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.

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

There were lots of perpertrators, not just famous ones. This is why they need a proper investigation, not just trial by internet.

I still believe them

FrothyOM Fri 09-Nov-12 19:15:10

I meant I still believe the victims

Loveweekends10 Fri 09-Nov-12 19:16:11

I feel that this lord mac alpine saga is detracting from the real abuse allegations. Can we just have some truths please.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 19:22:09

Steve Meesham has confirmed that Lord MacAlpine was not the man who abused him. He has apologised.

He was undoubtedly abused. But not by the man who has been named all over twitter etc for weeks. And the Newsnight programme did everything but name him.

Awful. Newsnight failed to name a genuine paedophile but implicated a man who had nothing to do with the abuse of Steven Meesham.

Unbelievable.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 19:29:44

I'm more concerned about Steve Messham and how he is coping.
He must be going through hell.

The Welsh ministers seem to be determined to get the 2 reports into the public domain. Lets hope they succeed.

AnyaKnowIt Fri 09-Nov-12 19:32:58

Steve did tweet the other day saying he needed a break sad I do hope he is well as can be

VivaLeBeaver Fri 09-Nov-12 19:33:57

Steven Messham has apoligised and says it wasn't Lord McAlpine.

He said years ago the police showed him a photo of the man who abused him and they said it was Lord McAlpine. Having seen another photo now he says it wasn't Lord McAlpine.

So did the police misinform him?

member Fri 09-Nov-12 19:41:34

That's the one deduction I can make Viva but to as for why?, I do not know.

member Fri 09-Nov-12 19:44:55

And I don't understand why Steven Messham was reported to have told the Waterhouse enquiry the perpetrator was dead, how did he come by that information? Did he only realise Lord McA was alive when he did the interview for Newsnight last week?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 19:49:48

It is all a huge mess.
The 'mistaken identity' thing makes sense only if he was shown a picture of a different man. Why would that happen?

Awful for him. He has behaved impeccably - apologising as soon as he realised - yet it seems unlikely that he is responsible for the mistake.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 19:52:18

He named the man in the 90's so why havent the police corrected this now. Did they wait for Steve to be in a position where he could be totally discredited and BINGO its all a giant over reaction lets shut down all the inquiries.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 19:54:25

There is a filmed interview of Steve Messham saying that his abuser toild him who he was.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 19:55:24

As has been said, more hurt, more confusion, more mess, more questions. So sad.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 19:56:07

I don't think he is discredited is he? Ithink the people naming names on twitter are.
I can't see enquiries being closed down when none of the issues have changed except for the police and Newsnight looking even more incompetent.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 19:57:55

Did the BBC do their interview with him and release their report without showing Steve a photo and making sure who Steve was talking about?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 19:58:42

If the mistaken identity article theory is right, he could have.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 19:59:39

Someone on Channel 4 News actually said that if Theresa May knew what has now been revealed, would she have called an inquiry into an inquiry.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 19:59:40

Yes. Apparently so. Perhaps having the name made them confident

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 20:01:13

If Newsnight did that, then together with pulling the Savile report, people are going to start asking what is going on at Newsnight.

member Fri 09-Nov-12 20:01:17

I hope it'll do the opposite Mrs Crumps - surely this underlines that the initial inquiry wasn't rigorous enough? Seeing the pile of paper Sian Griffiths had on her kitchen table last night ( one sheet for each complainant)

member Fri 09-Nov-12 20:02:49

yet only a handful of convictions.

member Fri 09-Nov-12 20:05:02

And the list of 60 names Cllr Gregory has that people in self-help groups disclosed.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 20:05:21

Ann Clywd was very good on Channel 4 News. She wants the Jillings report published.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:08:00

They are using the victims of the most terrible crimes as some sort of pawns in a very sick and twisted power game. What the hell are newsnight playing at.
Do they not realise how vulnerable this man is.

No way did he spend years having one name in his head and then oops wrong. The name was either given to him or he has been scared off. If he named the man in the 90's then its on a piece of paper somewhere, maybe on the dining room table of someones house.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:09:33

I saw Ann Clewd and also thought she was very good. You could feel her anger and frustration about to explode.

I cant see her giving up without a fight.

AnyaKnowIt Fri 09-Nov-12 20:10:11

Mrcrumpswife - I was just thinking the same sad

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:14:24

Mrcrumpswfe

Have you read the mistaken identity article?

He may well have given the 'right' name but named the wrong man.

It's not an oops, wrong name situation.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:16:38

have you got a link Pag?

hiddenhome Fri 09-Nov-12 20:19:21

There was an old article linked on MN about three weeks ago which named McAlpine, before all this naming business came about. It was one of those conspiracy theory websites which are now being noticed as their content seems to be spookily accurate.

member Fri 09-Nov-12 20:21:34

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/11/09/steve-messham-statement-2/

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:21:40

here

The relevant bit read along the lines 'another member of the MacAlpine family who lives locally may have been mistaken for Lord MacAlpine'

The idea that it is a complicated Tory conspiracy is rattled slightly by the fact that the police see to have stitched up a 'prominent member of the Tory Party' and let off a local man with the same family name - and who had died at the time Steve Messham gave evidence that his abuser was dead

member Fri 09-Nov-12 20:22:07
Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:22:56

Hiddenhome
confused
If it named lord MacAlpine then it wasn't accurate.

hiddenhome Fri 09-Nov-12 20:24:41

Okay smile

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:25:19

smile

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:29:46

I saw that article earlier but surely if it was another McAlpine, especially one who is no longer alive then it would have been far simpler to just lump it on yet another deceased abuser.

This doesnt answer anything really it just creates a whole set of even more confusing questions.

Maybe the police kept SM in the background for years as a patsy in case they ever needed to discredit the whole story of abuse. JS has thrown it all up in the air.

Now i sound like a ridiculous conspiracy theorist..

I hope Steve has a good family and friends supporting him right nowsad

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:33:11

Yes. I'm sorry but that does sound like ridiculous conspiracy theory IMO.

I think they fucked up the investigation. I think they were sloppy and uninterested.
I think the 'Tory conspiracy' theories are massively undermining any chance of a full and reasonable enquiry.

hiddenhome Fri 09-Nov-12 20:35:26

I hope not. I hope someone manages to unravel all this mess.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 20:35:39

There was a guest on Newsnight the other night saying that the lat enquiry was a good one and that there is no need for another one.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 20:35:46

grin i will accept you agreeing with my madness!

I dont think we will ever get any honest answers and that makes me sad and angry.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:40:03

And...
Steve Mesham may well be at the start of a process which confirms and acknowledges his abuse by a man who died several years ago.

I am astounded that so many people are acting as if the fact that his abuser wasn't a prominent Tory, means that it is irreverent and investigation might stop as the 'story' is over.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:40:28

grin at mrcrump

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 20:42:16

Has a photo of this man who died several years ago been shown to Steve Messham? Will this be investiagted further?

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 20:47:47

If all else fails, I expect it might get investigated when Lord MacAlpine sues the fuck out of lots of people

tiredemma Fri 09-Nov-12 20:49:27

I feel so desperately sad for Steven Measham. You only have to look at his eyes to see that he's haunted by his childhood experiences. I hope he is ok. Any investigation MUST continue. Something smells fishy to me. As if some kind of 'distraction' is going on.

i would very much like to hear what william hague has to say. his silence is deafening.

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:00:34

I dont think Lord McAlpine will sue anyone other than Newsnight, who will then make an out of court settlement of an undisclosed amount.

Its a sick game that they are winning. We are no longer asking who handed over the keys to savile for Broadmoor, who let him have access to children in carehomes and what hospitals allowed him access to very sick children.

First round to the Establishment.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 09-Nov-12 21:01:49

But if Newsnight didn't name him then can he sue? Can't NN just say they weren't talking about him???

Mrcrumpswife Fri 09-Nov-12 21:04:46

I hope they can Viva but i'm not sure if it will be that easy.

Tom Watson started the ball rolling by asking the question in PMQs and then stating he wasnt referring to Morrison.

We still dont know who he was referring to and its all been forgotten in this part of the alleged cover up.

Darkesteyes Fri 09-Nov-12 21:05:38

Mr Crumpswife i think the questions that seem to have stopped being asked might start to be asked again soon.
I saw a tweet from Mark Williams Thomas that said the second Exposure prog about Savile is going out on Weds 21st November.

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 21:06:16

Lord McAlpine should sue the police officers who told Steve he was the man who abused him.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 21:10:35

If I were lord MacAlpine I would be after a few on twitter.
And Philip Schofield.

Pagwatch Fri 09-Nov-12 21:12:05

VivaLeBeaver
Newsnight coudn't defend that. They had filmed bits naming him.

Darkesteyes Fri 09-Nov-12 21:15:51

I didnt agree with the way it was done by Scofield. It was done in a very sensationalist way. It is NOT salacious celebrity gossip. They are very serious heinous crimes.
A month ago Schofield was questioning the victims asking them "Why come forward now"
I dont think This Morning is the right programme to be discussing this subject.
I think Ch 4 news coverage has been exemplary very professional and done in a sensitive way.

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 21:16:17

What on earth was Phillip schofield playing at, bandying some piece of paper about like that?

I think an awful lot of people were very eager to see a Tory conspiracy in all this. There's still no evidence of one. Tom Watson used parliamentary privilege in a quite shocking way. Highly irresponsible.

Darkesteyes Fri 09-Nov-12 21:22:16

I dont think its wanting to see a Tory conspiracy at all.
I think its people are fed up seeing people higher up in society seeming to get away with more law breaking and wrongdoing than those lower down the socio economic scale.
eg no punishments for tax evasion and home flipping but now will fine you 50 pounds if you fill a benefits form in wrongly whether intentionally or not.
As for media witch hunts.... they dont seem to mind when its the disabled/unemployed or single parents on the wrong end of the witch hunts.

i don't think anyone on these threads has thought, or said, it's a 'tory' conspiracy. there are people in all parties implicated.

it is a matter of power and the abuse of it rather than what colour ribbon you package it with.

CFSKate Fri 09-Nov-12 21:32:31

link

"A local councillor who was also a victim of abuse at Bryn Estyn told The Guardian that he believed a different member of the McAlpine family may have been mistaken for Lord McAlpine.

Several sources have suggested that Mr Messham may have been referring to Jimmie McAlpine, who chaired the building firm Alfred McAlpine Ltd, and who lived in Chester, near Wrexham.

The Waterhouse inquiry into the abuse allegations recorded that, according to Mr Messham’s statement to the police, “X (the letter used to hide the identity of the McAlpine family member) had several different motor cars and would wait for him at the bottom of Bryn Estyn Lane.”

Jimmie McAlpine, who is now dead, had one of the largest private collections of cars in Britain."

MrsjREwing Fri 09-Nov-12 21:35:56

I don't think there was tory bashing at all either, it was in my case concerns about those in powerfull positions abusing power, people, collusions, conspiracy and incompetancy.

Darkesteyes Fri 09-Nov-12 21:45:37

it is a matter of power and the abuse of it rather than what colour ribbon you package it with

YES THIS!

Chubfuddler Fri 09-Nov-12 21:48:09

Yes I agree.

Tom Watson abused his power when he used parliamentary privilege to make unfounded allegations.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 21:52:05

Why were Tom Watson's allegations unfounded?

poachedeggs Fri 09-Nov-12 22:04:23

I think it suits a lot of people to package this as an attempt to smear the Tories.

MooncupGoddess Fri 09-Nov-12 22:48:39

Newsnight is currently apologising its arse off and running long quotes of people slagging Newsnight off. It's extraordinary. How could they have got it so wrong, so soon after the original Savile mess-up?

AnyaKnowIt Fri 09-Nov-12 22:53:15

I can't believe what I'm seeing. Could this be the end of newsnight?

Ladyjaxo Fri 09-Nov-12 22:54:26

Wow , watching newsnight and something seems iffy as if all this is trying to distract away from the fact there was a paedophile ring, tom Watson was right, the media is pushing back, why is no one talking about Sians documents from last nights ch4 news. No name was broadcast by newsnight last week and the speculation has existed for years...What has happened to investigative journalism.

MooncupGoddess Fri 09-Nov-12 22:56:15

It's all appalling tbh. Everyone should just back off and leave it to the police. I really feel for all the abuse victims caught up in this.

FiercePanda Fri 09-Nov-12 22:57:43

Eddie Mair deserves a stiff drink, his "no-one from the BBC was available to comment...*long, dramatic pause*" was as sublime as it was ridiculous.

Ladyjaxo Fri 09-Nov-12 22:58:26

I think its newsnight arse covering sounds like lawyer speak and people protecting their own jobs. Much like the police who did the original investigations. Looks like they are trying to set it up as it was all internet rumours and discredit the allegations.

claig Fri 09-Nov-12 22:59:10

Toby Young was on Sky News Paper Report several weeks ago and said that he thought the Newsnight Savile affair might be the end of Newsnight.

The focus is off the destroyed photos and other aspects of the scandal and is on Newsnight.

izzywizzyisbizzy Fri 09-Nov-12 23:03:00

I just caught the last few minutes of newsnight and all I can say is GO ESTHER.

The system we have at the moment fails victims on all fronts.

Viviennemary Fri 09-Nov-12 23:05:08

This is certainly very strange indeed. Am I right to think that somebody has misled this man re the identity of his attacker in an attempt to 'muddy the waters'. I think some VIP's are being protected by deliberate misinformation.

FiercePanda Fri 09-Nov-12 23:06:01

"GO ESTHER"? When the ITV Savile Exposure was shown, she was saying she'd been told about Savile years ago and said nothing. "GO ESTHER" is the last thing I'd be saying right now.

MooncupGoddess Fri 09-Nov-12 23:07:23

Wonder who the acting editor of Newsnight is... suspect they will be ditched (or allowed to 'step aside') pdq and yet another acting editor appointed.

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?

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 08:57:03

We can do something about it.
We can keep it in the public arena. We can support Tom Watson. We can keep talking about it finding the links. We can also support Steve meecham.
Entwhistle is on 5live now

however you can already see the smear coming and the cover up tips - it won't be long before those who believe in paedophile rings have their own special 'loony conspiracy theorist' labels attached to them. even on these threads i've felt a change and individuals trying to turn that tide.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 09:01:40

Mark Williams-Thomas is very right, Steve is let down time and time again, care, care home, police, investigation, newsnight.

The poor man keeps trying to show the truth and gets kicked in the teeth, he is so vulnerable poor man, it wasn't his fail police told him the wrong name and nn didn't check.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 09:07:09

BBC dkrector general on BBC1 will be on in a few minutes, BBC don't give a shit about Steve, they are navel gazing again.

i don't see him as vulnerable - i mean i know logically that he is and he's up against the walls of the establishment and has suffered horrendous abuse but i don't see him as vulnerable, victim. he comes across as someone very strong and courageous to stand up against this. i'm wary of all the poor, poor man stuff.

he was certainly a very vulnerable boy and that boy will always be with him ime but i see great strength in him and i believe he can handle this and probably has to handle it. some people cannot live with lies and pretense and hiding you know? better to fight and go through all that comes with it than be complicit in the silence. i see him as one of those. i totally understand those who don't feel able or willing to stand up though - absolutely understandable. grateful though for those who do.

lots of us who have suffered abuse as children go on to be very strong, brave people not through some miracle of overcoming but.... just because that's who we are despite having had some shit stuff happen. sorry probably waffling at this stage.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 09:20:23

I read that due to his experiences as a child, understandably as an adult he has had electric shock treatment, been on medication, that to me is a vulnerable man. It wouldn't surprise me if some in mh services have harmed him too.

Director general is a cock who wouldn't even apologise to Steve when Louise asked him, he said Steve got out of nn what he wanted as a response.

maybe but then there's also a point where there's not a lot more they can do to you and you're still standing. there can be a lot of strength in that place.

MrsCurly Sat 10-Nov-12 09:45:11

@Mrscumprswife
The Firm Online is an online magazine written by Scottish lawyers.

In his BBC interview yesterday Steve Hewlett suggested the allegations about Lord McAlpine had been looked at by the BBC before but not broadcast as they could not be proven.

My understanding of the tweets you have copied out is that other journalists in the BBC were questioning the authenticity of the Newsnight story.

Abra1d Sat 10-Nov-12 09:53:29

I hope that Sally Bercow is ashamed of her insinuating tweets this week. She all but named Lord M too. I hope she is sued, too.

This is devastating for anyone to be accused of. Some here seem to be incapable of understanding how awful it is for him and his wife. Imagine if it were your father, uncle or husband.

NigellasGuest Sat 10-Nov-12 10:14:54

Two things: who misled Steven Messham and was it on purpose?
And who abused the children then?

Feenie Sat 10-Nov-12 10:20:52

I still think Steven Messham has been scared off. sad

CFSKate Sat 10-Nov-12 10:36:29
FatTuesday Sat 10-Nov-12 10:38:16

I find it really difficult to believe that Stephen Messham hasn't seen a picture of Lord McAlpine in the last 30 years and realised that he wasn't his abuser much sooner than when Newsnight reported it? Are we expected to believe that today was the first time in thirty years that he has been shown a picture of his alleged abuser? This story is full of holes.

Feenie Sat 10-Nov-12 10:41:26

Exactly.

tiredemma Sat 10-Nov-12 10:46:01

my thoughts also.

and Im so annoyed and angry that all this BBC shit now deflects from the very facts that boys were abused and that it has been consistently covered up.

this is all so wrong.

FatTuesday Sat 10-Nov-12 10:50:25

Exactly. I guess this will all be spun and pushed back under the carpet again. Very sad.

they can't push it under the carpet if enough of us know and keep talking about it - though they can twist the tide to make us conspiracy theorists, sensationalists, having partisan agendas etc etc.

i don't give a damn what party they're in. power houses are corrupt and use that corrupt power to get away with all manner of things and avoid justice. that has to stop. whether it is abusing children (at the truly horrendous end) or fiddling their expenses and committing fraud and getting away with resigning rather than criminal charges. we need high profile prosecutions to get the message across that power will not protect you from justice. the trouble being that it is those in power who would have to enforce this and are invested in the protection of power themselves confused

nightmare really and as old as the hills.

and i would add to that list banks being immune to the consequences of their own actions whilst we pay the price.

all of these things are accumulating you know? much of it is easy to sweep away because it's just about money, class, 'economics' etc. the abuse of children is a step too far though even for the most apathetic. but it is part of the same spectrum of immunity of power that needs to be smashed.

FatTuesday Sat 10-Nov-12 10:58:18

I really hope you are right!

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 11:04:59

I thought i had read somewhere that 3 separate victims had identified the same high profile man. One went missing, one died and the other was SM.

I have read so much i cant remember where i saw it.

I am off to have look.

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 11:08:36

I found a link that says another victim named the same man.

SM also remembers the police officer who dismissed his claims.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-politician-at-centre-of-childrens-homes-abuse-claims-8278146.html

It really does get confusing.

CFSKate Sat 10-Nov-12 11:16:50

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

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 11:18:02

Found itsmile

So it wasnt one victim who named the wrong man, it was 3.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-scandal-three-victims-name-1416158

hackmum Sat 10-Nov-12 11:20:02

One of the golden rules of journalism is "Never rely on a single source." Yet Newsnight appears to have done just that. They ditched the Savile investigation because they didn't have enough evidence ("only the women") but seem to have thrown caution to the winds when it came McAlpine.

Did anyone else hear John Humphrys interview George Entwhistle this morning? The man seems to have no idea of what is happening in his own organisation. He needs to get a grip sharpish.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 11:26:18

Imagine that you were abused in the 70's and 80's by someone and that you were told the name of this person.

Would you wait to be shown a picture by a journalist? Steve Messham is a bright, capable man and he's been supported by solicitors. Do you believe that nobody has ever shown him a picture of someone that he has named or that he has not looked him up in the intervening years?

There has been a very strong denial and an apology. That will probably be the end of this line of investigation.

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 11:28:03

There has been a very strong denial and an apology. That will probably be the end of this line of investigation.

That is exactly what i fear with the added threat of those abused no longer willing to come forward.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 11:37:43

Some tweeting needs to be sent to Steve, with that article showing 3 men were told by police the same name.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 11:48:12

I really wouldn't be doing much tweeting. wink

There's more to this. He is not alone.

fatfloosie Sat 10-Nov-12 12:03:22

Apologies if this has been linked to before. I haven't time to read the whole thread.

This is an extract from the original inquiry. Paras 52.16 to 52.20 are the ones pertinent to the McAlpine business.

My reading of this is that the mistaken identity may be down to a journalist and not the police.

PrincessSymbian Sat 10-Nov-12 12:12:00

The whole thing stinks more than a two week dead fish. Did no-one else notice on the newsnight report, when they were referring to the person who headed up the original inquiry, they super imposed his picture onto a window of the care home?
That seemed a bit odd to me.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 12:17:17

Don't waste too much time on the Waterhouse findings. The suppressed Jillings report is the one to read. Oh - we can't.

More than one name has been mentioned for many years. Yesterday was the tip of the iceberg in some ways.

An investigation of the various reports has been instigated. Let's hope that it's as effective as the hillsborough one. There are people that deserve justice and there are people that either need punishing or being cleared of the rumours.

The necessary information is not available to the general public at the moment

clam Sat 10-Nov-12 12:19:33

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

TheCrackFox Sat 10-Nov-12 12:27:18

I thought the same, Clam.

NapDamnYou Sat 10-Nov-12 12:33:09

Utterly harrowing interview with victim. So sad.
Thisis what we should not be losing sight of in all the Establishment contortions and navel gazing.

news.sky.com/story/1009280/care-home-abuse-victim-tells-of-sex-parties

And this article in th Telegraph from the redoubtable Eileen Fairweather says it all. I am so glad she is all over this in multiple papers.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9668284/I-do-not-doubt-men-in-smart-cars-preyed-on-boys-but-justice-requires-detective-work-not-hearsay-.html

NapDamnYou Sat 10-Nov-12 12:35:05

It doesn't matter whether they were famous or not, it's to about finding a celebrity abuser news angle ie. Top Tory, Famous Pop Person.

It matters that they abused children.

It matters that they got away with it.

NapDamnYou Sat 10-Nov-12 12:35:37

It's NOT about, sorry, not 'to'

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 13:29:09

From EF article

*Liam suffered such trauma in care that he had a breakdown at 16, and his memories today are fragmented. He began telling people of the abuse in 1989, three years before the school was closed. His social worker was deeply concerned, and promised action. But on Christmas Eve 1989, he disappeared and Liam’s files disappeared with him.
I don’t imagine that he was buried in concrete. Many Islington social workers “just” burned out, or were threatened or victimised and gave up. But the social worker’s disappearance meant Islington council could tell police investigating New Barns it had never sent children there.*

How on earth can a social worker investigating these crimes just disappear on Xmas Eve without huge publicity or did i just miss it.

if an adult goes missing there's nothing to say it has to be investigated is there? unless there is evidence to suggest something sinister. not saying it shouldn't have been investigated but that they can easily say there was nothing to investigate.

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 13:48:55

So many good people destroyed by psychopaths, the psychopaths continue to harm and avoid justice in 2012

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 15:00:32

If i went missing i'd want someone to look for me especially if i was trying to expose wrong doing and promised action then pooooof i was gone.

We live in a far stranger world than i thought.

me too mrscrump but the law would have no obligation to look for me as far as i know.

izzywizzyisbizzy Sat 10-Nov-12 15:22:03

MrsjREwing Sat 10-Nov-12 13:48:55
So many good people destroyed by psychopaths, the psychopaths continue to harm and avoid justice in 2012

Absolutely, the effects and impact on primary and secondary victims are incalculable.

izzywizzyisbizzy Sat 10-Nov-12 15:44:28

Ive just watched that interview, there are no words for the evil that is inflicted on children.

Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 16:14:56

It's strange because you would have expected SM to have looked at pictures of LM on-line over the years.

One would expect that teenage boys would have no idea which men they were with. How could they? Real names would not have been used. They would know who from their care homes were involved but why would they know the names of the men?

We need to give children in care (and indeed all children) much more confidence to report things, perhaps websites to upload things, children to be told in school if even your parents smack you report it. Only when it becomes unacceptable even to slap a child will things be likely to improve. Far too many parents day in day out slap and smack children never mind all these other things. Most abusers are known to chidlren and indeed a relative, not strangers.

CFSKate Sat 10-Nov-12 16:48:08

Perhaps SM did not look online. Many people take the internet for granted, but it's relatively new, and perhaps he has not exactly had a mainstream life.

Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 16:51:59

Perhaps. Either he did not happen to look or he didn't really home in on exactly who it was but was happy to be pulled along the stream of rumour or thirdly he was told to shut up and apologise or else. I don't believe the latter.

Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 16:53:35

Also how on earth is a picture nowadays of LM who is ill and 70 going to tell SM if someone abused him 25 years ago or whenever it was? How would he remember and secondly it would have to be a picture from 25 years ago although they are not that hard to find on line. Also if you were abused by someone you probably don't want to spend the next 20 years looking them up on line and being reminded of who they are so that's another explanation for not looking.

LM was very gracious and good to SM in his own statement and SM has been much the same back - they both come over as very decent people.

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 17:14:40

Just in case anyone hasnt read this yet from Nick Davies and somehow doubts the level of collusion and corrupt system we are living in i thought i would post it up.

From the Guardian 1997.

http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on-the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 17:15:19
Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 17:29:16

The son of the peer who made the admission was always the interesting one to me. If you have an admission and the victim is prepared to give evidence - that is usually enough to go on.

However exposing names of people not convicted is rarely fair particularly in this sort of case.

clam Sat 10-Nov-12 17:29:36

Xenia "I don't believe the latter." I do.

PrincessSymbian Sat 10-Nov-12 17:36:16

That's horrific, truely vile depraved happenings. And a token one or two people have been jailed.
Sir Ronald Waterhouse, he was the person who newsnight superimposed on the window of the childrens home.

dapplegrey Sat 10-Nov-12 18:18:19

I think Lord MacAlpine has been appallingly treated. I hope he sues whoever he can and gets maximum damages. Imagine being falsely accused of such a terrible crime like that.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 18:24:34

I find it interesting that there has been a denial and apology before the new investigation gets underway to be honest.

The truth will come out one day as it did with Hillsborough.

The Waterhouse inquiry was a strange one.

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 18:55:56

Its strange how he has waited all these years to sue when the allegations against him were made 17 years ago and he was the one who made his name public not the BBC or SM.

Speculation is one thing but to be the one to out yourself officially surely means you have confirmed the allegation is about you without anyone else knowing 100%.

No one could see what was on Phillip Schofields bit of paper or i can guarentee loads of sites would have enhanced the pic by now and listed the names. Not one has which says it all.

Viviennemary Sat 10-Nov-12 18:59:22

What a very sad sad business this is. No wonder Jimmy Savile got away with what he did. Something horrible going on here. Not quite sure what.

clam Sat 10-Nov-12 19:04:58

hmm

Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 19:12:24

It is very rarely worth suing for defamation as you just draw attention to the libel and give a platform to the accuser. It also can cost a lot of money you never recoup. Load of people who are defamed every day don't sue. Apparently the police told SM the man on the photo which is now destroyed was LM. So not SM's fault for assuming the police were giving the right name. There is no way SM could know as a young boy what the names of the various men were other than those running the care homes.

LM had no alternative as his name was so readily available on line. I found it in about 2 minutes of searching.

LM has no interest in children. Nor does his brother who in fact was pretty keen on women. That does not mean there were not a lot of men at those parties engaging in illegal acts with under age boys and most importantly we need to ensure this does not continue to happen in any context, in a child's own home and elsewhere and ensure children have a route to have it dealt with and stopped.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 19:20:40

Allegations were made against him a lot longer than 17 years ago.

Xenia Sat 10-Nov-12 19:23:46

Show us then? Most men who are sexually interested in children are like that always from a very young age, probably born like that and right through their lives and wherever they go and whatever they do that follows them. LM is married (and I am not saying you cannot be married and do these things though) and I just have not really seen that evidence. Anyway it is said it was another aide not him.

The main issue is was there a cover up and even more important in my view is how to stop these things happening again. I do feel the Government's new aim of taking more children into care just announced is a huge mistake. If you go into care you are more likely to end up in prison than at university in the UK. In many cases a not quite good birth fmaily is a better option.

Jins Sat 10-Nov-12 19:31:19

Can't show you Xenia. Jillings was never published and that concluded in 1996.

We had word of mouth back then.

I believe that the inquiry should have free rein to investigate and publish so that innocence can be proven or punishment take place. I have no idea of the guilt or otherwise of the names I've heard but those names are well known locally and I'd be keen to get my name cleared if I was one of them.

I'd like to think that Waterhouse found the culprits but let's find out once and for all and stop speculation from both sides.

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 19:32:01

LM has no interest in children. Nor does his brother who in fact was pretty keen on women.

Thats an odd thing to say about anyone unless you live with themconfused

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 20:44:10

Channel 4 announced that Mark Humphreys was also shown a photo which he identified as being his abuser and was told it was Mcalpineconfused

I hope they identify who gave them the name

Mark has since commited suicide.

www.independent.co.uk/news/libel-case-witness-found-hanged-1571222.html

Heres the link to the channel 4 piece

www.channel4.com/news/bbc-dg-newsnight-film-should-have-never-gone-out

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:13:57

DG entwhistle is gone

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:14:17

DG entwhistle is gone

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:16:13

Hmmmm patten is saying shoddy journalism, reforms and changes required. He was overwhelmed Tom daily he taking over

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:21:35

Who is his replacement. Does anyone know anything about it.
Entwhistle had 23 years with bbc. Poor sod

Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 21:27:43

I feel sorry for him.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:30:41

Tom Davy now I can't hear his name properly.
Entwhistle must be gutted.
All those years and he got his dream job and it blew up in his face.

Abra1d Sat 10-Nov-12 21:31:13

Me too. What a nightmare to be thrown into.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:33:45

He comes from Pepsi apprently not a journo but has had some years in the bbc.

Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 21:35:28

Entwistle claimed that he had no idea hat the Saville programme was about because, when warned it might fuck up the planned tribute shows, he didn't ask!..
And he claimed he had no idea about the content of the Lord MacAlpine Newsnight show until after it aired

So this man - a journalist - had no idea that Newsnight was going to name/implicate a Tory grandee. No one within his organisation told him and he had no idea. Even though it was all over twitter for the whole of the prior to broadcast.

He is either lying or deeply, deeply incompetent.
I have no sympathy.

claig Sat 10-Nov-12 21:36:55

I feel sorry for him. Mark Thompson left, then the Savile thing was revealed, and now this. He seems to have drawn the short straw in a way. But his interview with John Humphries this morning was an absolute disaster and he seemed unaware of what was going on, so however nice a guy he might be, it was ineviatble that he had to go. Otherwise the BBC would have looked like something out of a Peter Sellers Inspector Clouseau movie.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:37:00
Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 21:37:44

And this show followed his appearance before the select committee explaining how awfully Newsnight had fucked up over the Saville programme and assuring them that he was taking control of the situation....

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:38:42

Tom davie got him at last

Abra1d Sat 10-Nov-12 21:39:31

I agree that he isn't the right leader for the BBC at the present time.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:45:37

To me he appeared on his own. The surrounding exec were changing over and a lot of thompsons allies were still there. Also people who failed to get his job. He had no time to build up his team and get protection

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:48:05

Or as a conspiracy are they getting rid of people who dared to tell about saville and are replacing them with their own
Hmmmmmmmmmmm strokes chin!!!!

Runs off to find tweezers

Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 21:50:21

He was responsible for output on BBC when the decision to cancel the Saville programme was made. He is thoroughly involved in this whole situation unless you believe that it is appropriate for the man in charge of programming to have a conversation along the lines of

" George, I should warn youthat Newsnight are investigating Jimmy Saville and the revelations could necessitate the cancelling of your 4 planned tribute programmes which are centre pieces of the BBC Chistmas schedule"

"oh. righty-ho.............."

The idea that he walked, unwittingly and like a lamb into this situation is laughable. Thompson just played the 'who is left holding the baby' game better.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:52:47

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Davie

Selwyns college Cambridge

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:54:55

Tim davie tried to close 6 music. He decimated radio in his time there.
I don't think he would be good for bbc

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:56:45

The news editorial board signed off the documentary therefore entwhistle would expect to trust the board wouldn't he.

claig Sat 10-Nov-12 21:57:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 21:59:27

Anyway mac alpine wasn't named 4 names came up in twitter and he was outside the usual suspects.
He also had a tonne of lawyers advice.

claig Sat 10-Nov-12 22:00:41

'Trust is the key' we are being told.
I don't fully trust the tale we are being told.

Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 22:02:55

If I had sat before a select committee explaining and justifying the monumental fuck up that the Newsnight team, presumeably with appropriate approvals , had made, and confirmed that I - I - was ensuring that the editorial decisions would be rigorous and appropriate going forward then no. Unless I was an incompetent arse I wouldn't.

And what the board thought pales into insignificance against his statement that he had no idea what the programme content was until after it aired.

So he is supposed to be watching Newsnight like ahawk yet does not ask, has no knowledge that it is covering abuse again. Heis in charge of he BBC yet has no clue for the whole of the day of broadcast that Newsnight have said they will implicate a Tory grandee. This Internet maelstrom passes him totally by.
Was he in outer Mongolia?

Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 22:04:23

MacAlpine was named on twitter and social media. I knew MacAlpine was being named and I barely use twitter. I am a twitter twit.

ssd Sat 10-Nov-12 22:07:28

I urge everyone who hasnt read this link posted earlier to go back and read it

its posted by Mrcrumpswife Sat 10-Nov-12 17:15:19

sorry cant do links, but well worth reading

edam Sat 10-Nov-12 22:20:11

here it is as a link Nick Davies - the man who exposed phone hacking - on the original inquiry that covered up child abuse in North Wales.

HappyTurquoise Sat 10-Nov-12 22:24:16

Very sorry to see Entwistle go.

All it means is someone decent like him is left to fall on his sword while dreadful hacks get to peddle slanderous, life mangling untruths.

Did you hear the interview shouting down John Humpheys gave him this morning? Even Mr Turquoise was joining in with me with repeatedly saying 'you can't say that'! He discredited SM, and said he was an unreliable witness! Entwistle tried hard to defend SM, but Humphreys repeatedly shouted over him until he could say it with no reply. And there it was. Awful. Well done Humphrys. Any chance of further investigation into living perpetrators of crimes against SM were blown away angry Then he has a go at Entwistle. Sorry, but it is not the overall job of the director-general to check every aspect of every programme that's aired. Yes, someone should have checked it, and no doubt it was someone's job to do that. But it is not unreasonable for Entwistle not to have known about these problems until he did. His resigning achieves nothing. But of course, Humphreys loves to lay into someone and the nastier and shoutier he can be to someone (anyone) the better. Just pathetic! Humpheys probably thinks it was his shining bloody hour, too.

Levantine Sat 10-Nov-12 22:25:04

Tim Davie as DG? he's just a marketing man. I don't have any faith in him

claig Sat 10-Nov-12 22:28:30

Yes, Humphries asked tough questions. My guess is that he already knew that Entwistle would have to go, which is why he could be so tough. And Entwistle did a terrible job of defending himself, so he possibly knew that he would be going too.

claig Sat 10-Nov-12 22:29:58

Levantine, he is only temporary while they work out who a permanent replacement will be.

Pagwatch Sat 10-Nov-12 22:35:56

No. Of course it's not the job of the DG to check every programme that's aired.

If he were resigning over a challenging plot line on Tellytubbies when Dipsey really coukdn't find his hat and toddlers all over the country were left perturbed I would be right with you.

But when he is warned about Newsnight and ignores it. Then has to go in front of a select committee about Newsnight and admit terrible errors and omissions by all those involved. And then assure everyone he is all over this specific problem. I think expecting him to have some idea of what the programme is covering isn't exactly challenging his brief to an unreasonable degree.

Levantine Sat 10-Nov-12 22:37:52

Ah that makes more sense. Entwhistle was out of his depth but I do think he is a decent person

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 22:41:37

Who would want that job? Anyone decent is implicated.
I know that Murdoch lad he has experience?

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 22:44:19

Why did he go on humphries to day anyway. All the inquiries are due out tomorrow or Monday. Convenient timing

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 22:48:33

So it looks like there is no experienced bbc exec in charge of news at the moment. Managers instead of journos.

Tipsandshoots Sat 10-Nov-12 22:49:27

As Helen Bowden, Philip darthy

member Sat 10-Nov-12 23:04:04

Agree with Pagwatch. I didn't hear Humphries this morning but saw Entwhistle on Breakfast news, he kept saying how he'd put robust procedures into place since the Saville debacle; clearly they weren't robust enough! I know a DG can't micromanage but given how recently NN had itself been the subject of headlines, it's sheer stupidity to leave new systems to identify possible dodgy ground. Not only was he DG, he was Editor In Chief, maybe that should be a separate role. I hate how all of this is detracting from the real issues.

Re the Nick Davies article, is there any significance to referring to Steve Messham as Leon(he was called X during the enquiry) & juxtaposing Mr B the abuser? Obviously he called Cook, Carpenter.

edam Sat 10-Nov-12 23:13:12

Entwistle may be decent but God, he's inept in a crisis. Not only was he spectacularly useless over the original Newsnight-pulling-Saville-investigation story, and then useless in front of the select committee, he was useless again in this latest, incredibly damaging row.

Giving Humphries pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse for the fact that no, he didn't know anything about the second Newsnight investigation into 'a prominent Tory', no, he hadn't bothered to find anything out about it (really? you don't think after the first one, it might be an idea to be rigorous and have procedures in place to make sure stuff is properly sourced and checked?), no, he hadn't seen the Guardian front-page lead exposing the Newsnight story as a pile of cobblers... honestly, it was like listening to a particularly wet fourth-former explain that his homework had been eaten by the dog. Again.

Here's a tip for the next DG - when the shit hits the fan and you have to go on the Today programme or in front of a select committee, it's a good idea to do some preparation first. Oh, and being aware of really really big shit that is hitting the fan is quite important. Set up an RSS feed or something, or get your staff to mark up the press cuttings or something, ffs. Shame none of that occured to Entwistle.

Feenie Sat 10-Nov-12 23:17:22

Giving Humphries pathetic excuse after pathetic excuse for the fact that no, he didn't know anything about the second Newsnight investigation into 'a prominent Tory', no, he hadn't bothered to find anything out about it (really? you don't think after the first one, it might be an idea to be rigorous and have procedures in place to make sure stuff is properly sourced and checked?), no, he hadn't seen the Guardian front-page lead exposing the Newsnight story as a pile of cobblers... honestly, it was like listening to a particularly wet fourth-former explain that his homework had been eaten by the dog. Again.

Indeed. It is literally unbelievable. As in, as if that was what happened, I mean really? About as believable as Steven Meesham suddenly deciding he's got the wrong person, I would say.

FiercePanda Sat 10-Nov-12 23:59:32

Shouldn't Mark Thompson, former DG, be carrying some of the can? Wasn't he the one in charge when Newsnight pulled the Savile story and the Savile tribute at Christmas was shown?

JuliaFlyte Sun 11-Nov-12 00:13:14

I agree with Feenie I don't beieve this at all. Or the SM 'mistaken identity'. It's all far too convenient. They have both been hung out to dry.

rubberglove Sun 11-Nov-12 00:15:26

So far only one poster has mentioned psychopathy, and that is telling.

Only when we understand psychopathy, that there is a disproportionate representation of such people at the top of society, will we understand why humanity is hurtling to disaster.

FrothyOM Sun 11-Nov-12 07:40:40

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-jillings-report-how-the-truth-about-north-wales-child-abuse-scxandal-was-suppressed-8303903.html

A damning report that laid bare the North Wales child abuse scandal might have aired the issue of sex attacks on children in care nearly half a decade before an official judicial inquiry in 2000.

Instead copies of the report were ordered to be destroyed because the council that commissioned it feared it might be sued, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Only a handful remain, including one obtained by this newspaper.

FrothyOM Sun 11-Nov-12 07:46:24

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-north-wales-child-abuse-scandal-a-damaged-generation-waits-for-justice-30-years-on-8303901.html

WARNING:very distressing

The four brothers were subjected to physical beatings, three of them were passed around and endured terrifying abuse by paedophiles. Two are dead, one in horrifying and unexplained circumstances. The remaining two live in terror at the margins of society, racked by the fear that the men who spent years hurting them will return.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 08:17:30

I heard Entwhislte on R4 yesterday interviews by Humphries. I didn't believe him. I know people in similar jobs. I often have a working life like his. He said he was giving a talk that morning so he did not see the Guardian article. People in his job would have known. It just did not seem credible. If he knew he was so bad at this kind of interview he should have refused it or else on those questions said I will leave it to the BBC investigation.

On the post above I think it has been said for a good while that one reason one report from years ago was hidden was the Council might be sued.

I suppose the bottom line is we must stop this happening to children. Secondly the tax payer always pays.

I don't agree with rubberg though that there are many more people at the top of society doing this. I think it cuts across all classes. Whilst some people rise to the top at anything because they are happy to spend hours at it (I am like that) we should not associate that with those attracted to chidlren which is a very specific thing some seem born with.

In fact I think we should put a lot more effort into research into that, comparing what makes the sexuality of some which is not in others from birth, genes, exposure in the womb, being abused yourself etc etc That could long term be the best child protection method of all.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 08:31:12

Its almost as though everytime the focus is on the Government ie Camerons gay comment, the BBC are then thrown into the spotlight again with something even worse.

Its becoming a bat and ball session of politics and covering arses, seeing who can expose something more terrible to claim the days headlines.

What about the victims, they seem pushed to one side yet again.

I started to read the Waterhouse report out of curiosity and have only got to the 4th page and am already steaming.

One of the care homes wasnt investigated because the 2 children who had reported abuse were disabled so could not offer conclusive evidence and another home where abuse was reported fell into the year 1969 so they decided that didnt need investigating either because of the date.

It appears to be an inquiry just like Hillsborough where the remit was set to fit the answers they were prepared to give and not an ounce more. The whole feel of it is that the witnesses will be unreliable before they even answered a question.

A Man in his 70's now arrested, lets see if he grabs todays headlines to give the Beeb and Government Sunday off before the mud slinging starts again tomorrow.

That article is so sad Frothy.

i think it is a mistake, to say the least, to call sadistic raping, assaulting and manipulating children a 'sexuality'.

nick davies article is extremely thorough. thanks to whoever linked it.

tiredemma Sun 11-Nov-12 08:35:58

I remain angry about how all this BBC shit has deflected attention from the very fact that CHILDREN WERE ABUSED. This continues to need investigating.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 08:46:04

Its almost as though they are more concerned about the BBC Brand that they have forgotten about jimmy Savile and what started this whole ball rolling.

The BBC is just another business and not some God like creation for the UK.

What about the children. Its a distraction so that the public forget the questions they really want answering.

Who gave the Keys to Broadmoor to Savile and why?

What the hell happened in childrens homes accross the UK and why did officials turn a blind eye?

Why do the courts give such lenient sentences to those found guilty of sexual abuse?

Which big names were scrubbed out of reports to protect their identity?

Why havent hospital bosses been arrested for allowing a paedophile access to its vulnerable patients.

Why didnt BBC sack JS years ago?

Who was protecting JS and why?

This is just a few of many questions that need answering.

I hope the Welsh community are gearing up in the same way the people of Liverpool did to make sure they get to the truth.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 08:58:36

www.nickdavies.net/category/child-abuse/

I have read the odd story over the years of children being let down by the system. When you put them all together like the link above then you get a real feel for the true scale of the hidden horrors going on in this country.

I read the Colin Smart -Sunderland first and can honestly say i had never heard a word of what happened there.

I dont understand why and what the hell can anyone can do to stop it happening again.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 09:13:38

What can be done to stop it happening again?

1. Do not take so many chidlren into care - the Government has just announced the opposite. If you go into care you are more likely to end up in prison than university. However bad often birth parents are not quite so bad.

2. Have zero tolerance however senior anyone is for exploitative conduct (including against adolescent girls, and young women for that matter) at work and elsewhere.

3. Appoint many more women. If a boardroom is 50% women you cannot engender a culture of locker room whether that be locker room re adult women or locker room re young boys.

4. Entwhistle's replacement could be female for example (and yes some women do abuse children - there was that nursery worker etc but it is much less common than amongst men)

5. Give children the means to complain, access to email and the internet, mentors and third parties to speak to. Educate them as to what is acceptable and what is not. Monitor those caring for them.

(swallowed, we may disagree on that terminology but we don't disagree on stopping it. I think if we could stand back and try to find the causes and how to prevent men (and a few women) who sexually abuse children we would protect children best. Whether you call it a sexuality or an inclination it does in many of them seem to be there from when they are born).

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 09:17:24

On the link above this is a good example of what should be looked into again
Now sadly masses and masses of women every year falsely accuse a husband they divorce of abuse and it is terribly terribly wrong and must be stopped with much harsher punishments for the women in my view, in some cases it may of course be true.

In the piece below it is the third party evidence which would have clinched it - medical evidence of an STD being passed to the child, interviewing the child.

"The Guardian, September 2008

Police have been ordered to review their handling of the case of a judge accused of sexually abusing young children after claims that they failed adequately to investigate him because he was a friend of the chief constable.

The judge, who for legal reasons can be named only as Judge X, has been accused by his former wife of abusing children as young as 18 months of age, giving one of them a sexually transmitted infection; downloading child pornography on his computer; and using the transcripts of trials involving sexual offences for his personal gratification. The judge has denied all the allegations.

The former wife’s allegations in June 2006 were referred by social services to Dyfed Powys police, who investigated and concluded that they were baseless. The judge’s former wife then complained that the investigation had been inadequate and had the appearance of bias because, she claimed, Judge X was a friend of the then chief constable of Dyfed Powys, Terry Grange, a claim which Grange has denied.

Now a review by the Independent Police Complaints Commission has ordered Dyfed Powys police to reconsider the former wife’s complaint about the weakness of their investigation. In a summary report the IPCC’s case officer comments on the rejection of her complaint: “I fail to see how the findings can be supported without any evidence of a thorough investigation into all complaints made … it is clear that the investigation has not been completed.”

The IPCC review was told that:

· Although the former wife said she had personally witnessed Judge X naked with named young children, Dyfed Powys police failed even to interview the judge and phoned him for an off-the-record conversation, which had no evidential value;

· Although the former wife said she had witnessed Judge X downloading child pornography on his home computers and identified two sites which she claimed he had been using, Dyfed Powys police failed to seize any of the judge’s computers;

· Although she alleged that the judge had passed a sexual infection to a child Dyfed Powys police made no attempt to obtain relevant medical records;

· Although she accused him of using court transcripts for his sexual gratification Dyfed Powys failed to mention the allegation in its inquiry report.

When the former wife heard the outcome of Dyfed Powys’ investigation in January 2007 she filed a formal complaint that it was inadequate. The force considered this complaint and in July 2007 rejected it.

In August 2007 she appealed to the IPCC, who initially refused to review the handling of her complaint on the grounds that her paperwork had arrived with them six days after the statutory 28-day deadline. She sought a judicial review in the high court, which in June this year ordered the IPCC to review the case.

The IPCC review comes to no conclusion on the validity of the former wife’s allegations against Judge X. In a statement last night he told the ITV programme Wales This Week: “I only wish to state firmly that there is absolutely no truth in any of these allegations.” Nor does the IPCC make any comment on the claim that Judge X was a friend of the then chief constable, Terry Grange.

Grange, who was a spokesman on child protection for the Association of Chief Police Officers, retired with immediate effect last November after being accused of misusing force email and a credit card while having an affair.

The IPCC’s report requires Dyfed Powys police to reopen the case, initially in order to establish whether the former wife’s complaints about the original inquiry were properly handled. In a statement the police said: “The force will revisit and reinvestigate the complaints submitted, a process that will necessitate further engagement with the complainant. A new investigating officer has been appointed.”

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 09:23:21

Its William De'ath who has been arrested this morning according to Mark William Thomas on twitter.

tiredemma Sun 11-Nov-12 09:26:50

mrcrumpswife- thats exactly my thinking this morning.

So Newsnight had inferred that McAlpine was a peadophile- if the original investigations and inquiry had not been so blatantly whitewashed then we wouldn't be having all this speculation. If those in 'power' were open and honest about any findings then McAlpine would never have been suspected/involved in speculation.

But again- someone high up is hiding a massive amount of information.
Each one of your questions in your posts are going around and around in my head.

I am actually incandescent with rage about all this. Its disgraceful.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 09:28:24

Should have said Wifred De'ath

edam Sun 11-Nov-12 09:41:24

Dead right that "if the original investigations and inquiry had not been so blatantly whitewashed then we wouldn't be having all this speculation". Yet because Newsnight is so completely discredited and the DG has resigned, those in power and the media is completely distracted into a 'whither the BBC' story and NOT asking 'bleeding hell, what about the victims and the cover-ups of widespread depravity and horrific abuse'.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 09:50:49

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

tiredemma Sun 11-Nov-12 09:51:54

Ive just had to comment on the daily mail site.

Its shameful that this newspaper is trying to discredit him.

fucking rag.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 10:02:27

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/A-victim-delusions-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html

Not shameful at all. We have freedom of the press.
He may well make things up. That is why we try to have due process and do it better at least than Iran and China even if it's not always perfect.

There are a lot of substantial facts in that article which had not been in the press recently as people wanted to believe SM is God kind of thing.

That does not mean children aren't abused. They have jailed those men in Yorkshire for what they did to girls under 16. We just have to keep at it in investigating and protecting children.

I am actually quite concerned about the new database though teachers in secret are adding to in today's press run by a company called something ilke One. Parents are not told about it. We do need to get the right balance between protection and privacy, all very hard.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 10:08:54

What darabase? Can you explain a little more please, Xenia?

That Daily Mail report is disgusting. Thankfully, the comments I read corroborate that opinion.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:13:03
tiredemma Sun 11-Nov-12 10:13:22

Xenia- do you really think that people viewed SM as some kind of 'God'??

I have seen people make compassionate comments about him, ones which exude empathy and an anger towards 'The Establishment' for not investigating child abuse in North Wales.

I have never seen any evidence thus far that would place him 'up there' with God.
can you link to what you have read to prove me otherwise????

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 10:18:03

Ditto re: that database, please Xenia. As a teacher I have never contributed to such a thing, nor even heard of it.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 10:18:07

I meant that people were a bit utterly believing in him and assuming there must have been cover ups when it may simply have been there was not enough credible evidence to prosecute.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 10:18:26

Xenia are you deliberately inflammatory?

I cant see one post that has ever put Steve Messham up there with God. He is a victim of the most horrific abuse and is now a victim of shit journalism and is being abused again.

We DONT have freedom of the press, they are bound by DA notices, high court injuctions and the threat of legal action constantly. They didnt expose JS at HDLG because of the hreat of legal action.

We are told what they want us to know because they think we are too stupid to look beyond the headlines.

I no longer trust the BBC or any of them to tell me the truth.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 10:18:45

Oops, sorry, just seen that claig has done so.

tiredemma Sun 11-Nov-12 10:21:05

There was widespread abuse in North wales- there has been a cover up. With or without SM speaking to newsnight- he wasn't the only boy abused. Plenty more out there- although many more dead/missing - either through 'suicide' or suspicious death or just disappearing of the face of the earth.

i would have more faith in the system if it wasn't overwhelmingly obvious that there is a huge cover up that stinks of Establishment shit.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 10:22:12

We have a lot more freedom of the press than many countries.
I am saying read the facts in the DM article link and make up minds.

Nor am I unsympathetic to people who are abused. Many go on to abuse. Many become benefits cheats - which apparently he has. As I said on this or another thread if you go into care you are more likely to end up in prison than university. We need to keep more children at home with their families or wider families and protect them better.

Abusers pick on the vulnerable - Jimmy S appears to have done too so better means of ensuring those young people can report and stop it is what we need.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 10:24:09

So is this database similar to the one by SIMS that we use everyday for attendance registers? Yes, it has addresses and dates of birth on, as well as photos (so in a large school we know who we're talking about).
I can't see that there's anything more sinister about that than the computerised systems in doctors' surgeries.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 10:25:38

Many become benefits cheats - which apparently he has

Xenia, he was cleared of benefits fraud. hmm

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:25:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

that DM article is awful - they write that he has admitted fabricating the accusation against McA - that is not what he has done at all. i pity the people whose only picture of the world comes from reading the DM. it must be a very distorted view.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 10:29:33

He was not a benefit cheat. He was awarded 40 000 in compensation because of the abuse which he didnt know he had to declare. He was found not guilty.

As for his involvement with the charity did you not read the article properly

The libel trial was not Messham’s only day in court. He was later charged with theft, deception and false accounting involving almost £65,000 from the charity Norwas (North Wales Abuse Survivors), which he set up. But he was acquitted of all charges

There seems to be a pattern of behaviour by the authorities to discredit this man because he hasnt shut up, committed suicide or gone missing like an awful lot of the other victims have done.

it does seem staged like that to me claig. the bbc can be used any way they wish in the spin. this time it's as a fall guy and distraction tactic.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:29:55

Does this teacher's database also contain information on misbehaviour, accusations of bullying etc. Does it contain a disciplinary record of pupils? Will it be a black mark for some pupils without any ability to challenge what is on it and without parents being aware of what is being compiled on their children?

i have been out of teaching for five years now but back then there was certainly no such database that i'm aware of.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:35:10

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

grr the DM is so vile! it's just laden with spin and cynical suggestiveness. awful rag. must.not.read.anymore.dm.links.

it's laughable claig. the idea that the DG of the bbc didn't know what newsnight was going to be covering when we were chatting about it on mumsnet ffs is ludicrous.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 10:38:25

claig not that I'm aware of.

MrsjREwing Sun 11-Nov-12 10:38:30

Shame on the DM twisting the events on SM, he is a very vulnerable Man. Bastards.

edam Sun 11-Nov-12 10:45:58

The DM is not providing unbiased facts, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That's not what the Mail does. The news editor decides what the story is, knowing what will please his bosses, the most sensational right-wing angle, and they go out and twist the facts to fit. If a reporter comes back and says, hang on, actually this fight in a public place was started by a toff not the guy with facial piercings, they spike the story.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:46:12

clam, if a child has a fight in the playground and uses insults or bullies another child, do teachers have to compile reports on that? Does this go on primatry children's records? The Daily Mail often reports on similar type of things. Are they true?

'Director of civil liberties and privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, Nick Pickles, said: 'Parents will be shocked that they are being kept in the dark about how their child's information is being gathered and exactly what it is used for.'

Have Liberty and Shami Chakrabarti who are well-known and often on our media looked into these things, or is it only small less well-known organisations like Big Brother Watch? And if it is true, why haven't other civil liberties organisations told us about it or have they?

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:52:49

'The database is said to be already being used by as many as 100 local authorities, according to The Sunday Times, with 22,000 schools nationwide uploading to the service to provide a 'thread' of data that is accessible to all those working with children.'

According to the Sunday Times, 22000 schools are providing data. Don't know how many schools there are in the country. If it is true, and given that the Sunday Times is reporting it, I don't doubt it, then it will eventually probably be expanded to more schools.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 10:54:56

I know nothing about this in our LEA.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 10:56:34

These things are not often publicised because the public might not be too pleased about the civil liberties implications, but any Big Brother initiative of a large scale cannot be hidden, since so many people are involved in uploading and using the data. It is inevitable that it will eventually get out to teh general public and it is better that the mainstream media tells the public rather than bloggers in order for 'trust to be key'.

TheFallenMadonna Sun 11-Nov-12 11:08:11

We record behaviour, good and bad, in a database. Parents know about it, because they can log on and see the information for their child.

And of course we write reports about fights and bullying confused

I haven't heard of this system. Nor about LEA wide systems.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 11:10:39

'As well as basic details such as the child's address and attendance records, information about special needs and behavioural records are also included.'

According to that behavioural records are also included.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 11:14:02

On SM - they say he attacked a lawyer in court.

Also "In 2005, Messham was also cleared of a £33,000 benefits fraud. He admitted concealing savings of £40,000 – a result of compensation for the alleged abuse – when he made claims for income support and housing benefit, but insisted he had not intended to be dishonest."

I am not suggesting children are not abused but it is clear that often the victims do not make good witnesses and often because of the abuse they suffered find it harder to be clear and honest =- it's why people pick vulnerable victims and it makes the job of the CPD harder as you don't waste money on cases where there is no good evidence.

On the child database which I hope isn ot applied in private schools:

" A DATABASE containing the personal details of 8m schoolchildren is being created without parents’ knowledge by one of Britain’s biggest contractors to government.

Information gathered by teachers on pupils across the country is being uploaded up to six times a day into a database called “One” that has been created by Capita, a company that specialises in providing IT systems.

Documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal that access to the data — which includes age, sex, address, academic record, absenteeism, special needs and bad behaviour leading to exclusion — can be provided to thousands of other officials including police, NHS staff and charities.

The existence of the One database, which is already used by about 100 local authorities, has emerged two years after ContactPoint, a national database set up by the Labour government and containing millions of children’s details, was scrapped by the coalition because of security concerns.

Documents on the One database state that classroom information gathered by teachers is used to provide “a golden thread of data” that can be accessed easily by all those working with children. It will be announced later this month that youth offending teams, which include police officers, will be offered access to the information.

This weekend the Information Commissioner’s Office said it would examine whether uploading personal details into One complied with data protection laws.

Most parents are not told that detailed information gathered on their child each day can be routinely shared with other agencies and may be held indefinitely.

Nick Pickles, director of the campaign group Big Brother Watch, described it as an invasion of privacy without proper safeguards: “This is creating by stealth a cradle-to-grave digital record of every single person. It is ContactPoint by another name.

“Parents will be shocked that they are being kept in the dark about how their child’s information is being gathered and exactly what it is being used for.”

Capita has provided school management systems called Sims for many years. Councils can now upload the data from Sims into the One database for use by other agencies.

Councils are using the software to upload individual pupil information with name, address and school records.

The council databases are held separately but can offer access to any officials wanting to examine a child’s background. The records could be integrated if required into one centralised database.

Capita says it can be used to draw data “up to six times a day” from the 22,000 schools that use its management service.

The firm licenses photographers to take pictures of schoolchildren. The photographs are offered for sale to parents before being uploaded into the Capita school management database. Teachers then compile information in an electronic file with the picture of the child.

The One software in council offices uploads the information every day, but not the photographs.

Another software program — called API — can allow external agencies to look at the children’s information.

Officials, such as social workers, can also add information into the One file. Capita says this may be mapping a child’s main personal connections and noting such details as whether there is a dangerous dog in the house.

At Swindon council, information on 48,000 pupils on its Capita One database is being shared with health officials at NHS Swindon and with youth offending teams. A council official said some of the information might be held indefinitely but it would be provided only to those who needed to see it, in line with data protection laws.

Capita Children’s Services, which designed Capita One, said the sharing of such information provides a “single view” of a child to identify those who are vulnerable and may need support.

Capita said it had no available information for parents about how its system worked because local authorities managed the data. It said schools and councils took data protection rules very seriously. “Very few” councils were using the software which enabled external agencies to search the data, it added. “Capita One is not a centralised database for the whole country,” it said.

The Department for Education said there were no plans to centralise the Capita One data. It said: “The department has no plans for any ContactPoint-style database.”

TheFallenMadonna Sun 11-Nov-12 11:19:56

Ok. Reading the link, it looks like they are talking about the type of information management system we use, but focusing on its potential expansion beyond individual schools. The report says only a few areas do this now. Swindon, it seems?

So the software is available, but the vast majority of schools do not share this information outside the school. And, as I said, in our system, parents can log on and see the information for their child.

I dio't know of any secondary school that doesn't use an information management system actually.

TheFallenMadonna Sun 11-Nov-12 11:22:04

Ah, so it is an extension of sims.

We don't use sims. It's only one of a number of possible systems.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 11:28:15

feenie Do you take the register electronically?

claig In my school, we use it just for admin. In my dc's secondary school, which we can access online if I could only remember the password, I believe they log things like any detentions or order/uniform marks given, as well as how many commendations they've been given. Maybe that's what they mean.

All I've ever seen in ours is just numerical data, along with addresses and contact numbers. Anything anecdotal would be written elsewhere I think.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 11:29:16

And teachers wouldn't be 'compiling' anything - it would be an adninistrators' job. Can't see what the fuss is about, personally.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 11:29:54

Yes, clam - have done for about 14 years.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 11:31:05

adninistrators'?

administrator's

blush

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 11:32:54

They are difficult issues. Big databases mean many many more people can gain unauthorised access. Index cards at your local GP are much less at risk than an NHS wide database etc. On the other hand lack of information about teacher X or pupil Y involved in ABC not being passed on when jobs or people move can endanger people. However on balance I would say parents should give an express signed consent, have the rights to access the data regularly and be allowed to keep out of it.

The stuff on the Capita data base is far too big brotherish - who has a dog in the house, pictures of the children etc. No wonder it is in today's papers.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 11:33:13

'I can't see that there's anything more sinister about that than the computerised systems in doctors' surgeries.'

Wasn't that the worry about a national computerised record system? Issues with security of the data and who would be allowed to have access to confidential data.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 11:36:32

feenie so presumably that's part of a bigger data package, that has the scope for other information?

On the wider issue, wasn't part of the issue about children like Victoria Climbie and Peter Connolly that there was no joined-up thinking or action on the part of all the agencies who were dealing with their families? And that it was decided that a central file ought to be kept so that such children didn't get lost in the system?

i like adninistrators. adninnying around.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 11:40:18

But we live in a computerised age - all organisations and businesses run databases. We like the convenience of being able to book a doctor's appointment online, or being able to print off a child's attendance figures prior to filling in that box on their report.

Whether it's computerised or not, al professionals should know that anything they write down about a child (or patient) should be factual and accountable - not unsubstantiated hearsay, for instance (and I refer to craig's mention of a playground fight/bullying)

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 11:51:44

clam, I have googled but can't find it now. There was an article in the Daily Mail a few years ago where headteachers refused to take part in a questionnaire initiative which asked questions like what cars teachers drove and asked children whether their parents smoked or drank etc.

Blunkett said something like it was possible to spot future criminals in nursery school.

If parents don't know what comments have been made about children, then there is a danger that some things may typecast and stereotype children and if it is available for years, then there are questions about what it is being used for and if it may harm childen's prospects in the future.

I think it is about real civil liberties of the individual and a powerful, possible, future Big Brother-like state.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 11:57:22

Well, if it was a few years ago under Labour, and head teachers refused to give the information, it's not happening then, yes?

Himalaya Sun 11-Nov-12 11:57:54

What I don't understand (amongst many things...) is that originally it was reported as being "A man with the same surname as a senior Tory" I.e. a Mr McAlpine. How did this shift into being an accusation of Lord McAlpine? And then into a case of "mistaken identity".

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 11:57:55

Yes, clam. It wouldn't include behavioural stuff though. Or comments. It's purely administrative.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 11:58:47

We have had what looks like cover-ups of peadophile scandals and teh public is now incensed since the whole Savile thing brought it to the public's attention.

Repoerts need to be published and things discussed in the open in order for 'trust to be key'. We need transparency.

Similarly, we need transaparency of what data is held on children and citizens, what it is used for and by whom, in order for 'trust to be key'.

In the Stasi state, all sorts of public officials held secret records on and reported on citizens. Our civil liberties organisations are meant to ensure that that can never happen here.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 12:25:46

What I don't understand (amongst many things...) is that originally it was reported as being "A man with the same surname as a senior Tory" I.e. a Mr McAlpine. How did this shift into being an accusation of Lord McAlpine? And then into a case of "mistaken identity".

A bit of a set up maybe? No one had officially identified him, he did it himself.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 12:28:37

"It's purely administrative"

Exactly. So what's the Mail going on about? Surely not trying to stir up rage? hmm grin

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 12:43:36

LordM had to issue his statement because his name was widely available in about 1 minute of searching by anyone on line. It was not like a number of other cases where it is pretty hard to find it.

On the databas I would rather some children were left at risk that schools gathered and passed on details to a database such as whether the parents smoke, with whom do they live, income etc etc.

We need a public debate on this issues. Many of us would rather have a slightly higher risk of death from terrorists than jeopardise some freedoms.

The NHS database was abandoned by this Government I think because of those risks being too high. I woudl rather not have joined up thinking and less be known eveni f the risks are higher of damage to chidlren.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 12:44:17

Also, didn't Steve Messham say that he thought this particular abuser was dead? Why didn't the BBC ask him that? Also why did the BBC use the Bureau of Investigation or whatever it is called? How often do they use them for Newsnight reports and why use them on such an important story?

I don't believe that only the Guardian could put two and two together about this. Lots of the media must have known similar things.

Something doesn't add up.

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 12:53:13

On the databas I would rather some children were left at risk that schools gathered and passed on details to a database such as whether the parents smoke, with whom do they live, income etc etc.

I know of no database which would include that kind of information, nor of any reason why a school would record anything like that.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 12:59:01

Yes, I don't think this database does include that type of information.

There was a Mail article about a questionnaire or survey or something like that for primary school children a few years back which contained some information like that, I think. But I have googled and can't find it. If anyone has good googling skills, it would be interesting to see it. I think that headteachers refused to take part.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 13:12:54

Today's newspaper article above says the Capita database has those details or some of them.

"The firm licenses photographers to take pictures of schoolchildren. The photographs are offered for sale to parents before being uploaded into the Capita school management database. Teachers then compile information in an electronic file with the picture of the child. The One software in council offices uploads the information every day, but not the photographs. Another software program — called API — can allow external agencies to look at the children’s information. Officials, such as social workers, can also add information into the One file. Capita says this may be mapping a child’s main personal connections and noting such details as whether there is a dangerous dog in the house."

hackmum Sun 11-Nov-12 13:13:09

George Orwell once wrote words to the effect that "Just because something's in the Daily Telegraph doesn't mean it's not true."

I would apply that to the Daily Mail. Of course we should be sceptical about what we read in newspapers, particularly shit-stirring tabloid ones. But Bob Woffinden and David Rose, who wrote today's report about Steven Messham, are not DM hacks, they have a long and commendable record of investigative journalism and have published their work in many other newspapers.

hackmum Sun 11-Nov-12 13:14:12

And I also agree with Xenia about the need to be very careful about the information the government holds about us and our children. The use of databases in conjunction with the use of biometrics in schools is a cause for a concern.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 13:14:20

Out of the children in my current class, I don't even know for sure who's living with both parents, unless they've mentioned step-parents or Mum's boyfriend or whatever. None of my business to ask, either, and in most cases it's irrelevant anyway.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 13:20:14

Well, so far as the photographs go, this is true in part. We use the mini-proofs of the photos taken in the Autumn term (that have always been on sale to parents to give to Granny at Christmas) but they are from whichever photographic company comes to take the pictures - and currently we have one that insists on the kids adopting irritating whacky poses along with the traditional sort.

I have never heard of any admin staff adding information to the database about dog ownsership or things like that. I found it hard enough to track down dates of birth recently, when I took a look. But also, access to the package is severely restricted in our school. Although it's on our system, no TAs or anyone other than class teachers, management and the office staff are allocated passwords to it.

NapDamnYou Sun 11-Nov-12 14:17:32

This child database thing, could it maybe move to its own thread? It's not really topic for this one, unless I'm massively missing something.

i agree nap.

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 14:30:11

Agree, nap.

DollyTwat Sun 11-Nov-12 15:13:43

It feels like Steve messham has been hung out to dry

He's never given the Christian name of his abuser. The police told him who the photo was of. So which photo did they show him?
Why were the photos he had of being abused destroyed?
People are focussing on discrediting him rather than getting at the truth

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 16:06:02

I don't think they are. They are showing why people may be acted properly before - not enough evidence and only from unreliable people so not fair even to start destroying the lives of people potentially wrongly accused.

clam Sun 11-Nov-12 16:28:15

So, why should unreliable people with chaos in their lives have their stories not properly investigated? Or be slated in the media?

claig Sun 11-Nov-12 16:30:15

Xenia, photos were destroyed.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 16:34:50

www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/11/response-to-rob-wilson-mp

Tom watsons response to Rob Wilson MP

exactly - photos were destroyed. they only chose to investigate 'some' of the men in those photos. why? why with photographic evidence would you not investigate and prosecute?

this is a diversion.

and 'this destroying the lives' business is rubbish. if you are accused of something you have to be investigated. if investigation proves you did not do it then your name is cleared.

when someone says someone murdered joe blogs on saturday night as the sole witness they don't say oh we better not investigate because we wouldn't want to ruin someone's reputation.

child abuse, rape of children and adults, etc should be no different. if a complaint is made it needs to be investigated. the 'ruin lives' business is just yet again an implication that children and women (the main victims of sexual assaults) lie.

bananaistheanswer Sun 11-Nov-12 16:37:51

Xenia I think it's overly simplistic to say too many unreliable witnesses therefore not enough evidence to even begin to look into what was alleged to have been done to those who were abused. No one should be dismissed out of hand as a witness because they have mental health issues, when it is highly likely those issues have been caused or compounded by the very abuse that had been alleged. I do think that a completely different approach has to be taken when dealing with 'vulnerable' witnesses, and while the allegations made might not stack up due to inconsistencies etc. I think it's too easy to say nothing should be done with the information that is gathered from vulnerable/unreliable witnesses. Karin Ward would also be considered 'unreliable' given her background and history, and yet if she and others who were vulnerable hadn't had the courage to speak out about JS, others affected wouldn't have also come forward to give vulnerable witnesses/victims the corroboration that goes some way to overcoming the 'unreliable' tag their backgrounds automatically label them.

NapDamnYou Sun 11-Nov-12 16:38:41

If the Mail dares to write my sanctimonious shite about how abuse victims need to come forward and tell their stories, after putting the boot into Stephen Messham like that, I will be sick.

DollyTwat Sun 11-Nov-12 16:45:35

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

it is odd they would be shown 'a' photo, asked if that was him and then given his name.

that doesn't seem normal. surely you'd give a selection of photos to see if they could/would identify the same person thus corroborating. to show them one photo suggests they knew the person in the photo was a part of it and then they fed them a name?

it's not how police work is done is it?

Darkesteyes Sun 11-Nov-12 17:00:51

XeniaSun 11-Nov-12 10:22:12

We have a lot more freedom of the press than many countries.
I am saying read the facts in the DM article link and make up minds.

Nor am I unsympathetic to people who are abused. Many go on to abuse. Many become benefits cheats - which apparently he has.

Yep i wondered how long it would be before you would bring something like that into it.
Why have you called him a benefits cheat when he was cleared of it. Couldnt he sue you for that? Havent you done the same thing to him that you were frothing about people doing to McAlpine.?!
I think the DMs article is disgusting.
Who destroyed those photos. Who ordered them to be destoyed?
What about the documents Sian Griffiths has which corroborate what SM said about those photos and much more.
But in Xenias world working class =liar.
While the BBC eats itself the victims are being sidelined yet again. Makes me so angry.

DollyTwat Sun 11-Nov-12 17:22:33

Exactly darkesteyes
He was cleared of benefit fraud
The way I see his 'record' is one of someone who is continually hounded
When he tries to speak up the press destroy him
Disgusting

amummienetter Sun 11-Nov-12 17:29:13

An excellent post post Darkesteyes

A truly disturbing comment from David Mellor. Victims are now called 'wierdo's'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/11/david-mellor-steve-messham-weirdo

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 17:29:27

He admitted concealing savings of £40,000.
"In 2005, Messham was also cleared of a £33,000 benefits fraud. He admitted concealing savings of £40,000 – a result of compensation for the alleged abuse – when he made claims for income support and housing benefit, but insisted he had not intended to be dishonest."

MrsjREwing Sun 11-Nov-12 17:29:31

DM are naming exposure's De'Ath as the arrest this am.

amummienetter Sun 11-Nov-12 17:31:34
bananaistheanswer Sun 11-Nov-12 17:31:56

He was cleared of benefit fraud.

Darkesteyes Sun 11-Nov-12 17:38:18

Wilfred De"ath was the one who saw JS with a 12 yr old girl in a hotel which he admitted in the Exposure documentary.
Just think what evidence COULD have been destroyed in the past six weeks.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 17:38:52

Yes he was indeed. I certainly agree that those who come forward to disclose abuse should be listened to. The problem seems to be in some cases obtaining enough evidence to make a conviction possible although we have had quite a few successful prosecutions. I don't think the position is totally hopeless at all.

Darkesteyes Sun 11-Nov-12 17:40:22

1857252241

ISBN 13:

9781857252248

Publisher:

TIMEWELL PRESS

Pub. date:

3 April, 2008

Pages:

256

Description:

Born in 1937, Wilfred De'Ath's outwardly conventional early life in suburban London was dominated by the overpowering puritanism and fanatical patriotism of his mother, the daughter of a German pastor. In the De'Ath household Hitler was idolised and every German victory heartily celebrated. This is a memoir by England's best-loved reprobate.

Synopsis:

Born in 1937, Wilfred De'Ath's outwardly conventional early life in suburban London was dominated by the overpowering puritanism and fanatical patriotism of his mother, the daughter of a German pastor. In the De'Ath household Hitler was idolised and every German victory heartily celebrated. On shopping expeditions with his mother during the Blitz, young Wilfred had to endure the spectacle of his mother giving Nazi salutes and shouting 'Heil Hitler!' to her friend and compatriot, Mrs Maybury.This singular upbringing may account for De'Ath's subsequent ill treatment of his own family and the abandonment of a charmed career in journalism which brought him much acclaim for his interviews with figures as diverse as Mick Jagger, Margaret Thatcher, John Lennon, PG Wodehouse and the Archbishop of Canterbury and as a ground-breaking radio and television producer (one of his discoveries was Kenny Everett). Instead he chose a life of vagrancy and petty crime - totting up ten years behind bars in the process - not to mention his lifelong twin obsessions with sex and religion.A self-confessed voyeur who was recruited by MI5 to befriend a Russian spy at an orgy, De'Ath was a sexual predator whose victims included Susanna York, Sarah Miles, Julie Christie, Julia Foster and Charlotte Rampling.A godless but enthusiastic churchgoer, he made a career out of exposing the peccadilloes of Anglican clergymen in Private Eye, whose editor, his Oxford contemporary Richard Ingrams, later commissioned a long-running column in the Oldie retailing his experiences at the hands of plodding policemen, mad magistrates, crazy criminals and sadistic screws. In "Uncommon Criminal", an unrepentant sinner looks back at his deplorable but colourful life with a candour bordering on relish which will disgust and delight in equal measure.

bananaistheanswer Sun 11-Nov-12 18:01:25

This is something that bothers me about this 'unreliable' witness tag SM has. He had been awarded at least £40k in compensation for the abuse he suffered so he was reliable enough to be believed that he was abused, with medical evidence to support the suffering he's endured. So the 'what' and 'how' is considered reliable enough to warrant a significant award in compensation. But when it comes to the 'who' 'when' 'where' his evidence is too unreliable to even investigate his allegations? When he provides photos that could go some way to establishing some of the 'who' which could clear up some of the 'unreliable' aspects of his evidence, those are ordered to be destroyed?

I think it's one thing to discredit someone, it's another entirely to dismiss the credibility that does exist and supports the unreliable aspects of someone's allegations.

The whole thing in rotten to the core IMO.

FiercePanda Sun 11-Nov-12 18:13:05

An examination of the Daily Fail's smearing of Steven Messham is here, and damn right it is too.

How are other victims of abuse meant to feel able to come forward when THIS is what they're facing?

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 18:19:18

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

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 18:24:49

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

Abra1d Sun 11-Nov-12 18:32:12

'"As for McAlpine, if the man had any sense of decency and honour (which de facto as a Tory scumbag he doesn’t), he’d be hiding in shame at his relative’s perverted acts instead of threatening to sue."

Too bloody right.'

OFGS.

Why should he be 'hiding in shame'? Do we even know how close a kinship it is? My aunt's husband raped two of her nephews (my cousins). Does that mean I should be hiding in shame, too?

dapplegrey Sun 11-Nov-12 18:34:00

Feenie - is Lord M's relative definitely guilty of abuse?
If it was a Labour politician who was mistakenly accused of a crime which had in fact been carried out by a relative, do you think he should hide his head in shame and not sue for defamation?

FiercePanda Sun 11-Nov-12 18:34:13

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

VivaLeBeaver Sun 11-Nov-12 18:34:44

But is it actually a relative of his? All his relatives will be suing next?

Can Mcalpine really sue Sally Bercow? She tweeted "why's McAlpine trending, innocent face"

Surely she can argue that it was a genuine question? Would be hard to prove otherwise. hmm

chipstick10 Sun 11-Nov-12 18:37:17

Why is it fair game to call someone a Tory scumbag!.

Abra1d Sun 11-Nov-12 18:43:04

Lord M is right to threaten Sally B and George Monbiot. As far as I can see none of the heavies have mentioned him suing SM. Yesterday (or Friday) Lord M actually sounded quite measured in his statement about SM, saying he appreciated that he had been through an awful experience as a child.

Where has this suing of SM by LM come from?

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 18:44:26

Lord M's relative was very keen on women. It is extremely unlikely he was involved with boys. Sadly he is dead so not in a position to defend himself.

Here is McAlpine's statement it is a very well worded and kind statement which shows huge sympathies for victims. This is not a party political issue.

Over the last several days it has become apparent to me that a number of ill- or uninformed commentators have been using blogs and other internet media outlets to accuse me of being the senior Conservative party figure from the days of Margaret Thatcher's leadership who is guilty of sexually abusing young residents of a children's home in Wrexham, north Wales, in the 1970s and 1980s.

It has additionally become apparent to me that a number of broadcasters and newspapers have, without expressly naming me, also been alleging that a senior Conservative party figure from that time was guilty of or suspected of being guilty of the sexual abuse of residents of this children's home.

It is obvious that there must be a substantial number of people who saw that I had been identified in the internet publications as this guilty man and who subsequently saw or heard the broadcasts or read the newspapers in question and reasonably inferred that the allegation of guilt in those broadcasts and newspapers attached to me.

Even though these allegations made of me by implication in the broadcast and print media, and made directly about me on the internet, are wholly false and seriously defamatory I can no longer expect the broadcast and print media to maintain their policy of defaming me only by innuendo.

There is a media frenzy and I have to expect that an editor will soon come under pressure to risk naming me. My name and the allegations are for all practical purposes linked and in the public domain and I cannot rewind the clock.

I therefore have decided that in order to mitigate, if only to some small extent, the damage to my reputation I must publicly tackle these slurs and set the record straight. In doing so I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.

On Tuesday 6 November the home secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, made a statement in the House of Commons about the historic allegations of child abuse in the North Wales police force area. She explained that in 1991, North Wales police conducted an investigation into allegations that, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, children in homes that were managed and supervised by Clwyd county council were sexually and physically abused. The result of the police investigation was eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Despite the investigation and convictions, it was widely believed, she said, that the abuse was in fact on a far greater scale, but a report produced by Clwyd council's own inquiry was never published, because so much of its content was considered by lawyers to be defamatory.

In 1996, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, the then secretary of state for Wales, invited Sir Ronald Waterhouse to lead an inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the Gwynedd and Clwyd council areas. Mrs May told the House of Commons that the Waterhouse inquiry sat for 203 days and heard evidence from more than 650 people. Statements made to the inquiry named more than 80 people as child abusers, many of whom were care workers or teachers. In 2000, the inquiry's report Lost in Care made 72 recommendations for changes to the way in which children in care were protected by councils, social services and the police. Following the report's publications, 140 compensation claims were settled on behalf of the victims.

Mrs May further said that the report found no evidence of a paedophile ring beyond the care system, which was the basis of the rumours that followed the original police investigation and, indeed, one of the allegations made in the past week. Last Friday, a victim of sexual abuse at one of the homes named in the report – Mr Steve Messham – alleged that the inquiry did not look at abuse outside care homes, and he renewed allegations against the police and several individuals. I am, as is now well known to readers of the internet and to journalists working for the print and broadcast media, one of the individuals implicated by Mr Messham.

I have every sympathy for Mr Messham and for the many other young people who were sexually abused when they were residents of the children's home in Wrexham. Any abuse of children is abhorrent but the sexual abuse to which these vulnerable children were subjected in the 1970s and 1980s is particularly abhorrent. They had every right to expect to be protected and cared for by those who were responsible for them and it is abundantly clear that they were horribly violated. I have absolutely no sympathy for the adults who committed these crimes. Those who have been convicted were deservedly punished and those who have not yet been brought to justice should be as soon as possible.

The facts are, however, that I have been to Wrexham only once. I visited the local constituency Conservative Association in my capacity as deputy chairman. I was accompanied on this trip, at all times, by Stuart Newman, a Central Office agent. We visited Mary Bell, a distant relative of mine and close friend of Stuart Newman. We did not stay the night in Wrexham. I have never been to the children's home in Wrexham, nor have I ever visited any children's home, reform school or any other institution of a similar nature. I have never stayed in a hotel in or near Wrexham, I did not own a Rolls-Royce, have never had a "Gold card" or "Harrods card" and never wear aftershave, all of which have been alleged. I did not sexually abuse Mr Messham or any other residents of the children's home in Wrexham. Stuart Newman is now dead but my solicitors are endeavouring to locate a senior secretary who worked at Central Office at the time to see if she can remember the precise date I visited that association.

I fully support the decision (announced by the home secretary in the House of Commons on Tuesday) of the chief constable of north Wales, Mr Mark Polin, to invite Mr Keith Bristow, the director general of the National Crime Agency, to assess the allegations recently received, to review the historic police investigations and to investigate any fresh allegations reported to the police into the alleged historic abuse in north Wales care homes. Although I live in Italy and have done so for many years and although I am in poor health, I am entirely willing to meet Mr Polin and Mr Bristow in London as soon as can be arranged so that they can eliminate me from their inquiries and so that any unwarranted suspicion can be removed from me.

I wish to make it clear that I do not suggest that Mr Messham is malicious in making the allegations of sexual abuse about me. He is referring to a terrible period of his life in the 1970s or 1980s and what happened to him will have affected him ever since. If he does think I am the man who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person.

I conclude by reminding those who have defamed me or who intend to do so that in making this statement I am by no means giving up my right to seek redress at law and repeat that I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.

ninah Sun 11-Nov-12 18:46:10

a liking for women and a liking for boys can co-exist
just look at savile

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 18:48:33

I know but he was married several times and liked women. Savile never married and liked the young. That is quite a difference. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever to malign this family.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 18:49:17

In fact it was policemen wasn't it who apparently said of the now destroyed picture - to SM - this is Lord M (when it wasn't). They might have had it in for that family or just got it wrong.

Abra1d Sun 11-Nov-12 18:51:37

Can we have the link showing that Lord McAlpine is suing Steve Messham (as opposed to any BBC journalists, Sally B, or George M), please?

Does it exist?

FiercePanda Sun 11-Nov-12 18:55:48

I mistakenly thought McAlpine was considering suing SM as well as Sally Bercow and George Monbiot. After reading his statement (thanks, Xenia), I realise he's not. Apologies.

The Daily Mail and David Mellor are still horrible for what they've said.

Mrcrumpswife Sun 11-Nov-12 18:57:44

How can he sue Sally Bercow? She asked a question and didnt accuse him of anything.

ninah Sun 11-Nov-12 18:59:42

it does indeed seem that the evidence for maligning anyone at all - apart from SM himself - has disappeared into the ether

Darkesteyes Sun 11-Nov-12 21:07:43

chipstick10Sun 11-Nov-12 18:37:17

Why is it fair game to call someone a Tory scumbag

Why is it fair game to call SM a benefit cheat when he has been cleared of that?

Feenie Sun 11-Nov-12 21:12:46

Feenie - is Lord M's relative definitely guilty of abuse?

I have no idea - conveniently, he appears to be dead. hmm

If it was a Labour politician who was mistakenly accused of a crime which had in fact been carried out by a relative, do you think he should hide his head in shame and not sue for defamation?

Yes - of course, without question. I agreed with the sentiment of the comment - the politics are irrelevant (although often seem to be a common denominator atm).

edam Sun 11-Nov-12 21:15:00

Very dignified statement. I do feel tremendously sorry for Lord McAlpine and for poor Steve Meesham, who clearly didn't intend to accuse an innocent man.

Curious fact, though, that Lord McA has a relative named Mary Bell - a name that is a legal phrase, IIRC (isn't it a Mary Bell order that prohibits the naming of a child criminal?). I guess there probably have been many people called Mary Bell down the years given neither is a particularly unusual name, just another weird thing about this deeply weird story.

Xenia Sun 11-Nov-12 22:04:17

If he has any sense he will sue no one. It will cost a fortune and just keep people going on and on about it. Most people libelled are best advised to leave well alone.

edam Sun 11-Nov-12 22:52:52

Very true in general Xenia but Jesus, if anyone had a case, it's got to be McAlpine. Poor man is apparently Not Well At All though so possibly not up for a nasty fight that could last for years.

Tipsandshoots Sun 11-Nov-12 22:54:41

Fiercepanda
-that's a brilliant link.
It also links through to a great article about the journo who wrote it.
It's asks a really good question who is he and what is his agenda.

tompride.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/child-abuse-scandal-can-of-worms-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/

greenfern Sun 11-Nov-12 22:59:29

Fiercepanda great link, makes alot of sense.

frankie4 Sun 11-Nov-12 23:04:32

What I don't understand is...

The BBC was slated because it did not show documentary about JS being a suspected pedophile, even though there was no legal evidence to support this.

However, now the BBC has now been slated for showing programme accusing McA of abusing children as there was no legal evidence to support the case.

I don't really understand the difference.

PrincessSymbian Sun 11-Nov-12 23:06:28

Jimmy Saville was dead and you can't libel the dead? Possibly that is the difference?

amummienetter Sun 11-Nov-12 23:08:35

#DavidRose - lot's of questions on twitter tonight regarding David Rose. He's definitely being portrayed as a serial abuse denier.

MooncupGoddess Sun 11-Nov-12 23:08:37

Yes - and also, Newsnight had several witnesses to Savile's behaviour (and a long history of rumour and suspicion), but only one for Lord MacAlpine.

PrincessSymbian Sun 11-Nov-12 23:10:51

Plus the two dead victims but I am guessing they would not have counted for the purposes of this program.

frankie4 Sun 11-Nov-12 23:15:50

But surely the whole argument cannot rest on the quality of the witnesses. It seems the BBC is being accused of airing a programme that it shouldn't have as it had no evidence, when previously the BBC was accused of not airing JS programme even though there were only a few witnesses in the programme who had never been heard in court before.

Very interesting all the information about David Rose, and whether he even exists!! I will be reading all those links tonight and my early night will not be happening!

I think it would be good if the media etc listened to this politician (not all Tories are scumbags)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20286202

Tim Loughton former children's minister
"We really mustn't forget that this is about child abuse," he said.

"This is about vulnerable children and young people, going back many decades, who have been subject to pretty horrific abuse," Mr Loughton said, who was a children's minister until September.

"In the vast majority of cases, it is by ordinary people, people in positions of trust who are there to look after them and singularly failed.

"I fear the publicity around the witch-hunt of celebrities and high-level figures is detracting from the real purpose - which is to root out child abuse that has gone on in the past, bring the perpetrators to book, give the victims some closure and make sure that it's not happening in 2012."

Whilst I can understand people's interest in the celebrity and possible links to the corridors of power aspects I think the focus has to remain on getting the right result for the victims of the abuse. It is important to me to see them get justice, which doesn't seem to be happening yet, whether or not the abusers are dustmen or Peers of the Realm.

Tipsandshoots Sun 11-Nov-12 23:45:02

Hmmmm but dustbin men can't influence judges, police etc

Tipsandshoots Sun 11-Nov-12 23:46:41

Hmmmm but dustbin men can't influence judges, police etc

Tips
The problem is that the story is now becoming about the BBC, Newsnight and the misidentification of LMcA. Perhaps if the focus moved back on to the abuse that actually happened and how it was investigated instead of possible high profile abusers we would get a better result.

frankie4 Sun 11-Nov-12 23:57:06

Xenia. Totally unrelated to all the above. But it is possible to be married, to like women and to also abuse children - both boys and girls. Unfortunately it is not the case that married men do not abuse children, as some have done.

Additionally, a female friend of mine had lots of partners, was married 3 times, and then realised the reason she could not settle was because she was gay, and is now in a secure lesbian relationship.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 07:13:52

Chaz - I get your point but this is what has happened in the past a few plebs are thrown to the wolves and the caravan moves on as it appears it is too hard, too complicated, to expensive to go after the more powerful. From my point of view you can get pleb abuser he may have access to a few local children but it's the High profile people who abuse 1000's .who industrialise the access to vulnerable children. Who allow others to abuse who appear to be the enablers who ignore children in police stations, who allow other abusers to walk free who change laws and processes for their purposes.. That's why I think if you go after the top you will hopefully clear out a load of enablers who have protected the worst of the worst. I read about jersey and islington with horror.
Though the news now is about taking entwhistle contractual payment if him
Who has called for that.
Harriet harmen hmmmmm distraction technique do we think?
Was she a member of PIE?

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 07:17:20

The top bods are still there in jersey they are still in their places of power. Stopping investigative journo entering jersey etc
I always think of the 65 children's teeth found in the basement.

HesterBurnitall Mon 12-Nov-12 07:20:08

The Australian PM has just announced a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in Australia that will consider churches, schools, sporting institutions, scouts, the police and any other institution implicated. All kicked off by a Lateline story with a senior police officer who broke ranks.

It's horrible to watch the focus in the UK swing onto Newnight and the BBC and away from the plight of the victims.

You have to consider how convenient it is for people to become consumed by what's happening at the BBC when it is trivia compared to what was done to children in a variety of institutional settings.

but chaz that is exactly the deal we're being offered isn't it? if you forget about high profile people, if the media looks the other way on the higher end of this again, we will offer you up a few more 'plebs' to prosecute just as we did last time.

yes of course the child abuse is the focus but abuse of power in this country by people in positions of 'high' trust is an important matter. and child abuse in the higher echelons (re: the judicial and political system) creates a climate of non prosecution, lenience, looking the other way etc that effects all cases. look at that bloody judge (whose name i forget) with the string of appalling light sentences for child rapists and abusers and offensive statements trivialising the crimes he judged over.

it is stops at the top, if the most powerful cannot get away with this, then that filters down obviously. you can't send out clearer messages of a determination to protect children than you can by saying we don't tolerate this even from those who have the most power, even they will be investigated and prosecuted where guilty.

interesting about the 'fixer' journalist. hope people with better research skills than me are looking at that.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 08:02:16

Swalllowedafly -beautifully written and I agree with you even more so
As you put what I was struggling to say so succinctly.

swallowedAfly
Is that what we are being offered?

The Hillsborough victims have got some form of justice by continually demanding a proper enquiry rather than looking for a the Chief Constable's head on a plate (which the rightly have now got). Who influenced the police on that one? or did the police do it themselves.

I know one of the lawyers who worked on the Birmingham 6 case and the changes to the police notes of interview were blatent - who influenced the police to do that?

I know the judge you mean (his name escapes me) and I wonder if he is symptomatic of the wider problem. I don't think there is a huge organised establishment cover up because I don't think people are than co-ordinated. There may be some more localised favours being done. However, for me the real problem is that there is a culture of systematically disbelieving abuse victims especially those with more challenging backgrounds. If the police are presented with a Looked After Child, a "Pillar of the Community" and an abuse allegation, I think we can make a good guess who will be seen as the more credible witness. You only have to look at the Daily Mail hatchet job on SM viz he was wrongly accused of something and consequently acquitted that makes him unreliable hmm.

The Waterhouse investigation was never a trial so I can understand why alleged abusers were not named a the time because people would be accused of serious crimes without any means to properly defend themselves. So the issue is, how many of those allegations were properly investigated and prosecutions brought? If the abuse victims were seen as unreliable witnesses then a decision may have been made not to prosecute because people were stereotyping the victims as troubled kids etc.

Pagwatch Mon 12-Nov-12 08:52:15

Excellent post Chaz. Excellent.

The Hillsborough group illustrate clearly why focussing upon the key issue instead of wailing into a 'but it's all so unfair - lets look at the press and the Tories and the judges and...and..' is important.

Every time this story digresses off into a journalistic control at the BBC or whether Philip Schofield should be waving names off twitter on the tv, it dilutes the stories those brave men and women told of their childhood.

And the desperation that the perpetrators be famous is quite unpleasant. There was something kin to disappointment amongst some when it turned out that it wasn't Lord MacAlpine.

but it IS the key issue. the key issue in child abuse is the abuse of positions of trust. the key issue is 'abuse of power'.

no one is asking for a big head to roll. we're asking for all those accused to be investigated and if enough evidence, prosecuted regardless of how big a head they are.

i totally agree that turning this into media navel gazing or red herring names trivialises it. i don't think that changes the fact though that one of the biggest scandals here is that key figures named and shown in photographic evidence were not dealt with.

and that only sends one message: children and the vulnerable DO NOT MATTER when putting them first means not cap doffing to the hierarchy.

Pagwatch Mon 12-Nov-12 09:06:14

I know it's the key issue Swallowed. it doesn't need capital letters
I simply disagree with you about how best that gets dealt with.
I think it is being lost. And to me many threads on here evidence that.

bananaistheanswer Mon 12-Nov-12 09:21:03

I agree with the last few comments. The main issue for me is how many of those named in the Waterhouse enquiry, and the previous enquiry, were investigated. It really bothers me that victims like SM were dismissed as unreliable in naming names (while ignoring the fact he was reliable enough to validate the fact he was abused, and had been misled by someone who had a photo of who abused him by giving him a false name) and that seemingly justified not doing anything to investigate how that name emerged. Why? Why dismiss everything because some of what was alleged was hard to take in? At the very least, LM could have cleared his name long before this frenzy occurred. The trail to find the actual person who was in that photo could have been picked up, and every person named should have been investigated thoroughly rather than nothing done with the information that came from both enquiries.

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 09:28:41

I agree with Pag.

There is/was no question of a paedophile ring in North Wales as Waterhouse found evidence and people were jailed.

Whether the investigation went as far as it should have done is doubtful. Word of mouth named quite a few people at the time. They are either involved and need to be taken to task over it or they are innocent and need to be exonerated. The key issue is that proper investigation takes place.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 09:37:57

But they had investigation valid ones and every time they got so far up the chain the information was out of the investigations remit, or it got closed down, or it got pulped, or the police were told by someone on high to stop, or the police in charge were moved out of their jobs, or there was a suicide. Waterhouse, jillings, etc etc can't remember the jersey one or the islington one.
I want a proper througher investigation that follows the trail whereever it goes. Then the enablers will be halted in their tracks.

ssd Mon 12-Nov-12 09:38:35

the think is , how does anyone know it isnt LM? why did his name keep coming up? why were the abused told the photo they were shown was LM?

who showed them the photo and told them that name, this must be on record somewhere

aparantly it was the insurers who wanted the Waterhouse investigations closed, they were scared the council would get sued by the high up people named as abusers....was the insurers ever questioned?

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 09:43:42

Jins there is no suggestion in the waterhouse report because they didn't follow up any of the leads. They destroyed the photos showing evidence.

Come to think of it whose house did SM go into to get those photos?

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 09:48:08

No it was Jillings that was suppressed. Legal advice at the time was that it was defamatory. I suppose that would be the case if names were being named and there was no conviction. Waterhouse published 'Lost in Care' which did address the Jillings report and confirmed that the names shouldn't be named.

A current investigation has started. In the light of Hillsborough and the public demand for the truth I suspect that this will operate better with a wider remit. Some of the names that were named at the time are not alive any more.

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 09:52:50

There really isn't enough in the public domain to be able to back up the theory of a high profile paedophile ring. There wasn't then and there isn't now. The 'named' individuals have had plenty of time to destroy evidence or find a defence if they were involved.

Leave it to the investigation. The whole business has always stunk very strongly of fish

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 10:15:37

So they pay millions for an enquiry, judges, councillors, social workers, police, managers the whole team were silenced Abot children being abused because some bod in a tie in an insurance company said the children may have a claim against the insurance company. The council who has paid a premium every year to be insured against these sort of claims said ok then no problem we won't say anything.
Bizarre reasoning. Surely that's what the council are insured for FFs.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 10:22:17

There is tonnes in the public domain. It's too scary what's in the public domain most is in the daily mail ( which I still can't get over) Crikey click on some of the links on this thread once you start you won't stop .
Jimmy saville all came out when he died. I dont want to wait till they die I want them to be in court now.

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 10:22:53

That's about it Tips.

Clwyd's legal advisors IIRC, not the insurers, said the Jillings Report was defamatory.

Waterhouse was the big expensive one. The Jillings Report fed into the Waterhouse Inquiry when they determined the remit. Nobody was silenced as such, they just weren't called as their evidence was outside the remit.

It was all very odd. It needs proper investigation for sure. I'll never be able to unhear the rumours back in the late 80's/early 90's. But it needs to be done properly and I'd hate for the twitter witch hunts and BBC smokescreen to allow a guilty party to get away with it on a technicality.

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 10:26:08

Tips, what is in the public domain is fundamentally accounts of the rumours that were going around back in the day. I could add to them but I won't because they are just rumours and gossip.

Some of it may be factual but I can guarantee that nobody has found the information needed to make a judgement on this through google.

The survivors need justice and our support but it's really important for us all to keep within the law

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 10:38:54

They have been published in a newspaper(s) They are accounts of court cases, they are public reports and they are also in Hansard. There are tonnes.
The gap fillers are within police records ( I hope) in enquiry documents and in public servants kitchen tables.
An investigation that just looks at the police will stay with the police. A enquiry that looks at the Bbc will stay with the bbc.
What is needed is one investigation that follows the trail all the way not limited by anything. Therefore it follows the path from abused to social worker to police to judiciary to bbc to their friends from the same school.
Only then will we get any idea of if it is a local or a national problem

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 10:47:55

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

But it needs to be done properly and I'd hate for the twitter witch hunts and BBC smokescreen to allow a guilty party to get away with it on a technicality.

Exactly this.

I strongly suspect that the remit of the Waterhouse enquiry was too narrow. It seems plausible that the police did not follow up on all the allegations made, this may have been for a number of reasons including prejudice against LAC, corruption or an unwillingness to believe bad things about people they identified with (e.g. John is a member of my golf club, seems like a good bloke, I'm sure he wouldn't do something like that).

Its worth remembering that the vast majority of people (whatever their political beliefs) find child abuse abhorrent and almost unimaginable. Its easier for people to accept Jimmy Savile as an abuser because he was a bit weird than to accept that the nice bloke, 2 doors down who has the lovely garden and always says good morning is actually a vile abuser. The bloke down the road is just like us, so we assume he thinks like us whereas JS was always "other" so its easier to believe he thought differently.

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 10:58:23

I'm not sure if anyone has looked at the Watehouse report but it is very clear than a majority of the accused abusers were not charged with anything even though there had been numerous complaints by different victims all saying the same thing, as the victims could not produce evidence or were classed as unreliable. I have picked relatively mild accusations in the grand scheme of things because it didnt seem appropriate to post anything else but you can see that these children didnt stand a chance of justice. The waterhouse report didnt question why the hell these people were not charged. It just followed on from the previous inquiries and offered nothing which is why a criminal investigation has to be started again into every reported offence.

Parts of Waterhouse report.............

21.99 To complete the picture it is necessary to mention also that a number of allegations of alleged abuse were reported by the Community to the Welsh Office in the period between l988 and l993. Thus, in May 1988 there was an allegation of assault on a resident made against White junior[297], who was then apparently Director of Bryn Alyn Hall. The Solihull boy involved was 16 years old and was a resident at Gatewen Hall, whilst attending school at Bryn Alyn Hall. The incident was investigated quickly by the Community and Clwyd Social Services Department set in train Child Abuse procedures. The conclusion reached in the Community's internal investigation was that White junior had "acted excessively". He had been suspended from duty during the investigation and, after the North Wales Police had informed him that he would not be prosecuted, he was transferred to administrative duties within the Community. He did, however, act as Deputy Head of Gatewen Hall from the summer of 1991 to January 1993 following the resignation of Lynn Williams.
21.100 In June, August and October 1989 there were further allegations of physical abuse. The first and last of these involved the same member of staff on both occasions. On the first occasion he was alleged to have physically abused two boys and removed all their clothes, for which, after an investigation, he was given a formal warning. Then in October 1989 he was alleged to have abused a girl resident, for which he was dismissed. The complainant in August 1989 alleged that he had been struck and pushed on three occasions by different members of the staff, after which he had absconded to his home in Sandwell. The allegations were referred to the police for investigation but no support for them by other children named as victims or witnesses was forthcoming and no prosecution ensued.

Ystrad school hall for disabled children.......

22.16 Four other members of the staff (one unidentified) and one resident were the subject of allegations of sexual abuse made by five different former residents, each of whom referred to only one abuser. As we understand the position, police officers investigated the allegations, which were not corroborated, and no prosecution ensued. The evidence of two of these complainants was read to us. In his first statement to the police, made in prison on 10 August 1992, this witness, C, described in detail how he had been indecently assaulted and later buggered by a named member of staff in a staff bedroom at Eirianfa. He alleged that the last occasion when buggery occurred was shortly before the fire at Eirianfa. He had not complained to any member of the staff about what had been done to him but he had confided in four named friends.
22.17 Although that statement reads quite straightforwardly, doubt about the general credibility of the witness C arises from two subsequent statements that he made. Shortly after his first statement a former resident told the police that he had seen C assaulted physically on two occasions by another member of the staff, Christopher (Chris) Williamson. C was seen, therefore, on 26 November 1992 by a police officer, who wished to ascertain whether C would confirm the allegation. In response, however, C denied that he had been assaulted by Williamson and said he recalled the latter only vaguely as a handyman who had never worked as a care assistant. C described Williamson as an elderly man with a grey beard who was cross-eyed.
22.18 C made his third statement on 16 January 1997 when he was seen by a representative of the Tribunal. In that statement he repudiated the second statement attributed to him, saying that he did not make it and that its contents were not true. He went on to say (contrary to his first statement) that he had complained to Williamson in his office about the first act of buggery on the day after it had occurred, but that he did not recall anything being done about it. Later in the same statement to the Tribunal C gave a full description of Williamson, putting his age in the early forties, and alleged that Williamson had assaulted him twice physically: the first occasion was when he had complained of being buggered, whereupon Williamson had come around his desk, grabbed him by the shoulder and smacked him across the face and had then pushed him down on to an arm chair, shouting "No, he didn't do it"; and the second occasion was when he repeated the allegation of buggery by a member of the staff to Williamson after some discussion with a friend's father and Williamson had thumped him on the face and head and kicked him in the ribs when he went to the floor.

22.19 The internal conflicts between these three statements are such that we cannot be sure that any of them is correct. The other complainant whose evidence was read named another young boy as his abuser and it has not been appropriate to pursue that allegation

These children were disabled and lad learning difficulties. What did the police need to prosecute because i am at a loss for wordssad

Yes, it gets complicated but these children were the most vulnerable. What do the police and courts expect. Other than being a hand written confession, no amount of evidence seemed enough.

bananaistheanswer Mon 12-Nov-12 11:13:26

Mccrump I think that extract is a clear example of the evidence given being dismissed without trying to delve further to try and make sense of it. It is an absolute tragedy that this kind of abuse, to the most vulnerable, can screw the victim up so badly it's hard for them to make sense of it, and give a clear consistent account. Which gives the abuser a way to avoid prosecution because its then dismissed out of hand rather than looked into further. It's infuriating that the very damage caused by the abuser can also prevent them from being brought to account.

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 12:54:11

Australia are trying to sort out similar problems. Why cant we do the same?

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/gillard-launches-royal-commission-into-child-abuse/4367364

so beating and stripping boys (and it not being the first time you've had such complaints made about you) merited 'a warning'. it's crazy isn't it.

member Mon 12-Nov-12 16:21:23

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

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 16:38:45

Channel 4 Reporter has tweeted. Maybe some it will be exposed.

Ciaran Jenkins ‏@C4Ciaran
Expecting developments on child abuse allegations against former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith and claims of a police cover up.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

member Mon 12-Nov-12 16:42:45

That's another "case" that had the involvement of Jimmy Saville apparently.

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 16:48:52

Shame they dont go for a living one!

You can't libel the dead! So they can ask the questions about how these allegations were investigated without the risk of being sued.

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 16:56:56

Its a start and will hopefully lead on to the rest.

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

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 17:13:41

I've been reading the statment of denial again and this phrase struck me.

"The facts are, however, that I have been to Wrexham only once.

That fact strikes me as completely irrelevant

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 17:20:31

I thought it was a bit of an odd thing to say considering that part of the allegation was that they were taken from the home to places in london.

Maybe they worded it badly.

Jins Mon 12-Nov-12 17:30:20

I think they must have done. I mean I've never been to Cheltenham but I've been to Gloucester.

ssd Mon 12-Nov-12 17:41:27

didnt his family own homes in Wrexham?

Jux Mon 12-Nov-12 18:19:39

The Cyril Smith stuff has been out for years. I remember being told it about 25 years ago by a journalist. He told me there are lots of stories about high profile people which the Press have agreed to "sit on". This was one of them. I can't remember many of the the other names he told me. Not all stories were necessarily about child abuse, he wouldn't go into detail.

edam Mon 12-Nov-12 20:33:41

At this rate they'll be re-opening the Jeremy Thorpe trial. FFS. Why can't the police go after people who have never been held to account, and who are actually alive?

Mrcrumpswife Mon 12-Nov-12 20:42:41

edam several weeks ago all of the papers announced that 3 Drs had been linked to JS at one of the hospitals and accused of crimes against children.

What happened to that story?

Unbelievable isnt it.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 21:49:08

Nope it's bloody typical see here is another twat getting off scot free.
m.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/community/letters/editor-s-comment-decision-to-set-school-governor-pervert-free-is-a-disgrace-1-5121397

I'm just off to try and find out who the magistrate is.

Xenia Mon 12-Nov-12 21:53:02

Tips, there is a huge difference between possessing an image and interfering with children, though. When we conflate things in a sense we render less serious other things. It is why I think it wrong that a 17 year old boy who thought a girl was 16 and she was 15 should not be a sex offender register. Very different act from the 40 year old with an 8 year old boy or girl.

This is our 1600s witch hunt these days. By all means we want those who engage in illegal acts with those under the age of consent to be prosecuted but allegations must be proved.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 21:54:28

Sorry for the capitals it's just how I found the court report.

CONNARTY, WHO IS OF PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER, IS REMORSEFUL AND CLAIMS HE THOUGHT THE IMAGES WERE PRETTY GIRLS AND HE HAD NO SEXUAL INTEREST AND DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE ILLEGAL. DISTRICT JUDGE ANDREW DAVISON REGISTERED CONNARTY UNDER A FIVE YEAR SEXUAL OFFENCES PREVENTION ORDER AND SENTENCED HIM TO AN 18 MONTH COMMUNITY ORDER WITH SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT. CONNARTY WAS ORDERED TO PAY LEGAL COSTS.

i find 'interfering with children' offensive and trivialising as a phrase.

and those 'images' are captured moments of an actual act of abuse.

and both of those examples are of sex offenses so why should they not be on a sex offender register? sure they're not the same offenses but they are both acts done against the law pertaining to sex ergo sex offences.

plus actually bringing hypothetical 16yo's into this is actually an attempt to trivialise in itself.

i know a good pen name if you fancy writing an article for the mail on sunday.

goralka Mon 12-Nov-12 22:07:26

Tips, there is a huge difference between possessing an image and interfering with children, though
no there really isn't Xenia, as swallowedafly said, how do you think those images were made? with plasticene figures?
every viewer contributes to the industry.

we really have to get past this ludicrous idea that images are just fantasies or something. they are pictures of real human beings being abused.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 22:24:56

Gosh Xenia I nearly wrote a post yesterday about you but I didn't as I thought twice. I wasn't being very nice.
What is your agenda? You appear to post excuses for people at every opportunity, all wrapped up in a cloud of abuse is terrible BUT......
You also appear to have a very skewed 1950's outlook on life. What's naice and what isn't is what the common working class people do.
Do keep posting though cos every time you post something particularly stupid it spurs me on to keep picking at this scab of child abuse

essentially would you not convict the guy who paid to stand in the corner and watch a child be raped because he didn't physically 'do' it? that's what the image viewer is - the guy standing in the corner and without him there'd be no need for the child to be raped.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 22:26:26

Ah fuck I just fell for the divide and rule jobbie.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 22:28:53

Leave it swallowed -there is nothing to see here-just keep walking.
Keep the focus on the abusers not the naysayers.

it's all divide and rule with xenia - everything is black and white - working mum good, sahm bad. earning little - didn't try hard enough, earning a lot - good hardworking person. 'just an image' v child abuse etc.

if only life was actually so simple.

Darkesteyes Mon 12-Nov-12 23:05:10
AnyaKnowIt Mon 12-Nov-12 23:10:34

Let's hope the abusers are shitting themselves now

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 23:34:49

In radio interviews, Jillings, a respected expert on social services, has said his inquiry focused on staff members at the home and not people in public life.

The report is limited to the school though.

Tipsandshoots Mon 12-Nov-12 23:36:28

I wonder if any photos turn up?

I so hope it is actual one not one which has been recently typed

Xenia Tue 13-Nov-12 06:59:30

I was silly to think the "hang the paeds" lynch mob people would want a proper debate. Thankfully they are not in charge and we still have fair trials in the UK.

In no way do I support any abuse of children ever. I even think every parent who ever smacks or slaps a child should be taken to task (and I always do when I see it even in shops).

Tipsandshoots Tue 13-Nov-12 07:35:59

Xenia where on earth do you shop. I have never ever seen any child smacked in waitrose

Tips
I hope your post is tongue in cheek or is it only the "lower orders" who smack their children.

Xenia has a legal background and from a strict legal sense what she is saying is correct possession of photograph of child abuse (I refuse to use the term child pornography) is not deemed as serious as performing the abuse itself. Both are part of the same sordid spectrum but one is more serious than the other.

but they are totally interconnected. the abuse was performed so that the person masturbating in the virtual corner could do so. they are not viewing 'a picture' they are buying the abuse of a real child.

not to mention that research has shown (i'm sure it was on this thread somewhere) that the vast majority of people convicted for viewing these acts of abuse and/or owning them also actively abuse children themselves or go on to.

I don't doubt that they are interconnected. I think the photos are may be a gateway into acting out abuse for some people. I am not sure that I agree that the abuse takes place to create the photos I think the abuse would probably have happened anyway and the photos are a sick record of it (I could be completely wrong on this I am not an expert).

However, as a question of degree of seriousness possession of an image is less serious than performing an abusive act although both are abusive behaviour.

Tipsandshoots Tue 13-Nov-12 12:42:54

Well we have Joint Enterprise i am sure that law could be extended to cover abuse and abusive photos.

chaz who says lower classess don't shop in Waitrose?

Anyway there appears to little on the investigation information front other than the debarcle that was newsnight.

you're wrong - it's a business - they make money from recording and selling child abuse to other child abusers. it's not snap shots of what was going on anyway - it's an industry.

swallowed
I am not surprised to hear that although deeply saddened.

Tips

Come off it - it was quite clear where you were going with that post.

it is shocking chaz. i read a blog yesterday detailing all the child abuse pages on facebook and the clear rings of paedophiles operating there. group pages, shared images and always the links to off-site websites where the worst images and videos can be paid for. there are symbols that they put on their pages that allow them to identify each other. social networking like facebook gives them the perfect arena to find each other, share info, materials, even children. it really isn't a case of dodgy men getting off on photos of your child in their knickers - it is men producing video and photographic recordings of real children being raped, abused, being made to have sex with each other etc etc etc.

sorry that's horrible but there you go! it IS horrible and it is organised and out there a couple of clicks away.

I think its good that people post how horrible things really are. That way hopefully they won't be trivialized or explained away.

Now if the BBC would only stop talking about itself and start talking about the real issue again.

fatfloosie Tue 13-Nov-12 13:30:43

I read this article after following a link on Twitter and think it's brilliant, particularly the last para:

While those who allege abuse should be heard, accepting what they say as self-evidently true is not better than dismissing it as childish fantasy. It is just another form of not listening, and relying instead on prejudices and preconceptions.

guardian article

what a nonsense. that sentence says that accepting an abuse victim as telling hte truth is just as bad as dismissing them as a fantasist. really? hmm

so as the person telling about your abuse you would be just as hurt/damaged/offended by someone unquestioningly believing you as you would be by someone who told you you were making it up?

nice frilly way of saying a load of nonsense.

ladymuckbeth Tue 13-Nov-12 15:49:44

swallowedAFly - if you can't see the logical fallacy of your previous post then there probably is little trying to educate you on the point.

Whether or not one thing equates another has very little to do with how one party in that equation feels one way or the other.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:18:57

Blimey this thread is becoming well and truly derailed.

The guardian article is a pile of shit, so lets leave it at that. You only have to look at what he has written previously.

Xenia, your opinion on things truly astounds me. If you want to start a discussion on what makes/motivates a peadophile and are they all bad then start a thread in AIBU, that should keep you amused for a few days and megrin

I see 2 men of the Church have been arrested in connection with historic abuse.

news.sky.com/story/1010823/ex-bishop-held-over-child-sex-abuse-claims

Am i the only one shocked at how many depraved people there seems to be out there.

This BBC shit storm definitley does appear to be some sort of distraction away from the main story and now they chuck in a fuel whistle blower to take the main headlines.

These people at the top must be really worried.

Xenia Tue 13-Nov-12 16:21:12

People of all classes engage in these crimes. It is not a class issue.
I seem the only person interested in getting to the heart of it to stop it.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:30:20

Well do just that then but do it on another thread.

There is one big difference that should be noted for that debate which is very obvious. If you are wealthy and titled you get away with it whereas if you are just one of the people, you go to prison for a relatively short time.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:31:56

Ciaran Jenkins ‏@C4Ciaran
Current Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk to speak in the Commons shortly about former MP Cyril Smith and allegations of inappropriate behaviour
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

It on now.

Abra1d Tue 13-Nov-12 16:36:24

WHy should Xenia go to another thread? She is a lawyer with specialist expertise that may be useful to our understanding.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:38:14

Simon Danczuk is really going for it. Shame none of the overpaid/over entitled politicians are in the house to hear himangry

Yet another Boys childrens home named.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:40:32

I dont want to learn an understanding , thats not what this thread was about.
This was about the Exposure in newsnight and the cover up.

Being a lawyer explains at all now. Thankyou for explaining.

this thread isn't about sympathising with poor old paedophiles and trivialising what they do into phrases like, 'interfering with children'.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:54:19

John Hemming asking where these children have gone. The figures go up to the 21st march 2011 ssda903.

1-4 year olds gone 430
5-9 year olds gone 350
10-15 year olds gone 650

These are children who have left care and they dont know whats happened to them. John Hemming asked.....Have they been trafficked,abducted, or run away on the streets?

How bad can this get? How bad are childrens services today.

Abra1d Tue 13-Nov-12 16:57:14

The OP's (not your) thread title is 'Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2'.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 16:59:48

Yep, i can read. Which implies that it is not titled 'poor misunderstood paedophiles, how can we understand them?' 2 completely different issues.

those figures are since when mrcrumps - i know they're up to march 2011 but since when? shocking indeed

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 18:05:19

I didnt catch that bit but it wasnt a huge period of time. It was in the context of whats happening now.

AnyaKnowIt Tue 13-Nov-12 18:33:18
MrsjREwing Tue 13-Nov-12 18:42:44

Good grief, I missed the news tonight, I will read the telegraph article now, thanks for linking.

johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/james-savile-and-ssda903.html trying to find more info mrcrumps. where did you read/hear this?

"Children's rights lawyer Mitchell Woolf comments: 'there are a number of children who get lost in the care system, where social services move them several times and then just forget where they are. I've seen it quite a number of times. A social worker leaves, no social worker replaces them, the child is in a different authority, and they get lost to the care system. It's shocking how often it happens.'"

from here

i want to think i'm not reading that right but i don't think i am.

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 18:59:41

It was the question he asked in parliament today. I kept having to rewind itgrin

Dont they type them up at some point for public record?

Mrcrumpswife Tue 13-Nov-12 19:05:32

i want to think i'm not reading that right but i don't think i am.

I hope we are both reading it wrong but i dont think sosad

i can't find numbers anywhere but lots of articles around june this year where the issue was highlighted in the wake of the rochdale stuff.

AnyaKnowIt Tue 13-Nov-12 19:10:22

Swallowed - My auntie was a foster carer, she had a young teenager living with her that SS forgot she was placed there. Took about a month to sort out iirc.

Also Steve Messham