who's seen as a vote loser in a seat they should otherwise get is encouraged to "spend more time with their family".

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 08:17:09

There is some hilarious backpeddling from Schofield in the paper today. He seems a little confused though:

"Unfortunately there may have been a misjudged camera angle for a split second as I showed the prime minister some information I had obtained from the internet."

Does he think no-one apart from Hard-Hitting Journalists™ can see the internet?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 08:18:07

Well Peter Tatchell was on Radio 5 supporting Cameron this morning. So I am not sure that every one concerned about part of the public linking homosexual with paedophile is part of a Tory conspiracy hmm

limitedperiodonly Fri 09-Nov-12 09:17:43

If Dave doesn't like stunts perhaps he'll stop going on programmes such as This Morning expecting an easy ride in front of the housewives with Phil and Willobooby.

Let him submit to an interview on his piss-poor record in government and disastrous non-policies with a proper journalist. He wouldn't dare.

Failing that, he could turn up to Prime Minister's Questions as required instead of releasing self-serving pictures of himself on the phone to Obama and farting around the Middle East, dodging scrutiny on the economy and pretending to be a world statesman.

This Morning and Schofield are what they are. Dave and all the other politicians who cynically go on it deserve what they get.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 09-Nov-12 10:04:17

Have any of us seen this list, no I do not want names

I would like to think that no one now questions those that choose to not disclose their sexulity some may have felt they had to hide their sexuality to progress in politics it would be foolish to deny this and really do these people who havechooses to hide their sexuality never been questioned who they are really interested in

How many people still think that young girls dressing up in revealing clothes attracts paedophiles. Of course i am against this as hate to see sexualisation of children but it does not make someone sexually attracted to children but some feel it is as some still feel a gay man is more likely to be attracted to young boys than a straight man might be

Why deny this, it was the point I feel DC was making. PS is a fool he was only trying to improve his own reputation that has come under attack recently and it has backfired

Notice that in The Guardian another victim of the abuse at North Wales has come forward to say that he does NOT believe that the top Tory whose name is all over the internet (and whom The Guardian names) and was the subject of the Newsnight report was involved in the abuse. He believes it may have been a relative and that said top Tory is innocent.

Also, the guy who came forward and was interviewed for Newsnight told the 1997 inquiry into the abuse that he believed his abuser was dead. The top Tory in question is still very much alive.

These two facts alone prove why 'trial by Twitter' and what Schofield did yesterday are dangerous.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 10:23:29

How many people still think that young girls dressing up in revealing clothes attracts paedophiles. Of course i am against this as hate to see sexualisation of children but it does not make someone sexually attracted to children but some feel it is as some still feel a gay man is more likely to be attracted to young boys than a straight man might be

Yes, exactly.

It's odd. I'm a heterosexual woman who fancies men - like a gay man does. And nobody expects me to therefore secretly fancy little boys, so why would anyone think that about gay men?

Lurking deep beneath the surface, some people do still see homosexuality & lesbianism as a perversion, and equate it in their minds with paedophilia & even bestiality. This becomes quite evident in conversations about gay marriage - "Oh, I suppose people will want to marry their horses next!" WTF?

DC was right, in this instance.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 10:25:41

I was annoyed with Scofe, due to the way he behaved towards Savile's survivors.

I think differently to those on this thread, I think Scofe did simething good, he asked DC if people who are suspected peadophiles will be spoken to as the internet savvy population are discussing the list on the card.

I would think it best to rule out or prosecute those names asap.

WTF has it got to do with being gay? What an odd thing to say!

Psychopaths are attracted to hurting people, Man, Woman or child, by hitting, head fucking etc, they have no empathy, they get off on power, control and getting away with conning others.

"It is well known psychopaths are in positions of power" quote Jim Fallon on BBC Horizon, good or evil?

I really don't understand the people falling for DC's bullshit?

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 10:27:31

Lord McAlpine has made a statement.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 10:42:20

I would think it best to rule out or prosecute those names asap.

PS asked if DC was going to "speak to" the people on the list, which is such a screamingly inappropriate suggestion from every possible point of view it makes me want to weep. If there are allegations about those people, they need to be put to the police investigating.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 10:54:27

Well McAlpine made a statement, I think it was the Guardian that named him today, and Sally Bercow named him last weekend on Twitter. Better the names "out there" just get looked at and ruled in or out now.

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:08:25

wonder what Tom Watson has got to say for himself

Bongaloo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:12:37

I don't think Pip's problem is that viewers may have been able to make out names (anyone so inclined to pause the TV could just spend that 3 mins online like he did).

""I asked for his reaction to give him the opportunity to make a point which he very clearly made about the dangers of any witch hunt.""
hmm

economistextra Fri 09-Nov-12 11:16:37

I think it's time to bring back justice for abused children. Name and shame convicted paedophiles, let the public choose justice, its clear that the justice system doesn't reflect the wishes of the majority and this is supposed to be a democracy. Make paedophiles fear being caught and convicted, I believe the majority of the public would like hanging to be brought back for them.

SamuelWestsMistress Fri 09-Nov-12 11:20:32

Schofield was acting the saviour and just looked a proper twat. I've really liked him for so very many years and to be honest went off him when he did that in the blink of an eye. What a fool.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 11:32:15

Cameron did not handle that intervew at all well.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:35:47

I think the whole "homosexual" reference was unfortunate, but not wholly surprising in light of so e of the most recent reavelations (I'm thinking specifically of the boys home in North Wales).

With this is mind, given that all of the alleged victims, and all of the alleged perpetrators are male, the conclusion thaqt most people will draw when trying to think of who might have been invloved is to focus on those whe were rumoured to be gay.

Now, I've seen some of the names and the reasons they have been linked to the case, and some of the reasons are tenuous at best, focussing mainly around the persons sexuality. Now, we know that homosexuality does not equal child abuser, but unfortunately that's the means by which these blogs etc are identifying possible suspects, (ie. Joe Blogs was known to have had a secret relationship with a male before, so he was probalby involved!).

I think DC was right in what he was saying, but that he missed a step in explaining why, making everyone think he had drawn his own conclusions or was muddying the water.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:36:53

Yes, MrsJR, but by the police investigating, not by the PM! I don't want to live in a country where the PM goes around interrogating citizens because a TV presenter gave him a list of suspected paedo names off the internet. confused

PeshwariNaan Fri 09-Nov-12 11:36:59

Look, I NEVER agree with DC and I agree with him here. It smacks of Brass Eye.

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:39:18

Dear Prime Minister

here is a list of poofs. Can you please have them all locked up.

Thanks

Philip Schofield

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:40:17

"some feel it is as some still feel a gay man is more likely to be attracted to young boys than a straight man might be"

I still do not understand why DC had to bring being gay into the interview. Why couldn't he have said 'Actually Phillip I don't think that's an appropriate thing for me to be commenting, it is far better that a proper investigation be done than us looking at a list from the internet which may not be correct'

Why did he even bring homosexuality into it?

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:40:41

arf!

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:42:46

I think he'd drawn the same conclusion I had from all the coverage, Fanjo, and missed a step in his explanation, as Thumper said. It certainly wasn't very well-handled.

But basically, if he is sinister for "bringing homosexuality into it" then so am I, because the "here is a list of poofs we think are paedos" line of enquiry has been screamingly obvious to me from the coverage.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:44:37

"Dear Prime Minister

here is a list of poofs. Can you please have them all locked up."

really?! You actually think that is what was going through Philip Schofield's mind? It was not Philip Schofield who mentioned homosexuality, You are putting a lot of words into his mouth there. My understanding was that it was DC who raised the issue of homosexuality.

And anyway - them being accused of having sex with children is about paedophilia not being gay.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:46:34

"the conclusion thaqt most people will draw when trying to think of who might have been invloved is to focus on those whe were rumoured to be gay."

I think you are doing 'most people' a disservice. Is this how you think? Just because you think like this doesn't mean it's what most people think.

This is about sex with children, not about homosexuality.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:47:25

it's clear now that DC has done a very fine job of moving attention away from paedophilio and onto 'the gays' though. Even if it wasn't planned that is what has happend.

DontmindifIdo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:47:36

Dueling - I think DC's statement must mean that the list was a list of people he knew to be gay.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:47:58

Yes, of course that's what he's done.

<head-desk>

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:49:26

"here is a list of poofs we think are paedos"

it is incidental that some people may believe the people on the list are gay. Them being gay is neither here not there, if they are paedophiles then their sexuality doesn't matter. Someone else put it better than I earlier...

"Being gay means you are sexually attracted to adults of the same gender as you are. Being a paedophile means you are sexually attracted to children. If you are a man who is sexually attracted to boys, you are not a "gay paedophile" - you are a paedophile. "

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 11:49:57

them being accused of having sex with children is about paedophilia not being gay NOT if the main reason they have been singled out is because they are gay

remember this is based on internet gossip not actual evidence

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:51:12

Oh FFS. I KNOW them being gay is neither here nor there.

<gives up>

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:51:17

"Dueling - I think DC's statement must mean that the list was a list of people he knew to be gay. "

so he thought he would focus on their sexuality? why?

I think you are all mad for concentrating so much on them being gay or straight. honestly I do.
This is about child abuse.
But as usual the focus is now completely off the victims, completely off the possibility of a cover-up.

sigh.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:52:34

"the conclusion thaqt most people will draw when trying to think of who might have been invloved is to focus on those whe were rumoured to be gay."

I think you are doing 'most people' a disservice. Is this how you think? Just because you think like this doesn't mean it's what most people think.

This is about sex with children, not about homosexuality.

Wow. I had even specifically mentioned the boys home, but here goes.

This is about sex with male children perpetrated by men, so for the bloggers (not me you might care to note) the link has been made that it must be homosexuals who have carried out these acts, and have (on the internet) identified these individuals, I might add- wrongly.

I have even posted an example of the thought train of the people who have made the links. I think this is why D-Cam has jumped in with both feet, by having a few more steps of the exchange in his head, and therefor answering the question in such a manner.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:52:38

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 11:53:32

Do you people think those from the Wales investigation all kept quiet about names, that all jounos kept quiet and those they told kept quiet and not one of them posted the names of the peado's on the internet?

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:54:07

The "most people" bit should have said "bloggers who are determined to name individuals with little more than old rumours and suggestions as evidence".

Wishfulmakeupping Fri 09-Nov-12 11:54:19

Cameron handled it well seeing as Schofield was being very irresponsible to do that live on air

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:56:06

"NOT if the main reason they have been singled out is because they are gay"

I am under the impression that the main reason many of them have been singled out is because they abused children. Unless you are implying that the many accusations made on national radio recently by people who were in the homes are made up? Because you think there are abuse victims going around plucking names out of a gay hat just for laughs?

yeah - that'd be it, right?

I agree... a list from the internet is a bad idea but if names have been repeatedly mentioned by vivtims and those names were mentioned and covered up in a previous enuiry then it's really important that we believe the victims and we allow the claims to be properly investigated rather than assuming that they have just jumped on a bandwagon of gay-bashing.

if politicians, gay or straight, have been accused by victims of sexual abuse against children then they need to be investigated and those victims need to be heard.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 11:57:14

He didn't handle it well to bring anyone's being gay into it. It is irrelevant.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 11:57:15

"I am under the impression that the main reason many of them have been singled out is because they abused children"

Well, it's nice to know that you are in possession of all of the facts smile

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:57:46

"And I think you're either a bit thick or refusing to read our posts, Fanjo"

oh wow. Way to go with the rational argument hmm
Thanks for sharing that.

cavell Fri 09-Nov-12 11:57:58

Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, writes:

"According to the BBC, Downing Street officials later explained that Mr Cameron's fears about a homophobic "witch-hunt" were prompted by his objection to online gossip that associated homosexuality with paedophilia and that made unproven claims of paedophilia against well known gay public figures, including Conservative politicians.

A senior aide to the prime minister said innocent people who were not connected to the current child abuse investigations were being traduced by an online witch-hunt. It is wrong to smear gay people with unfounded allegations, said a Downing Street spokesperson.

The list of names of alleged paedophiles handed by Schofield to Cameron during this morning’s interview apparently included prominent past and present gay Tory MPs, but with no actual evidence, let alone proof, of their guilt.

In these circumstances, perhaps the Prime Minister’s words were understandable and reasonable. He was reacting to unsubstantiated internet allegations and what looks like a scatter-gun denunciation of gay top Tories.

Viewers who were unaware of this full context may, however, have interpreted Cameron’s words and intentions very differently. His mention of gay people and an anti-gay witch-hunt was unexpected and unprompted. Schofield had not mentioned any gay involvement.

This led many members of the public to believe the Prime Minister was linking homosexuality with paedophilia - which is probably not what he intended to suggest."

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 11:59:26

I am generally a fan of rational argument, Fanjo, but since you're not using any I decided I'd push the boat out this time.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 11:59:53

To summarise:

Those on the list have been singled out because they are alleged to have abused children.

David Cameron's reference to anyone's being gay was irrelevant.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 11:59:57

"Do you people think those from the Wales investigation all kept quiet about names, that all jounos kept quiet and those they told kept quiet and not one of them posted the names of the peado's on the internet? "

can I conclude from this that you think all the victims were lying?

you know that the children's home and those in it were taking part in regular abuse of children don't you?

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 12:01:43

"Those on the list have been singled out because they are alleged to have abused children.

David Cameron's reference to anyone's being gay was irrelevant"

yes. This is a good summary.

I think anyone who is going on about it being unfair to those on the list who are supposed to be gay are just guilty themselves of believing the gay rumours. For all these people know they are all straight anyway. Not that it matters either way to anyone but themselves.

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 12:02:34

Dueling this list was from 3 mins online searching NOT FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS

you do grasp the difference between facts and stuff made up online don't you?

You CAN'T go finding people guilty just because some blogger says they are

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 12:03:01

I am under the impression that the main reason many of them have been singled out is because they abused children

Oh, really? And how do you know that - given that you don't even know what names are on list and what they're supposed to have done.

Schofield handed over a list of people who have been subject to internet rumours - that's it. You seem to be missing that very important fact.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 12:03:18

"I am generally a fan of rational argument, Fanjo, but since you're not using any I decided I'd push the boat out this time. "

why not try explaining where I am being irrational?

My point is, and always has been that a person being gay and being on a list of other people who may also be gay is irrelevant.

Fanjo - someone stating X abused me does not make it so. You have presumably read in the past of cases where people have made fake claims of being raped to get back at someone, or because they aren't in full possession of their faculties.

I could go online now, make a posting that DuelingFanjo is a paedophile. Does that mean it's true? I could say that X abused me in 1974. X died in 1976. Try and prove it conclusively. Very difficult.

As I said earlier, there are people who jump on bandwagons and make things up and it is naive in the extreme for you to state that these people are being singled out because they abused children. We've already seen today that it is probably complete nonsense that Lord McAlpine abused children. Someone who was actually ABUSED at North Wales has come out and said so.

I remind you of the Leonard Rossiter 'naming' last week and the likelihood of that being true because of the total lack of supportive evidence. But that mud will stick, which is awful for his daughter and any other family.

I'm afraid it's people like you being so provocative and worse that results in the witch-hunts DC was warning about.

Not for one moment do I suggest that there isn't abuse going on and that all serious allegations must be followed up. But simply going on the word of one or two people chucking names around the internet who weren't abused themselves is dangerous in the extreme.

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 12:05:39

But Fanjo do you understand this list is not an official evidence based factual thing - it's gossip pulled off the internet

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 12:06:10

No, Fanjo, you may not conclude that.

I think victims should put their allegations to the police (and then after that, if they like and if appropriate, to the media - particularly so if they feel their case has not been heard).

I think the police should take them seriously.

I think the police should investigate them, with exactly the same presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" that they use when investigating anyone, for anything.

I do not think the police should investigate internet rumours (though they may well monitor them in intelligence gathering for all I know).

I do not think people should assume that because somebody has been named on the internet they must be guilty.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 12:13:03

Sian Griffiths's Channel 4 interview last night was that 'somebody who had been high up in the government' was named at the Waterhouse inquiry; and that documents including photographs that showed this person were ordered to be destroyed. (She ran Clwyd Council's secretariat to the Waterhouse Inquiry.)

So that's a pretty strong allegation against that person. I can of course only assume his name was on Pip's list, but there's a fair chance that it was, given the 'three minute google' line.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 12:14:16

Excuse crap grammar ^^

Wishfulmakeupping Fri 09-Nov-12 12:14:57

It's not irrelevant if the people on the list are gay though which has been widely acknowledge hasn't it?

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 12:16:01

My point is, and always has been that a person being gay and being on a list of other people who may also be gay is irrelevant.

Fanjo, that wasn't actually your original point. Your original point was:

I think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different

So a little bit different from your revised point of "Nobody should talk about the surprising number of gay men being accused, DC shouldn't have said it because it's irrelevant." Which I don't agree with anyway, I think it is very much worthy of remark, but it's certainly less heinous than your original position.

LineRunner Fri 09-Nov-12 12:20:26

I don't know who is on the list and I don't know if they are gay. I now know that DC believes that one of more (probably more) are gay.

What I care about is that the investigations are done properly, unhindered by politicians. Let the evidence be the narrative.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 12:21:35

Fanjo, no you can't conclude what you did HTH

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 13:32:43

"I think victims should put their allegations to the police"

the WHOLE point of this WHOLE issue is that they did and there have been (For many years) accusations of a cover-up.

I think it is important that these accusations be followed up.
I think it's important that our Prime Minister has the ability to respond to stupid questions in a reasonable and sensible way.
Bringing homosexuality into the issue of child abuse allegations is not a reasonable or sensible thing to do.

I have not revised my point. I still think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different. That is just a small part of what I originally said. Maybe what I said was clumsily exporessed. Their sexuality should not be in any way relevant, DC wants it to be relevant - why?

I think there is a general feeling from some people that the sex-trade cannot be abusive if the people within it are offering services 'willingly' or for money/favours. I think some people belileve that the age of those people is is irrelevant, that the way these people got into that industry is irrelevant and that the sexuality of the people involved is a reason for them behaving as they do.

I think the whole thing sucks and I hope the victims are believed and that they do get justice even though it is years too late. I do also hope that no innocent people are caught up in this. I don't have any feeling either way about if politicians are gay are not and I certainly don't let internet gossip make me believe that they are gar or abusive. I do think personal experiences I have heard in interviews should be taken seriously and should have been taken seriously back when they were first voiced.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 13:46:26

Yes, and now the cover-up is being investigated. This is the investigation I am referring to. There are (as far as I know) three separate enquiries for people to approach that have been put in train in the last week. I would sincerely hope they have some sort of phone number set up by now?

If we're being impressionistic, I think that there is a prima facie "general feeling from some people" on various internet conspiracy theory sites that if men are gay they're more likely to be paedophiles. Some of the people they are naming may be guilty, others may not be. How would I know? But I have noticed the disproportionate number who are gay, or are suspected of being in the closet.

I find that odd. I have noticed it. I think it's worthy of comment, and a reason for caution (as if we shouldn't be cautious about names on the internet anyway!)

And I think that's why Cameron commented on it, though I completely agree he was answering a different question to the one he was asked.

I also don't buy the idea that Cameron was trying to detract attention from the enquiry for unknown mysterious evil reasons, because it's such a shit way to do it. As great PR plans go "Cunningly detracting attention from an enquiry into a fifteen-year old cover up of a thirty-year old scandal, which if it does involve any Tories is going to be old, dead, retired Tories, by ^making myself look like a tit on live television^" is not up there in the all time greats.

In fact this is one thing I can't fathom about Cameron, how he's got so many people to believe he's some sort of evil genius when he's so obviously an incompetent tit.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 13:47:28

Sorry - but what the fuck has "rent boys" got to do with any of this?

And where is your evidence that that is David Cameron's attitude? Because that's a pretty serious accusation to be making.

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 13:51:32

Hang on, do people think "rent boys" are children? is that where the misunderstandings are starting?

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 13:56:11

I think this attitude is often a class thing, often a public school thing (Maybe not so much these days?) and I think as we are talking about historic events we need to also look at historic attitudes which would have fascilitated this kind of cover-up and which will be deeply embarrassing for the government now.

I am sorry if it sounds offensive to people.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 13:57:45

Boy is the clue in rent boy.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 13:57:53

Some rent boys are children. I don't think the sex-trade operates with just adults. Do you?

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Fri 09-Nov-12 13:59:35

Some rent boys are children, yes. Clearly not all.

Dueling's original post on the matter is absolutely spot on. I think some posters have misunderstood her (unless I've misunderstood her that is!).

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Fri 09-Nov-12 14:00:30

No MrsJ not all rent boys are underage. It's just a turn of phrase.

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Fri 09-Nov-12 14:01:59

Has this post from another thread been quoted here yet?

'A friend who works in Portcullis House said he'd overheard two Tory MPs saying 'nasty little rent boys after Savile's millions' and 'worse things happen at boarding school, for God's sake, the country is in the grip of hysteria'

Not referring to Cameron of course but it reflects the sort of attitude Fanjo is suggesting exists.

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 14:06:29

No, rent boys are not children. They are young men, but generally not children. They are male prostitutes. The "rent" bit is significant. They are usually abused or exploited- workers in the sex industry are. But they are not children.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 14:09:37

Oh I'm sure Tory MPs have all kinds of ghastly ideas, but they are (boohoo for them) totally irrelevant now that the enquiries have been put in train. So long as people actually approach the investigation with their information. That is all anyone can do.

Come to that, even Cameron's own views are irrelevant - though I very much doubt they are what Fanjo thinks they are, for the simple reason that I had made the same observation about the potential for gay witch-hunting in the stuff flying around on the internet, and I am fairly sure I am not a paedophile apologist. hmm

autumnlights12 Fri 09-Nov-12 14:09:38

I'm surprised David Cameron was so restrained and calm. Philip Schofield was shockingly unprofessional.

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 14:10:16

seriously? YABU

it is fucking obvious that if you are handed a list of suspected people who all happen to be gay, you will say 'don't name those people just because they are gay' - though of course he shouldn't have acknowledged the list at all.
it was a comment on what was happening in the public realm.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:11:13

Some rent boys are children, Fanjo, just like there are underage teenage prostitutes out there too. Clearly, anyone who has sex with a child in any circumstance is a paedophile and the issue of whether money changes hands is irrelevant.

But I'm not at all sure why you've raised the issue of rent boys at all? The boys in the children's homes weren't selling sex, any more than the girls that JS targeted were.

Are you referring to a different story?

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 14:11:46

Additional complication re: the children thing is that I believe the age of consent for gay sex was 21 until surprisingly late.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:12:52

Underage female prostitutes, I mean.

(I hate calling them that because it sounds like they've made a choice).

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:15:21

Yes, Mulled - it was only in about 2000 it was brought down to 16, I believe.

trockodile Fri 09-Nov-12 14:18:24

This is an interesting piece in Pink News which sort of says what I think

www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/09/comment-there-is-a-real-climate-of-hysteria/

I too do not support David Cameron, but I really think that he was worried people would -and have been so it is fresh in his mind- equating the 2. I thought he did not actually read Phil's list, but was just encouraging him to dismiss Internet gossip.

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 14:21:03

There are underage prostitutes of both genders. But "rent boys" are, at least theoretically, over the age of consent.

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 14:21:03

That is an excellent article trockodile

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 14:21:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:23:19

I suspect that Cameron knew exactly what names would be on the list, was aware that the only "evidence" against them is that they're gay & was responding on that basis.

And was right to do so.

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 09-Nov-12 14:24:31

Well he was quite right to warn against a witch-hunt because it's already happening. Lord McAlpine has had to issue a statement today to try to squash rumoursStatement Won't be the first or last. 'I belive you' is all well and good & there should be police investigations where allegations are made, but what we're getting now is mass hysteria and mob rule of the very worst kind.... about as far from justice as is possible.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 14:24:39

IT didn't sound to me like he was justifying aqnything, regardless of the era.

I thought he was merely saying that we shouldn't vilify people because of internet rumours, but that the investigations should be carried out by the police, and that they are who people should go to with accusations/information.

By saying people should go to the correct authoirties he's hardly justifying it.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 14:28:38

What I was trying to say was that by bringing homosexuality into the matter he could well be attempting to justify sexual acts which took place because of the way things used to be.

Although I certainly agree that that attitude is around (regardless of orientation), I have no reason to think Cameron endorses it and I certainly don't think he'd hint at it on TV because it's fucking shocking. Occam's razor, I think his reasons for "bringing homosexuality into the matter" are exactly the same as mine. I genuinely cannot see whatever it is you are reading into his words.

Be interested to know if you think you did misunderstand, JenaiMarr?

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:28:56

You have no clarified things one iota!

Rent boys are male prostitutes (some underage, most not).

How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then"?

Please explain rather than simply repeat a rather offensive slur on someone's character over and over again.

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 14:31:04

Fanjo you are making no sense at all - where is your evidence that DC not wanting to equate 'gay' with 'child abuser' is to do with him willingly covering up the forced prostitution of boys in childrens homes in the 80's

you are making wild unfounded accusations

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 14:33:12

"I thought he was merely saying that we shouldn't vilify people because of internet rumours"

no

he said

"we shouldn't vilify Gay people because of internet rumours"

why on earth was it relevant that he knew there were gay people on the list when the accusation is not 'being gay' but 'being a paedophile'? He should have used the words 'innocent people' or 'those who have not been found guilty'.

The article linked to a few posts ago says "There has been an avalanche of often hysterical tweets in the last 24 hours claiming Cameron’s comments show that he is a secret homophobe who was inferring all gay men were paedophiles." This has never been my concern. I don't think that is what he was inferring at all. I think he was stupid to even bring gayness into it, even if he recognised some gay people on the list. If they are the same names I have heard then he is guilty of believing rumours about their sexuality too as none of them that I know about have come out and some of them are in heterosexual relationships. Why would he see that list and mention their supposed gayness? Why would he make it an issue, unless he wants to out them because he has some inside knowledge that they have given him about their sexuality?

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 14:39:18

I actually think what DC was saying is that people often equate being gay with being a paedophile and we have to be very careful not to accuse people of paedophilia because we know them to be gay. Or think they might be gay.

One of the few sensible things he has ever said in my opinion.

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 14:41:47

Fanjo many people have explained this over and over on this thread

There where accusations of sexual abuse of BOYS by MEN

Ergo the assumption that their abusers where gay

which means if your are gay and tory you would likely find your name bandied about on the interweb

some people even think gay men are sexual predators

Being named online is not proof of guilt

Their sexuality has been brought into by the idiots naming random people online...and those taking this as fact <giant rolly eyes>

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 14:43:05

How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then"?

Could you answer this question that I asked you, please, Fanjo.

lovelyladuree Fri 09-Nov-12 14:43:30

Surely if an adult man wants to abuse little boys he is a homosexual. Or is there a new word to learn?

gordyslovesheep Fri 09-Nov-12 14:45:28

no he is a child abuser - not all sexual abuse is sexually motivated - much of it is about power, control and domination - it isn't always a reflection of sexual orientation

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Fri 09-Nov-12 14:45:59

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 14:46:07

I m still with Peter Tatchell.

It has been bloody obvious when you look at many of the names being bandied about on twitter etc that many idiotspeople are far more inclined to throw around the names of people who are known or thought to be gay. Along with people who would be the most shocking - the more famous the better.

There is a witch hunt. There is a gossipy excitable atmosphere where people are speculating and suggesting and getting terribly excited about knowing who is being talked about. It's ridiculous.
And people being names are often gay.
There was already a linkage in the minds of some fuckwits via social media
He just articulated it and how damaging it is.

Philip schofield and /or the production team were pulling a cheap stunt about an important issue to try and look edgy. Wankers

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 14:46:28

Well, what do we call an adult man who wants to abuse little girls, lovely? "Straight"?

Fanjo - "Now I am happy to concede that I don't know much about DC and so I may be wrong"

Probably the only thing you've said in this thread I would tend to agree with.

TunipTheHollowVegemalLantern Fri 09-Nov-12 14:53:44

(I've just asked MNHQ to delete my post just then because I wish I hadn't posted it - I wanted to explain to people further down the thread who weren't clear why rent boys had anything to do with this issue, but it's pretty unedifying - apologies.)

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 14:55:41

"Surely if an adult man wants to abuse little boys he is a homosexual. Or is there a new word to learn?"

Nope. Paedophile is the word you are looking for- if the abuse you are talking about is sexual in nature.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 14:58:56

Often paedophiles don't really care they attack a boy or a girl. They may have a preference but often not. So paedophile is the term you need really

Mayisout Fri 09-Nov-12 14:58:57

I think the paedophile issues are referring to 30 years ago so that is 1990 roughly.

Was thinking about back then and remembered the Satanic abuse scares (1986). Families on Orkney were accused of satanic abuse of their children and children were taken into care, one father was jailed. Also came across another in Ayr where children were taken into care.

This is a link to an article but haven't read it right through and don't have time to now
www.whale.to/b/rooum.html

This demonstrates that there was social workers looking out for abused children, unfortunately they were barking up the wrong tree in many of these satanic abuse cases. In these cases often the children's voices were ignored when they stated nothing had happened.

Just making the point that it wasn't all wicked pedos and society ignoring innocent children in those days.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 14:59:27

"How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then"?"

My opinion is that there is a certain attitude, which David Cameron could have, that sex with young boys was not really a crime back in the days when it's what a lot of people were doing and the boys in question were basically willing and being paid.

I personally don't think it justifies abuse, I do think there are a lot of people who think like this and that David Cameron and politicians of a certain ilk may share this kind of opinion.

trockodile Fri 09-Nov-12 15:02:06

Exactly Seeker and Mulled-peodophilia is about many things (generally power) sexual orientation-gay/straight is not one of them.
I have never been a Tory supporter but David Cameron is on record as being a supporter of Equal Marriage and gay rights generally.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 15:03:02

So you don't know his actual opinion, but are perfectly prepared to make suggestions that are quite inflammatory and dangerous?

You really are quite outstanding.

thumper1806 Fri 09-Nov-12 15:03:38

that was in response to Fanjo

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 15:03:52

"There where accusations of sexual abuse of BOYS by MEN. Ergo the assumption that their abusers where gay"

That assumption is not one I would make. Many men who abuse boys would not identify themselves as gay. Sexual abuse is about more than just sexuality, just like rape is not about sex, it is about power.

Why make an assumption that sex with boys is about being gay? Is that what DC just did?

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 15:03:56

suggesting that David Cameron is the sort of bloke who might turn a blind eye to child abuse is ridiculous.

Based on what? The fact he went to public school?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 15:05:11

I honestly can't think of anyone who seriously thinks that using children as rent boys is fine. Or that the fact that it may have happened a long time ago is fine.

I am quite unsure as to how anyone could just assume that another person would hold such a view particularly as it seems to be based upon anything other than his politics.

Private eye wrote quite a detailed piece naming a liberal mp. Do we think that mps in the lib dems would hold 'but does it really matter?' views ?

I posted when the Saville thing broke that if this became an issue for petty party political sniping then the victims might as well forget it.

Mayisout Fri 09-Nov-12 15:05:34

How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then

Yea gods. Someone's living in the distant past and it isn't DC.

Fanjo you have absolutely NO justification for suggesting, repeatedly, that David Cameron could/may have such an attitude. I'm no fan of the man, but really, it's people spouting this sort of drivel that drives the typical Daily Mail reader into a frenzy.

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 15:08:07

Look. I will try to put this in simple terms.

Homosexual men are sexually attracted to men.
Heterosexual men are sexually attracted to women.
Paedophiliac men are sexually attracted to children.

That's it.

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 09-Nov-12 15:09:42

But paedophilia is not a type of sexuality. To name it as such is to say it's justifiable.

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 15:10:01

And some of the views expressed on this threat underline the fact that David Cameron's warning was apposite.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 15:11:40

yep, probably is inflamatory. It's an internet forum. The internet is full of opinion and some of it is inflamatory. I am not the PM I am just a poster on a forum getting a bit ranty about what I think might institutionally be behind the reactions of our current PM and the government he is heading.
Hopefully he will prove that they can now look at these allegations clearly and without a cover up. Hopefully times have moved on from previous governments.

I am in agreement with the OP

"I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively."

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 15:11:44

My opinion is that there is a certain attitude, which David Cameron could have

Fair enough.

My opinion is that Fanjo could be a shoplifting, drug taking, alcoholic brothel keeper who kicks her cat for fun every morning.

I have no evidence for this, but it could be true.

(God, never have I ever wished that MN had a rolling eyes emoticon than now. It's called for).

I am not a DC fan at all - but I think your suggestion that he would dismiss paedophilia on any grounds is absolutely disgusting & unless you have evidence you should take it back.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 15:14:03

Mayisout What?

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 15:14:19

it will be a witch hunt if people persist in using homosexual and paedophile as synonyms.

And think that rent boys are necessarily children.

fanjo - can you please produce evidence which backs up your belief that the Govt aren't taking this seriously?

seeker Fri 09-Nov-12 15:15:54

"But paedophilia is not a type of sexuality. To name it as such is to say it's justifiable."

paedophilia is a type of sexuality. Abhorrent, but real. Naming something does not justify.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 15:19:39

that's fine. You tell me that I am not allowed to opine that there is a general attitude towards sex with boys (historically and in certain cultures) which excuses it. it's fine. you don't agree. that too is fine.

I don't agree that most people think men who sexually abuse boys must be gay, I don't agree that people on PS's list maybe being gay is in any way relevant to these accusations. I don't agree there was any good reason for DC to make an issue of their supposed gayness. You disagree. fine.

FairPhyllis Fri 09-Nov-12 15:23:42

I agree with Peter Tatchell and that piece in the Pink News too.

I think Cameron is at least partly thinking of the generation of MPs and ministers who were around before homosexuality was decriminalised - I think that some of the allegations date back at least as far as then. There is a danger that MPs believed to have been gay at that time may get dragged into this by virtue of the fact that by engaging in homosexual acts pre-decriminalisation they were acting illegally. So the mob, not always being overly blessed with intelligence, may assume that being involved with one form of illegality in that period may make you more likely to have been involved with another.

I would say that this hysteria is super highly likely to turn against gay men based on how deeply homophobia is engrained in all patriarchal societies.

Philip Schofield is a knob who is flailing around trying to make up for his original disgusting reaction to the scandal.

Alisvolatpropiis Fri 09-Nov-12 15:25:41

I don't believe it is actually a recognised sexuality.

Or is that what the "other" box for sexuality on job application forms is for?

I was under the impression that it was a recognised psychiatric disorder.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 15:26:08

Duelling. I think you can opine that a certain attitude exists.
I recognise that you genuinely believe what you are posting.
I personally just think it is dreadful to attribute such an attitude to someone when you have no smidge of proof.

It's like saying 'oh yes, I think that x is the sort of person who doesn't think rape is a big deal' without any real reason

We are talking about despicable behaviours. I think it is vital to show a high level of integrity when talking about such things

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 15:26:22

WOW.
Hopefully someone can come here and explain clearly why paedophilia is not a sexuality.

I see there have been over 100 complaints to Ofcom about Schofield/This Morning so far. No doubt some people will assume most of those will be from Tories interested in covering it up....

Jux Fri 09-Nov-12 15:38:18

I've seen a lot of names bandied about on the internet and it is quite clear from the threads concerned that the main reason a lot of those names have been put there is because they are or are thought to be gay.

Like it or not, there are a load of ignorant, even stupid, people who think that being gay makes you a likely paedophile (or peadophile, as those people seem like to say).

I think DC was speaking to those people specifically, those people who are making the false connection between homosexuality and "peadophilia".

trockodile Fri 09-Nov-12 15:42:12

I just read this thread again as I was sure I must have missed the crucial piece of evidence stating that this is how DC feels

I think at the bottom of this is a general attitude (From David Cameron and other politicians) that we should forgive homosexual politicians for paedophilia because in their opinion they were only rent-boys and back then things were different so the only way they could satisfy their needs was to use rent-boys who in their minds were really only offering a service which they probably think was acceptable behaviour for politicians who might lose their jobs if it be known they were gay.

because I could not imagine anyone would say it without being able to back up. Apparently they do. I am stunned that I appear to be defending David Cameron!

Scrubber Fri 09-Nov-12 15:56:47

I hate to defend D.C., but it was a stupid stunt pulled by schofield and he is right, people do confuse gay with paedophile. One of my best friends came out to his mother to be asked if he liked young boys too. While internet gossip is fun, there is a danger of slander and possibly undermining future court cases. The prime minister has to be careful what he says.

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar Fri 09-Nov-12 16:27:27

The evidence for claims that DC (and many others - particularly but not exclusively within the Conservative Party) are complicit in excusing child abusers on the "things were different then" card is the simple fact that no effective enquiry has ever taken place.

If any of these stories are true, then people knew and continue to know about them.

DC might find it abhorrent. Doesn't mean he didn't know. And if he didn't know, why didn't he know? He's the Party leader ffs.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Fri 09-Nov-12 16:38:25

It was a stupid stunt.

I could go online today and find the names of 4 people who were abducted by aliens. Shit journalism.

JamieandtheMagicTorch Fri 09-Nov-12 16:40:22

And I agree with DC, and Peter Tatchell

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 16:44:07

Too many "ifs" there for that to be considered evidence, Jenai. You are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.

TheCraicDealer Fri 09-Nov-12 16:48:09

Well if we extend that argument.....the previous enquiry that apparently looked at McAlpine took place in 1996. 1997, the Labour Party were elected, and 12 years of non-investigation into these reports ensued. So can we extend "people like him (DC)" to the whole political spectrum now instead all this "hoho, worse happened to me at Eton!" shit?

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 16:58:43

Well, for a start he wasn't even in parliament when the enquiry was mounted, or when it reported. So I think any suggestion that on becoming leader in 2005 he was immediately informed "X and Y are part of a paedo ring but it's all been hushed up, jolly good eh?" is going to need to be carefully supported with evidence.

Genuine question, do you and others realise that we're talking about fairly random allegations coming round on Twitter from some deeply nasty conspiracy theory blogs, not victim testimony in broadsheets? It occurs to me that some of you (bless!) are under-estimating how nasty the internet is, and this is why you find Cameron's reference to gay witch-hunts so baffling. I didn't find it in the least bit baffling. Basically people know a name, or some names, were suppressed in the enquiry, and now they're churning out whatever shit they can, mixing it up with bits and bobs from Wikipedia and seeing who it sticks to.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 17:01:13

By the way, I don't think it would be out of place to observe at this point that many of the allegations being investigated are against care home workers, health professionals, police officers, businessmen and local residents. Their victims matter too, even though they may not make for such great juicy political gossip. It's a bit disturbing to me that people are willing to go down the "secret paedo ring in the Tory party" line to the exclusion of all else on the basis of so little.

DuelingFanjo Fri 09-Nov-12 17:02:48

"do you and others realise that we're talking about fairly random allegations coming round on Twitter from some deeply nasty conspiracy theory blogs"

If you research this, if you have access, then you can clearly see these allegations have been around since the mid 90s. This naming of people is not a recent thing, it's just that internet use was not so avaiable. Names were mentioned in evidence given and the many reports which were unpublished for legal reasons.

That the names are out now and on the internet for all to see does not mean they weren't always there in statements taken at the time.

the independent is a good place to start as they have been campaigning on this for many years.

"I actually think what DC was saying is that people often equate being gay with being a paedophile and we have to be very careful not to accuse people of paedophilia because we know them to be gay. Or think they might be gay.

One of the few sensible things he has ever said in my opinion."

I agree with seeker

Just because the majority of MNers don't equate homosexuality with paedophilia, it doesn't necessarily translate to people in general. Sadly it is a far too predominant attitude, and some groups of people will deliberately push the association due to a hatred of homophobia.

If you've never read or heard someone making the connection then you are damn lucky!

I know I'd heard some names mentioned in relation to the JS case with the justification of "oh yes, it could be him, I've heard he's gay". Twitter's a good source for stuff like that, and let's face it, you do a quick 3 min google, you are likely to get the same results those on Twitter are getting.

"If you research this, if you have access, then you can clearly see these allegations have been around since the mid 90s. This naming of people is not a recent thing, it's just that internet use was not so avaiable. Names were mentioned in evidence given and the many reports which were unpublished for legal reasons."

But not all the names mentioned will have been mentioned in reports/evidence, some of them will have been mentioned because of another agenda. And the further back in time you go the more prevalent the attitude was of gay=paedo.

TheCraicDealer Fri 09-Nov-12 17:17:08

Exactly, Murder. Even the Mumsnet thread on JS was full of comments like, "We all knew he was funny " or other unsubstantiated "reasons" as to why they always knew he was dodgy as fuck. It's not too hard imagining similar comments being passed around regarding gay men in the 1970's or 80's, and from this internet rumours today. That's not to say gay men are on any sort of par with the likes of JS, but we're talking about a time when homosexuality was very much seen with distrust by much of the general population. People may not make the link between "gay" and "paedo" in this enlightened time we live in, but we've moved on a lot in the last thirty years. And unfortunately people remember gossip, even if it's unsubstantiated.

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 17:23:00

the movements of MPs are so well documented - in their diaries, and the diaries of their staff, that there would be a paper trail if one of them had been doing this.

my guess is that journalists are going to dig and either 1) find nothing - in which case it isn't news, so no names get cleared
or 2) find something - in which case a trial will be unlikely to happen due to the level of public accusation rendering a fair trial impossible.

TiggyD Fri 09-Nov-12 17:26:03

Philip Schofield wouldn't want people to associate gay people with paedophilia when Phil himself is a screaming great nancy.

I read that on the internet so it must be very possibly true.

Philip Schofield is also a top Mexican assassin called Miguel "Top Assassin" O'Rafferty. He's had plastic surgery to escape his past, obviously, but he is still wanted for the murders of 15 people, 2 dogs, and a Vauxhall Viva.

That must be looked into as well because that's on the internet...now.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 17:27:07

It's nice he still has a career then...

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 17:42:31

But not all the names mentioned will have been mentioned in reports/evidence

^ This. What both the Independent and Nick Davies at the Guardian have been saying for years is that (a) care homes have been systematically targeted and controlled by paedophiles on a terrifying scale, and that often these people knew each other and helped each other and (b) there have been persistant allegations about prominent public figures being offered children from the homes. But they cannot name these latter because of lack of evidence.

True and careful and diligent thought these reports are, they are also an open invitation for every barking shithead with an internet connection to rustle up a handful of names, create a load of insinuation and send rumour on its merry way. Then a load of other people repeat it, with imperfect recall of the details, and give the insufficiently critical the impression that "everybody knows".

Needless to say if anybody gets it wrong a whole new rumour is created. I actually saw this happen on Twitter last week with somebody confusing several public figures who shared, let's say, a somewhat 80s name beginning with K - they were retweeted several times before they corrected their mistake. Did all the people who read their original tweet read their correction? Doubt it.

It's true that, by law of averages, I guess somebody must be hitting on the right names. I just don't, with respect, think I or you or Philip Schofield or pretty much anyone who isn't an officer or official working with the enquiry, is in any position to know who the fuck it is.

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 17:51:12

weren't a lot of the famous names people identified by David Icke?

Who also thinks they are lizards.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 17:59:52

weren't a lot of the famous names people identified by David Icke?

Who also thinks they are lizards

Yep. Sums it all up, doesn't it?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 18:14:58

And as Steve Meesham has just confirmed it was not Lord MacAlpine that abused him, the validity of a lot of those pointing fingers on twitter is looking dodgy indeed.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 18:18:30

And as Steve Meesham has just confirmed it was not Lord MacAlpine that abused him

Bloody hell.

Wonder who Newsnight was planning on naming then?

(No, not going to speculate).

Ain't it just, Pagwatch

And why am I not surprised.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 18:20:31

I think Newsnight were going to name Lord MacAlpine.
Steve Meesham made a mistake. He has apologised. Newsnight have more problems.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 18:22:24

Poor Steven Meesham. Awful for everyone really.

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 18:23:50

I'm pretty sure Steve M was pointing the finger at Lord A

Yes, Newsnight have questions to answer. Did they really not check the facts by simply showing Steve Meesham a photo of Lord McAlpine??? I feel very sorry for that poor bloke. Actually, for both of them, as I have no doubt Steve Meesham was abused.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 18:27:43

Yes he was. He seems genuinely to have believed it was him for all sorts of reasons.
As I said, he has apologised. I don't know the details but it suggests that the Guardians 'mistaken identity' story may well be accurate.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 18:27:47

I just saw this genius comment on a newspaper article:

"Who does Philip Schofield think he is? Richard Madeley?"

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 18:28:37

grin

piprabbit Fri 09-Nov-12 18:29:47

Given that there I've come across young women people who think that a mother breastfeeding beyond 6 months must be a paedophile, I'm absolutely certain that many people believe homosexuals are too. sad.

FairPhyllis Fri 09-Nov-12 18:41:22

Holy crap about the mistaken identity. I want all reports from victims to be fully investigated, but this is why people pointing fingers on the internet for their own self-righteous amusement are quite possibly going to ruin the lives of innocent people.

It's like when Joanna Yeates' landlord had his name dragged all over the press and internet. That was definitely in part motivated by bigotry - there were all these sly suggestions that he was gay and therefore obviously was a murderer hmm. It's going to happen again.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 18:45:15

Oh god yes, the Joanna Yeates thing. That was horrible. Gay and had slightly weird hair and liked poetry - case closed. hmm He sued some of the papers as well, and got a huge fat pay-off. Good. The bastards.

CrikeyOHare Fri 09-Nov-12 18:46:22

grin I was actually thinking of Richard Madeley's attempt to be a hard-nosed news hound earlier. Anyone remember the mortifyingly awful OJ Simpson interview? Not quite the same, I know, but....... <cringe>

I also feel for Steve Meesham. I don't doubt for a second that he was abused. Lord Mc's name has been on the internet for a long time regarding this sort of thing, so I wonder if there's been some heavy suggestion being forced on him.

Just appalling. The whole thing.

FairPhyllis Fri 09-Nov-12 18:52:01

I just want to make it clear that I do believe Steve Meesham was abused - but this is why the investigation has to be done properly. If he was pushed into publicly identifying the wrong person by a journalist, he will stand even less chance of getting a criminal prosecution against his abuser at some point.

MulledWineOnTheBusLady Fri 09-Nov-12 18:52:02

His apology says:

"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this is not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine."

WTF has gone on here? The poor, poor guy. Surely Newsnight or whoever else he is talking to have something of a duty of care to someone vulnerable who agrees to speak out. Who let this happen to him?

I think if I was in charge of the BBC I'd be suspending everyone involved with Newsnight and possibly taking the show off the air. You have to seriously question what the hell these editors are doing, what with the non-broadcasting of the Saville investigation last year and now what appears to be a pretty poor job on the Meesham/North Wales edition.

That Joanna Yeats thing was appalling.

But it's probably all a Tory conspiracy anyway if you believe what you read on the internet.

Nancy66 Fri 09-Nov-12 18:53:28

very fishy.

Jux Fri 09-Nov-12 19:55:27

There have been other Lord M's in the past. That's all.

Besidethecoast Fri 09-Nov-12 20:03:17

I thought it was v. strange that DC went down the route of homosexual witch hunt. I agree, the sexual persuasion of an individual has NOTHING to do with child abuse. To me it is another smoke screen to deflect the REAL issue. If the government had handled these previous enquiries with integrity there would be no need for any of this now. People are getting frustrated here, and they are waking up to the abhorrent abuse of justice that has been taking place. I applaud the directness of the interview, I am fed up with everyone acting in such a covert way. People have used the most awful prejudicial language ie. yong girls throwing themselves at men, hedonistic lifestyles (all describing children being abused) and this has not been challenged by the newspapers or tv journalists (only by the NSPCC spokesperson and a load of people on twitter). Lets have some more upfront journalism please, we don't have to name names, but lets be clear that our children have been abused by people who thought they would get away with it and they are still .... getting away with it!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop criticising Phillips Schofield and start demanding some proper journalism!!!!!!!

I see that already on Twitter some people have taken to asking the question of whether MI5 might have visited Steve Meesham to get him to retract on behalf of the Tories.... sigh.

Beside - what Schofield did was not proper journalism. what Newsnight did was not proper journalism. the Government did not handle previous inquiries into sexual abuse, the justice system did. there have, however, been some decent journalism on Channel 4 News, in The Independent and The Guardian. trouble is, a lot of the sort of people that talk the most rubbish get their info from The Star, The Sun, The Mirror and unreliable internet sources.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:16:41

'start sacking Philip Schofield and start demanding some proper journalism' maybe?

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 20:34:03

"
I thought it was v. strange that DC went down the route of homosexual witch hunt"

i thought it was very strange he was handed a list of names who were rumoured/known to be gay and asked if they were paedophiles on live telly. i find it even weirder his refutation has been seen as him taking that angle.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:42:49

'he was handed a list of names who were rumoured/known to be gay'

Late to this but how can it be rumoured/known they were gay if the names were not read out, when no one knows what was on that card?

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 20:43:41

because a quick look at twitter would tell you the same as it told phillip schofield?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:44:56

If he was given the results of phils swift googling then I imagine it was the names I was seeing via google - many of which are gay or are thought to be gay.
Unless Philip has super google talents.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:12:17

But surely their gayness, rumoured or otherwise, is irrelevant? Surely if DC read the same online rumours, the gayness of the alleged abusers was the least shocking or relevant of the hideous tale? I genuinely don't get why he needed to mention sexuality. I thought these people had advisers confused

trockodile Fri 09-Nov-12 21:23:53

But the point DC was making surely is that while their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, that it is sadly not-and that people are generally willing to believe worse things about homosexuals. Which seems to be correct.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:28:12

Well, that would have stayed irrelevant if he hadn't brought it up as the only way the public at large would have heard these names, in any official way, was if they were arrested for questioning. Apart from the PS internet trawl, the only ones naming names were The Speaker's wife (forget her name) on twitter and the Guardian and they named a straight person!

You seriously think the general public weren't capable of (or willing to) finding exactly the same names PS did? You do know that a huge amount of people use Twitter right? Because a hell of a lot of names have appeared on there!

ProphetOfDoom Fri 09-Nov-12 21:51:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 22:01:53

No MurderofGoths that's why I said 'in any official way'. The general public, twitter/facebook users have always done this stuff, the fact is DC was giving credence to something by mentioning sexuality when he should have dismissed it for what it was, unsubstantiated rumour (at this stage anyway). It was the Speaker's wife and a national broadsheet that named names, with the BBC coming close to doing so too. They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?

perfumedlife Fri 09-Nov-12 22:05:37

But don't get me wrong, I think PS was an prize idiot for grandstanding, it was hardly groundbreaking research he handed over, and smacked of desperation to be on message to me after his previous treatment of Savile victims. I would have treated that with the contempt it deserved, not furnished it with a grave concern that was unwarranted. But I also think DC direction to give evidence to the police rings a little hollow when victims have in the past and not been believed.

EdgarAllanPond Fri 09-Nov-12 23:39:46

They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?"

that's what Schofield was asking for - an answer to the buzz on the internet. DC gave one - probably he shouldn't. but it was a fair answer to give.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now