Exposure, newsnight etc discussion part 2

[MrsjREwing]

Last thread full.

Steve has released a statement responding to Lord McAlpines statement.

Exposure on Wednesday at 10.35 will be discussing Saville again. CIN seem unaffected so far.

What I keep thinking is: some top Tory (at least one) abused Steve M. So if it wasn't McAlpine, then WHO WAS IT?

Also I think we should remember that many of the people implicated or suspected are exceedingly rich. They can afford the very best lawyers and, whether they're innocent or guilty, they are able to bankrupt any individual or institution that stands up to them.

I'm not saying they have, mind - just that they could if they wanted. (I don't want to get bankrupted!)

you know this is just a controlled exposure to keep the real perps hidden?

OKOK I spend too much time on the DI site.

*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 now*

I highlighted my earlier post because if any of you pop onto DI every now and then, have a look at the last couple of pages

Its all muddy waters now

Also, i had a post deleted but no idea why or what i said. Is there any way of finding out?

Bugger, it didnt highlight but you can tell which bit i mean!

There's some nasty stuff on twitter about SM at the moment and on the DI site. I'm not sure what to think any more

Neither do i.

He is still definitely a victim and i feel very sorry for him no matter how this ends. I really hope is isnt being used as a pawn for someone elses gain.

Its strange because its exactly the same as what happened to the ladies from Duncroft who told their story and then got followed by others who disagreed and went out of their way to undermine everything they had said. Thank god Mrs Jones spoke up and proved she was a right old bat

'you know this is just a controlled exposure to keep the real perps hidden?'

I like your thinking, goralka. Is this what the DI site call "limited hangout" or is that my limited understanding?

I am very uncomfortable with what is being said about SM
It seems to have been too easy for others to discredit him, feels like he's been used and has no way back

It just keeps getting worse.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/16/cyril-smith-fears-cover-up

'Cyril Smith was knighted and the system must have known he was unworthy. How was that allowed to happen?"

Same as Savile.

It seems that some of them got shows on TV, became celebrities, got knighted, became untouchable and what they did got covered up.

There's just been a really unpleasant piece on the Today programme interviewing two sociologists about 'moral panic' and how people get their knickers all in a twist about things that aren't true, or aren't really that important. Totally ignoring the fact that there are actual (alleged) crimes at stake here. I've written in to complain; did anyone else hear it too and feel like adding a quick email?

Here's the form.

that's the 'finer' spin that is being applied imo. for the total plebs we have the discrediting of victims and smearing of names etc for the slightly more classy plebs we have the more subtle spin of making it seem unsophisticated or gauche to be interested in uncovering the truth about child abuse.

the strands have been there from the start. it started with over using the word 'witch hunt' constantly and has moved on to 'moral panic' for a bit of pseudo science in the agenda of shaming people who ask questions.

these things are never subtle. it's a wonder they work as well as they do.

and for the press we've got the hanging out to dry of the bbc and threats of legal action all over the place from the man who wasn't named but was implicated (re: you don't even have to NAME someone to be sued now so you better not bloody say anything)

also i think prior to really bringing out the 'unsophisticated' strand they tried the 'it's all party politics and agendas' angle. thankfully the vast majority of us said we don't actually give a shit what colour ribbons they wear and no it is not about party politics stop trivialising. so we've gone full throttle on the shaming now.

you will hear more and more pro establishment people talking about hysteria, witch hunts, the vile way people are 'rubber necking' etc - we'll get on this thread i predict.

There are lots of things I don't understand about this. A few reports say that the person who abused the boys in Wrexham was the late Jimmy McAlpine, Lord McAlpine's cousin. If this is the person whose photo was shown to Steve Messham, couldn't that easily be checked now by showing him another photo of Jimmy McAlpine?

Secondly, why did the police wrongly tell Messham and Mark Humphreys that the photo was of Lord McAlpine?

Third, if Jimmy McAlpine was known to be abusing boys, why was he never prosecuted?

I'm also not at all clear about the other elements of this. It seems now to be acknowledged that Peter Morrison, a Thatcher aide, was a paedophile (now also dead of course). But where does other "senior Tory" fit into this? Is this a completely different story and nothing to do with Wrexham?

Presumably BBC (left wing) cross about Saville thing and criticism of BBC there so gets this new stuff out (anti Tory).

I still don't understand the whole 'mistaken identity' saga. How did it happen? Why did it happen? Who misled whom and why?

Why were the photographs and other records from the investigation and inquiry destroyed, and on whose authority?

Will we ever know?

I read this on a Digital Spy thread. It is cut and pasted from the comments section of the Telegraph, and is spot on, I think:

"In his interview with the BBC today, yes the BBC, McAlpine acknowledges that that the allegations were not new and had originated in Scallywag about 20 years ago. I have read the article and it is certainly defamatory and at the end they actually invited Lord McAlpine to come and sue them. He never did sue.
David Icke included the many of the same allegations in a book that was published in 1998 and is still on sale online today. Why? Because McAlpine never sued Icke or his publishers.
Over the past week I have read plenty of encouragement for McAlpine to sue the BBC. Instead he has come to a backroom settlement with the BBC, so that he does not have to go to court.
His lawyers are going after the big fish on Twitter. The likes of Sally Bercow will almost certainly settle out of court, whilst there is no real prospect of McAlpine actually taking hundreds of others to court.
None of this will actually clear McAlpine's name and fully restore his reputation unless a court rules that he has been libelled. Somehow, he seems reluctant to do that."

excellent piece feenie

It is rarely wise to sue. Failing to sue does not indicate guilt. Most people cannot afford it. 20 years ago for example those cases probably could not be done on a no win no fee basis. Today LM can sue without its costing him a penny. Secondly suing often brings more attention to something so you end up spreading the libel still further. However it got so very very much more publicity due to the BBC proposed programme that LM was then moved into a different position and had to issue his statement and now he is asking people to apologise and pay damages. No one has been sued yet.

Has anyone seen this article today about the man who was the original whistle blower in Wales.

THE whistle-blower who exposed the Welsh children?s home sex abuse scandal has cheated death in a suspect car smash ­after his brakes failed.

Heres the link from todays paper.

www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/282958/My-terror-at-hands-of-paedos/

Thats one hell of a conicidence.

Yes, DIF had that story earlier, dodgy.