So you think everyone ever questioned by the police is guilty then.
For all you know they were helping to get the convictions, but "Paedophile ring linked to Westminster" is how you describe it. Tom Watson would be proud.
Why would the police have told the journalists that they were questioned, if the implication is they weren't connected in some way?
I well remember the case and there was widespread suspicion that it only scratched the surface of what was suspected to be a vast paedophile ring extending overseas. Revelations made since that time have only served to confirm such things exist along with governments' interference in seeking proper justice.
Thanks for this, were you in journalism at that time?
And even if guilty, "senior official at the Palace of Westminster" suggests a civil servant rather than a politician.
Indeed it might, but it certainly puts away the idea that abusers are not very close to power, if not in power, as Sir Peter Morrison, MP for Chester, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, now implicated in the Wrexham abuse, was.
Remember Keith Gregory (I think it was, it wasn't Messham) said there were 2 mps involved and one was a tory mp and he didn't know which party the other one was in.
I have a friend who works in News who told me. And it fitted in with the fact that Newsnight had trailed he was going to be named but didn't at the last minute.
Perhaps it was the threat of libel action that did it and wires got crossed.
Remember Keith Gregory (I think it was, it wasn't Messham) said there were 2 mps involved and one was a tory mp and he didn't know which party the other one was in.
I vaguely remember him saying that too.
And Tom Watson says the ring he was speaking about isn't related to North Wales - so it's possible a different MP/MPs are in the frame in that case.
I have a friend who works in News who told me. And it fitted in with the fact that Newsnight had trailed he was going to be named but didn't at the last minute.
Perhaps it was the threat of libel action that did it and wires got crossed.
I think the threat of libel action is right but I am still not sure there was an injunction, it would have leaked somewhere.
And Tom Watson says the ring he was speaking about isn't related to North Wales - so it's possible a different MP/MPs are in the frame in that case.
Tom Watson's question at PMQs wasn't in regard to an MP.
It was about his source claiming to have seen a letter in which an alleged abuser claimed to have links to an aide of a former PM who he also claimed could supply dodgy porn.
Why would the police have told the journalists that they were questioned, if the implication is they weren't connected in some way?
Thanks for this, were you in journalism at that time?
Indeed it might, but it certainly puts away the idea that abusers are not very close to power, if not in power, as Sir Peter Morrison, MP for Chester, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, now implicated in the Wrexham abuse, was.
No, I'm just old enough to remember it, in fact I remember the war
Seriously though, I can recall other cases where all has not been revealed, where governments have closed ranks and pulled all manner of stunts to prevent an inquiry achieving an outcome. There are too many people who think such actions are to protect a particular party and in some cases that's true but ever in their mind is to protect government per se.......government must always prevail.
No, I'm just old enough to remember it, in fact I remember the war
Seriously though, I can recall other cases where all has not been revealed, where governments have closed ranks and pulled all manner of stunts to prevent an inquiry achieving an outcome. There are too many people who think such actions are to protect a particular party and in some cases that's true but ever in their mind is to protect government per se.......government must always prevail.
Or
It might just be to protect the innocent from false accusations.
In the last ten minutes of the show Neil and the three journalists all said how wrong it was for Mellor to describe Messham as a weirdo.
Why didn't Neil challenge Mellor at the time he made the comment? I suspect the programme became aware of the storm brewing in social media land towards the end of the programme and decided to try to make amends.
Or
It might just be to protect the innocent from false accusations.
Let's talk about paedophilia cases. Do you think, in a properly conducted case using unfettered intelligent investigators, that prosecutions should be sidelined and kids fail to be protected in order to defend government or politicians?
Why would the police have told the journalists that they were questioned, if the implication is they weren't connected in some way?
Journalist get their information from a number of different sources.
Indeed it might, but it certainly puts away the idea that abusers are not very close to power, if not in power, as Sir Peter Morrison, MP for Chester, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, now implicated in the Wrexham abuse, was.
So you do think being questioned by the police equals guilty..
You said yourself they weren't prosecuted, could that mean they had F all to do with it.
Oh yeah , i forgot, that's proof of a cover up:rolleyes:
If you want speculative cover ups that involve No10 there's plenty that involve Labour too,
"Some commentators, mindful that one of Tony Blair's closest confidante's is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair's repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon. " http://www.whale.to/b/tony.html
Blair's aide Phillip Lyon was actually jailed, so that one's not even speculative.
Why didn't Neil challenge Mellor at the time he made the comment? I suspect the programme became aware of the storm brewing in social media land towards the end of the programme and decided to try to make amends.
Having just watched the clip again what Mellor said was "the Daily Mail have described this person as a weirdo" and in the context of teh ongoing conversation Neil was right not to follow it up then.
However by the end of the programme people had obviously got the wrong end of the stick and been in Twitter etc and so it was row back time.
That said it was not wise of Mellor to use the phrase be it his own or a repeat of the Daily Mail. The more pertinent point he made, that Messham has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages has been lost in the furore
Let's talk about paedophilia cases. Do you think, in a properly conducted case using unfettered intelligent investigators, that prosecutions should be sidelined and kids fail to be protected in order to defend government or politicians?
No and if anything like that is proved i would hope those responsible would get punished.
So far we have nothing close to proof.Just some very tenuous links, that have already been investigated and still no proof.
The more pertinent point he made, that Messham has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages has been lost in the furore
I think he meant "having allowed Messham to be raped whilst in care and not investigating properly has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages"
Having just watched the clip again what Mellor said was "the Daily Mail have described this person as a weirdo" and in the context of teh ongoing conversation Neil was right not to follow it up then.
However by the end of the programme people had obviously got the wrong end of the stick and been in Twitter etc and so it was row back time.
That said it was not wise of Mellor to use the phrase be it his own or a repeat of the Daily Mail. The more pertinent point he made, that Messham has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages has been lost in the furore
Here is exactly what Mellor said:
"I don't see how Newsnight as a brand can survive this. The thing about McAlpine was that it was so grotesque, they rely on a man who … the Mail on Sunday over two pages reveals that this man is a weirdo."
A bit different from what you've quoted, no? Aside from that, the Daily Mail certainly didn't use the word weirdo to describe Messham.
I think the threat of libel action is right but I am still not sure there was an injunction, it would have leaked somewhere.
I suspect you're right. It's impossible in this day and age to keep an injunction - even a super injunction - quiet. As the Giggs case proved. All that happens is that so many people will mention it on blogs and social media that they simply become unenforceable.
Comments
So in this injunction, nobody was named, how could he have took one out without naming who he was taking it out on?
Glad it's not just me who was confused!
To threaten to libel someone would be monumentally stupid!
The girl was named in the press, she wasn't covered by the injunction.
In this one Macalpine was named but the details of the existence of the injunction weren't allowed to be made public.
He told Michael Crick that if they named him in the Newsnight programme he would sue them for libel.
Have you got a link to where you got this information from?
About MacAlpine? No. The Giggs story is everywhere.
Indeed it might, but it certainly puts away the idea that abusers are not very close to power, if not in power, as Sir Peter Morrison, MP for Chester, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, now implicated in the Wrexham abuse, was.
I have a friend who works in News who told me. And it fitted in with the fact that Newsnight had trailed he was going to be named but didn't at the last minute.
Perhaps it was the threat of libel action that did it and wires got crossed.
I vaguely remember him saying that too.
And Tom Watson says the ring he was speaking about isn't related to North Wales - so it's possible a different MP/MPs are in the frame in that case.
I think the threat of libel action is right but I am still not sure there was an injunction, it would have leaked somewhere.
Tom Watson's question at PMQs wasn't in regard to an MP.
It was about his source claiming to have seen a letter in which an alleged abuser claimed to have links to an aide of a former PM who he also claimed could supply dodgy porn.
No, I'm just old enough to remember it, in fact I remember the war
Seriously though, I can recall other cases where all has not been revealed, where governments have closed ranks and pulled all manner of stunts to prevent an inquiry achieving an outcome. There are too many people who think such actions are to protect a particular party and in some cases that's true but ever in their mind is to protect government per se.......government must always prevail.
Or
It might just be to protect the innocent from false accusations.
Why didn't Neil challenge Mellor at the time he made the comment? I suspect the programme became aware of the storm brewing in social media land towards the end of the programme and decided to try to make amends.
Let's talk about paedophilia cases. Do you think, in a properly conducted case using unfettered intelligent investigators, that prosecutions should be sidelined and kids fail to be protected in order to defend government or politicians?
So you do think being questioned by the police equals guilty..
You said yourself they weren't prosecuted, could that mean they had F all to do with it.
Oh yeah , i forgot, that's proof of a cover up:rolleyes:
If you want speculative cover ups that involve No10 there's plenty that involve Labour too,
"Some commentators, mindful that one of Tony Blair's closest confidante's is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair's repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon. "
http://www.whale.to/b/tony.html
Blair's aide Phillip Lyon was actually jailed, so that one's not even speculative.
Having just watched the clip again what Mellor said was "the Daily Mail have described this person as a weirdo" and in the context of teh ongoing conversation Neil was right not to follow it up then.
However by the end of the programme people had obviously got the wrong end of the stick and been in Twitter etc and so it was row back time.
That said it was not wise of Mellor to use the phrase be it his own or a repeat of the Daily Mail. The more pertinent point he made, that Messham has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages has been lost in the furore
No and if anything like that is proved i would hope those responsible would get punished.
So far we have nothing close to proof.Just some very tenuous links, that have already been investigated and still no proof.
Yes, I understand that now.
It was just that you earlier said he'd threaten to libel them!
I think he meant "having allowed Messham to be raped whilst in care and not investigating properly has already cost public authorities £1.5 million in libel damages"
Here is exactly what Mellor said:
"I don't see how Newsnight as a brand can survive this. The thing about McAlpine was that it was so grotesque, they rely on a man who … the Mail on Sunday over two pages reveals that this man is a weirdo."
A bit different from what you've quoted, no? Aside from that, the Daily Mail certainly didn't use the word weirdo to describe Messham.
You must try harder in your defense of Neil.
I suspect you're right. It's impossible in this day and age to keep an injunction - even a super injunction - quiet. As the Giggs case proved. All that happens is that so many people will mention it on blogs and social media that they simply become unenforceable.
Sorry my mistake, phrased it wrong.