Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2

(996 Posts)
MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 19:05:59

Last thread full.

Steve has released a statement responding to Lord McAlpines statement.

edam Fri 09-Nov-12 23:08:00

Good grief.

Huge danger that this destroys the credibility of victims - unfairly, but it might well - and derails the search for the truth over North Wales and Savile, when there are very serious questions that do need to be answered.

Secrecy is to blame. If the Waterhouse Inquiry into North Wales had not been so keen to afford anonymity to paedophiles, their names would be on record, and there would be no need for anyone to bandy about allegations online.

tiredemma Fri 09-Nov-12 23:08:17

Whitewash. This stinks to high hell. Something not right here. In 30 years Steven Measham only saw a picture of his alleged abuser tonight? Anybody really believe that?

izzywizzyisbizzy Fri 09-Nov-12 23:08:59

Ive done the whole is Esther at fault conversation on a different thread that got pulled.

I think it is easy to publically scapegoat her, and I wonder if her powerlessness then, was a contributory factor to the setting up of Childline, in the face of significant opposition.

Childline has done more to help children in this country than anything, and I think she wasnt in a position to act on faceless rumours, as the years past and she became more involved in things, I have no doubt she was absolutely drowning in disclosures and rumours.

I have personal reason to be extremely grateful to her for setting up Childline and I think deriding her, is to deny the cultural of the 70s/80s.

JuliaFlyte Fri 09-Nov-12 23:09:16

That was the most surreal 30 mins of television I have seen in a long time.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 23:10:19

'Anybody really believe that?'

The media does.

edam Fri 09-Nov-12 23:10:25

I think the Bureau of Investigative Journalism are on dodgy ground claiming McAlpine may have been mistaken for another member of his own family. I can't imagine McAlpine's lawyers will be very impressed at the further blackening of the family's name. Even if the Bureau is right.

izzywizzyisbizzy Fri 09-Nov-12 23:11:06

will the whole thing be on iPlayer tomorrow?

MooncupGoddess Fri 09-Nov-12 23:11:55

Well quite edam. Suspect the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is now living on borrowed time. The whole thing just beggars belief.

tiredemma Fri 09-Nov-12 23:14:00

I'm astounded. I actually cannot think of anything to say. Something absolutely rotten is going on here and there's nothing we can do about it. Clearly.

frankie4 Fri 09-Nov-12 23:15:05

He must have been paid off or maybe threatened

edam Fri 09-Nov-12 23:17:22

It's a shame because they have done some great stuff, but WTF? Tiredemma is right, the idea that Steve Meesham (sp?) only saw a photo tonight is bizarre. Surely the Bureau, or Newsnight, must have shown him one before? What made him think it was Lord McAlpine? And who the hell was it?

MooncupGoddess Fri 09-Nov-12 23:21:24

I can only imagine that Newsnight was so scarred by pulling the Savile report that they decided they just couldn't pull another child abuse report, however flakey it was. It was a very weak segment and clear even before McAlpine was exonerated that they wouldn't normally have run it.

But HOW could they not run a photo past their key witness and lawyered the whole thing to death? How??

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

The repercussions of this story in 'The Star' are SIMPLY HUGE. Why are no journalists following this up?

In the 1980s the Metropolitan Police launched an investigation into elite paedophile sex parties allegedly attended by a Thatcher cabinet member and wealthy men from Belgium among others.

The detective was then *ordered by his seniors to stop the investigation*:

'The furious ex-policeman said: “It wasn’t that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.

'“It was a case of ‘get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone’. It was made very clear to me that to ­continue asking questions would ­jeopardise my career.”'

'The vulnerable teen who spoke to ­detectives vanished just weeks after blowing the whistle.'

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/279380/TORY-PAEDO-COVER-UP/

amummienetter Sat 10-Nov-12 00:08:07

I read that article somewhere a few days ago although I can't remember in which publication.

Why are newspapers not interested in Sian Griffith's documents and Ann Clwyd's interview?

I stumbled across this tweet and thought how true..
'Now awaiting that all public inquiries cancelled, the abuse was just a dream. Bobby Ewing. Pam in the shower. #Newsnight

Feenie Sat 10-Nov-12 00:10:45

Because it's the Daily Star? sad

This whole situation is desperately worrying re Steve Measham.

We believe you.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 00:27:30

I don't know what to make of the mailonline article I have just read.

Hummingbirds Sat 10-Nov-12 00:34:21

Another thing I'd like to know: why is no one talking about Islington?

'One girl spoke to me of her and her sister being sold from Islington to a millionaire and the parties that took place there when older children from care homes were gathered at their mansion and these returned each month but younger children were not seen again. A children's home manager who disclosed corroborative evidence to me about this was sacked and the whole situation was never investigated.'

This is HORRIFIC. Why is no one investigating?

www.lizdavies.net/cpa/cpa-jersey.htm

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 01:27:51

I had to turn off 5live tonight cos they were all in a hysterical froth.
News night was no better. Channel 4 news appear to be the only calm voice.
I feel so sorry for meecham he appears to being put through the same thing again. Being discredited, vilified and hounded.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 01:33:45

This sums it up I think

From Yes Minister

'"It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them."

"How to discredit an unwelcome report:

Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn't one, commission it; this gives you even more time).

Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven't, question them yourself; then they have).

Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. 'Not really a basis for long term decisions'.
2. 'Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment'.
3. 'No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy'.
4. 'Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice'.

Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational."

"To suppress an internal government report, rewrite it as official advice to the Minister. Then it is against the rules to publish it, so you can leak the bits you want to friendly journalists."

ticktockcroc Sat 10-Nov-12 08:08:03

I'm with tiredemma, though we seem to be alone sad

bleedingheart Sat 10-Nov-12 08:12:44

To be falsely accused of such acts must be atrocious but the focus on This Morning and Newsnight is detracting from the fact that somebody was abusing these children and some kind of cover up appears to have been undertaken.
Whilst the media turns on on itself and self-flagellates, the abused are forgotten.

CFSKate Sat 10-Nov-12 08:26:36

link

"Steve Messham said police had shown him a picture of his abuser but incorrectly told him the man was Lord McAlpine."

also some new tweets

Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas

"Victims of child abuse need great care & carefully handling. Treatment of Steve Messham has been a disgrace - used for others gain."

"let down by care home, social services, police, inquiry and now by media . He has been through a lot- needed proper investigation"

good summary of the standard procedure there tips

i think we need to stay focussed. what i want to see is the silencing order removed, the evidence revisited and all of the alleged abusers criminally investigated without prejudice as to who or what they are in public life. that is not asking much really - just sort of, you know, the use of the justice system as it is meant to work when not hamstrung from orders on high.

i also think this idea that being accused of being involved in child abuse is worse than the worst thing ever and your reputation never recovers is a nonsense actually. if clear evidence and openness reveals the person not to have been involved after being properly investigated then that is that.

it is again highly patronising of the public and using the supposed publics stupidity and ignorance as an excuse for not proceeding properly. much like the homophobia remark by DC or the 'it'll cause racism' excuse for avoiding prosecuting the asian ring who were exploiting teens. it is spin based on the public stupidity and expected to run because of the same stupidity that they assume means we'll accept their excuse.

baffling really. is the world so thick?

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 08:56:26

Some of the comments on twitter to SM are concerning from the 7th November from 'the firm online'

*The Firm ‏@TheFirmOnline
Why would someone in the BBC try to persuade me that Steven Meshham's evidence was "unreliable" and that he was a "damaged individual"*

and then to Alison Boydell

*The Firm ‏@TheFirmOnline
@AlisonBoydell Interesting coincidence that a BBC producer would contact me privately to try to do the same thing, isn't it? @smessham
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite*

I havent a clue who these people are but why would the BBC try to discredit its own witness when they were the ones doing the major investigation and stood to lose the most.

Blimey this really is a mess of the highest order with the victims being abused all over again.

Does anyone understand this and who these people are?

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