to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?(258 Posts)
Hey Mr Cameron?
Care to explain your comments on This Morning?
The only thing I'm getting out of that, is his own prejudices and the whiff of a lack of leadership and yet another cover up.
If Mr Cameron wants to save his own neck and not drown in this sick sea of corruption then taking it seriously and not being dismissive of the claims and accusing people of homophobia, might be a good place to start...
Together with an overall inquiry into why there have been so many institutional failures with regard to child protection and to gather all the conclusions of the 6 million other investigations that have been started post Jimmy Savile, for their findings are scattered to the four corners of the country by the wind.
I'm fuming. I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively.
For weeks it was obvious that the Jimmy Savile revelations were going to spread and given what the government do know, and the fact they have both the intelligence and foresight to be able to see the direction it was going to head and act accordingly. Instead they have sat on their hands and hoped it would all die down, go away and we'd all forget about it. Well I'm not forgetting about it. I want PROPER answers and an institutional change of attitude and action. Not more crap.
Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, by officials dismissing those who did report or trying to discredit them?
Haven't they learnt ANYTHING yet?
They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?"
that's what Schofield was asking for - an answer to the buzz on the internet. DC gave one - probably he shouldn't. but it was a fair answer to give.
But don't get me wrong, I think PS was an prize idiot for grandstanding, it was hardly groundbreaking research he handed over, and smacked of desperation to be on message to me after his previous treatment of Savile victims. I would have treated that with the contempt it deserved, not furnished it with a grave concern that was unwarranted. But I also think DC direction to give evidence to the police rings a little hollow when victims have in the past and not been believed.
No MurderofGoths that's why I said 'in any official way'. The general public, twitter/facebook users have always done this stuff, the fact is DC was giving credence to something by mentioning sexuality when he should have dismissed it for what it was, unsubstantiated rumour (at this stage anyway). It was the Speaker's wife and a national broadsheet that named names, with the BBC coming close to doing so too. They don't need lecturing about gay witch hunting surely, so why address internet users who are hardly going to give a stuff what he says and stop digging?
You seriously think the general public weren't capable of (or willing to) finding exactly the same names PS did? You do know that a huge amount of people use Twitter right? Because a hell of a lot of names have appeared on there!
Well, that would have stayed irrelevant if he hadn't brought it up as the only way the public at large would have heard these names, in any official way, was if they were arrested for questioning. Apart from the PS internet trawl, the only ones naming names were The Speaker's wife (forget her name) on twitter and the Guardian and they named a straight person!
But the point DC was making surely is that while their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, that it is sadly not-and that people are generally willing to believe worse things about homosexuals. Which seems to be correct.
But surely their gayness, rumoured or otherwise, is irrelevant? Surely if DC read the same online rumours, the gayness of the alleged abusers was the least shocking or relevant of the hideous tale? I genuinely don't get why he needed to mention sexuality. I thought these people had advisers
If he was given the results of phils swift googling then I imagine it was the names I was seeing via google - many of which are gay or are thought to be gay.
Unless Philip has super google talents.
because a quick look at twitter would tell you the same as it told phillip schofield?
'he was handed a list of names who were rumoured/known to be gay'
Late to this but how can it be rumoured/known they were gay if the names were not read out, when no one knows what was on that card?
I thought it was v. strange that DC went down the route of homosexual witch hunt"
i thought it was very strange he was handed a list of names who were rumoured/known to be gay and asked if they were paedophiles on live telly. i find it even weirder his refutation has been seen as him taking that angle.
'start sacking Philip Schofield and start demanding some proper journalism' maybe?
I see that already on Twitter some people have taken to asking the question of whether MI5 might have visited Steve Meesham to get him to retract on behalf of the Tories.... sigh.
Beside - what Schofield did was not proper journalism. what Newsnight did was not proper journalism. the Government did not handle previous inquiries into sexual abuse, the justice system did. there have, however, been some decent journalism on Channel 4 News, in The Independent and The Guardian. trouble is, a lot of the sort of people that talk the most rubbish get their info from The Star, The Sun, The Mirror and unreliable internet sources.
I thought it was v. strange that DC went down the route of homosexual witch hunt. I agree, the sexual persuasion of an individual has NOTHING to do with child abuse. To me it is another smoke screen to deflect the REAL issue. If the government had handled these previous enquiries with integrity there would be no need for any of this now. People are getting frustrated here, and they are waking up to the abhorrent abuse of justice that has been taking place. I applaud the directness of the interview, I am fed up with everyone acting in such a covert way. People have used the most awful prejudicial language ie. yong girls throwing themselves at men, hedonistic lifestyles (all describing children being abused) and this has not been challenged by the newspapers or tv journalists (only by the NSPCC spokesperson and a load of people on twitter). Lets have some more upfront journalism please, we don't have to name names, but lets be clear that our children have been abused by people who thought they would get away with it and they are still .... getting away with it!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop criticising Phillips Schofield and start demanding some proper journalism!!!!!!!
There have been other Lord M's in the past. That's all.
I think if I was in charge of the BBC I'd be suspending everyone involved with Newsnight and possibly taking the show off the air. You have to seriously question what the hell these editors are doing, what with the non-broadcasting of the Saville investigation last year and now what appears to be a pretty poor job on the Meesham/North Wales edition.
That Joanna Yeats thing was appalling.
But it's probably all a Tory conspiracy anyway if you believe what you read on the internet.
His apology says:
"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this is not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine."
WTF has gone on here? The poor, poor guy. Surely Newsnight or whoever else he is talking to have something of a duty of care to someone vulnerable who agrees to speak out. Who let this happen to him?
I just want to make it clear that I do believe Steve Meesham was abused - but this is why the investigation has to be done properly. If he was pushed into publicly identifying the wrong person by a journalist, he will stand even less chance of getting a criminal prosecution against his abuser at some point.
I was actually thinking of Richard Madeley's attempt to be a hard-nosed news hound earlier. Anyone remember the mortifyingly awful OJ Simpson interview? Not quite the same, I know, but....... <cringe>
I also feel for Steve Meesham. I don't doubt for a second that he was abused. Lord Mc's name has been on the internet for a long time regarding this sort of thing, so I wonder if there's been some heavy suggestion being forced on him.
Just appalling. The whole thing.
Oh god yes, the Joanna Yeates thing. That was horrible. Gay and had slightly weird hair and liked poetry - case closed. He sued some of the papers as well, and got a huge fat pay-off. Good. The bastards.
Holy crap about the mistaken identity. I want all reports from victims to be fully investigated, but this is why people pointing fingers on the internet for their own self-righteous amusement are quite possibly going to ruin the lives of innocent people.
It's like when Joanna Yeates' landlord had his name dragged all over the press and internet. That was definitely in part motivated by bigotry - there were all these sly suggestions that he was gay and therefore obviously was a murderer . It's going to happen again.
Given that there I've come across
young women people who think that a mother breastfeeding beyond 6 months must be a paedophile, I'm absolutely certain that many people believe homosexuals are too. .
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.