Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2

[MrsjREwing]

Last thread full.

Steve has released a statement responding to Lord McAlpines statement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree, nap.

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

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.

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

Xenia, photos were destroyed.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

An excellent post post Darkesteyes

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

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."

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

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/11/david-mellor-steve-messham-weirdo

He was cleared of benefit fraud.

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.