Messham claims to have been abused by a few people, one of them being Thomas Kenyon I believe, who is dead.
He was convinced the man who police identified as Mcalpine was still alive cause he said on radio he should be arrested
He has said a lot of inconsistent things over the years. Having seen a picture of the much maligned Alistair McAlpine he has said that he got it wrong and he made a mistake. He said much the same after her was being sued for libel by a senior policeman and eventually signed a sworn statement saying that he was wrong, the abuse had never happened and it was all the fault of journalists who kept putting words into his mouth.
He has said a lot of inconsistent things over the years. Having seen a picture of the much maligned Alistair McAlpine he has said that he got it wrong and he made a mistake. He said much the same after her was being sued for libel by a senior policeman and eventually signed a sworn statement saying that he was wrong, the abuse had never happened and it was all the fault of journalists who kept putting words into his mouth.
You are right however on the photo case, there's someone to back him up. Two people who were told Mcalpine was the man who attacked them, not that they should been told his name in the first place, pretty sure that's not police procedure
You are right however on the photo case, there's someone to back him up. Two people who were told Mcalpine was the man who attacked them, not that they should been told his name in the first place, pretty sure that's not police procedure
Quite so. I think the right-wing character assassination of Mr Messham is a little premature, for the man himself has already stated quite clearly that his assumption was based on false information being given to him by the Police.
The only pertinent question is why this was done to him.
I think they expected him to have a better grasp of what was going on, people who worked at the BBC were giving him a mauling. Did you listen to the interview he did on the Today programme, perhaps that tipped the balance for him.
But why not the same for the ITV Chief on Phillip Schofield? If that happenned at the BBC, MP's and anti BBC Press/Media people would have been saying "you should have known what Schofield was about to say, so should the director/producer, why don't you know".
In my view the MP's criticising Entwistle are full of the utmost hypocrisy. If you write to an MP, how long does it take to get a reply on average? (I don't count auto replies as a reply either).
Have you seen MP's when new at a Government job at a Q and A session in Parliament? They are often full of "I'l have to get back to you on this as I new in the job or just in post" or words to that effect and they often put things out to review and get outside consultants to help them even though they have tens of thousands of civil servants to help them, but when it came to Entwistle, they expected him to know everything and anything from up to 40 years ago just liken that!!!!! :mad: @ the MP's and their outrageous and hypocritical double standards!!!!!!!
Quite so. I think the right-wing character assassination of Mr Messham is a little premature, for the man himself has already stated quite clearly that his assumption was based on false information being given to him by the Police.
The only pertinent question is why this was done to him.
The police appear to have deliberately misled him, perhaps in order to discredit him. We know from Hillsborough, Jean Charles De Menezes, and phone hacking, that the police will do anything to cover their own asses.
The police seem to be completely incompetent and incapable of acting decisively in cases of pedophilia. I am sure this is nothing to do with the large number of Freemasons in the police. Nope, no conflict of interest at all.:rolleyes:
"If you have been abused, give evidence to the police, who will then destroy your evidence and smear you."
You are right however on the photo case, there's someone to back him up. Two people who were told Mcalpine was the man who attacked them, not that they should been told his name in the first place, pretty sure that's not police procedure
If it happened then, no.
However as there is an enquiry going on I shall await results. rather than rely on he said she said as a source.
There's already been far too much of that on this thread.
BTW there are many many people who have the surname McAlpine.
It was a woman who was interviewed on Channel 4 news who said they were destroyed. Can't remember the circumstances now, so perhaps someone else remembers what she said.
She confirmed that they were ordered destroyed, not that the order had actually been carried out or that there were no other copies.
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.
How do youpossibly know that considering you won't know how many injunctions have been breached and how many have stood over the years and the gagged person not had the means or celebrity to fight back?
I have a question. Which McAlpine had a lawyer at the inquiry into the child abuse and which McAlpine did the judge refuse to have recorded in the records, issue a gagging order about. I think this makes a difference as to whether Lord McAlpine can sue as if he was partly responsible for gagging a full enquiry and events being looked into fully a the time he is part responsible for fueling gossip about himself.
does anyone think tom watson should resign?, he was the one that came up with the original fairy tale and bought it to george's attention.
the guy gives me the impression of being a complete buffoon.
He can only be "sacked" by the people who elected him .
But I shall enjoy watching him at PMQs.
His fellow M.P.s especially those opposite will wipe the smug smile from his face. He has shot himself in the foot. Very few people took him seriously prior to his latest outburst. Now no one will.
Here's hoping Andrew Neil can lure him on to the Daily Politics.
I have a question. Which McAlpine had a lawyer at the inquiry into the child abuse and which McAlpine did the judge refuse to have recorded in the records, issue a gagging order about. I think this makes a difference as to whether Lord McAlpine can sue as if he was partly responsible for gagging a full enquiry and events being looked into fully a the time he is part responsible for fueling gossip about himself.
I am sure that Lord McAlpine is getting the best legal advice.
He can only be "sacked" by the people who elected him .
But I shall enjoy watching him at PMQs.
His fellow M.P.s especially those opposite will wipe the smug smile from his face. He has shot himself in the foot. Very few people took him seriously prior to his latest outburst. Now no one will.
Here's hoping Andrew Neil can lure him on to the Daily Politics.
Watson was not talking about the Wales case, though.
Speaking of Watson's, here's a helpful and fun definition of pedophilia: Hebephile want to bang teenage to present day Emma Watson. Pedophiles want to bang Emma Watson in Chamber of Secrets.
According to a recent documentary, all men are Hebephiles (we all want to bang nubile young adult females like Emma Watson), but some,like Savile, become Pedophiles.
I am sure that Lord McAlpine is getting the best legal advice.
I'm sure he had that 20 yeas ago too but whatin order to do what? Legal advice has to have a purpose?
Was it to clear his name - clearly that didn't work
To protect a family member / colleagues / estalishment budies - maybe that was successful
Intimidate the press - anyone would certainly be wary of writing about him now
Or a combination of the above
If he was named wrongly and they knew it had to be mistaken identity 20 years ago then why the gag order? Why not want it looked into and your name cleared openly? Why block the victims being able to speak and clear up any misunderstanding openly?
His fellow M.P.s especially those opposite will wipe the smug smile from his face. He has shot himself in the foot. Very few people took him seriously prior to his latest outburst. Now no one will.
I'm not quite so sure the general electorate are as in favour of ensuring the powerful are above answering to the law and public opinion as some in the Tory party assume. I don't think Mellor, Cameron etc are reading the public mood on this I think they are in a bit of a bubble assuming that it is ludicrous to think their mates might have dodgy habits because they are the right sort.
Anyone can be a paedophile but paedophiles can flourish in an atmosphere where their actions are above questioning and I think most people are aware of this. I don't think burying their head, hoping it will go away and lashing out at the victims - aka the Catholic response to abuse was that successful - ultimately it makes the scandal bigger as the scandal then becomes about covering up the various scandals and just how badly X & Y is implicated.
So not only has he been corrected about Lord McAlpine, he's also been told who the real culprit was?
No this was before he was shown the photo of the actual Lord Mcalpine last week, point is if it was Jimmie Mcalpine who abused him he would have been 103 now
Comments
Messham claims to have been abused by a few people, one of them being Thomas Kenyon I believe, who is dead.
He was convinced the man who police identified as Mcalpine was still alive cause he said on radio he should be arrested
He has said a lot of inconsistent things over the years. Having seen a picture of the much maligned Alistair McAlpine he has said that he got it wrong and he made a mistake. He said much the same after her was being sued for libel by a senior policeman and eventually signed a sworn statement saying that he was wrong, the abuse had never happened and it was all the fault of journalists who kept putting words into his mouth.
He has claimed to have been sexually abused by forty nine people and physically abused by twenty nine people.
You are right however on the photo case, there's someone to back him up. Two people who were told Mcalpine was the man who attacked them, not that they should been told his name in the first place, pretty sure that's not police procedure
Quite so. I think the right-wing character assassination of Mr Messham is a little premature, for the man himself has already stated quite clearly that his assumption was based on false information being given to him by the Police.
The only pertinent question is why this was done to him.
But why not the same for the ITV Chief on Phillip Schofield? If that happenned at the BBC, MP's and anti BBC Press/Media people would have been saying "you should have known what Schofield was about to say, so should the director/producer, why don't you know".
In my view the MP's criticising Entwistle are full of the utmost hypocrisy. If you write to an MP, how long does it take to get a reply on average? (I don't count auto replies as a reply either).
Have you seen MP's when new at a Government job at a Q and A session in Parliament? They are often full of "I'l have to get back to you on this as I new in the job or just in post" or words to that effect and they often put things out to review and get outside consultants to help them even though they have tens of thousands of civil servants to help them, but when it came to Entwistle, they expected him to know everything and anything from up to 40 years ago just liken that!!!!!
The police appear to have deliberately misled him, perhaps in order to discredit him. We know from Hillsborough, Jean Charles De Menezes, and phone hacking, that the police will do anything to cover their own asses.
The police seem to be completely incompetent and incapable of acting decisively in cases of pedophilia. I am sure this is nothing to do with the large number of Freemasons in the police. Nope, no conflict of interest at all.:rolleyes:
"If you have been abused, give evidence to the police, who will then destroy your evidence and smear you."
Cameron's advice to trust the police is stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQX3PzZ94NU
Suspect he will have a field day at the Leicester Square.
So not only has he been corrected about Lord McAlpine, he's also been told who the real culprit was?
If it happened then, no.
However as there is an enquiry going on I shall await results. rather than rely on he said she said as a source.
There's already been far too much of that on this thread.
BTW there are many many people who have the surname McAlpine.
If you don't trust the police then who is left to trust - politicians, journalists, Twitter, breakfast TV hosts?
Do you really expect the PM to say: "Don't tell the coppers, they are all corrupt. Just announce it on Twitter and let mob justice rule."
She confirmed that they were ordered destroyed, not that the order had actually been carried out or that there were no other copies.
the guy gives me the impression of being a complete buffoon.
He can only be "sacked" by the people who elected him .
But I shall enjoy watching him at PMQs.
His fellow M.P.s especially those opposite will wipe the smug smile from his face. He has shot himself in the foot. Very few people took him seriously prior to his latest outburst. Now no one will.
Here's hoping Andrew Neil can lure him on to the Daily Politics.
I am sure that Lord McAlpine is getting the best legal advice.
Watson was not talking about the Wales case, though.
Speaking of Watson's, here's a helpful and fun definition of pedophilia:
Hebephile want to bang teenage to present day Emma Watson.
Pedophiles want to bang Emma Watson in Chamber of Secrets.
According to a recent documentary, all men are Hebephiles (we all want to bang nubile young adult females like Emma Watson), but some,like Savile, become Pedophiles.
If he was named wrongly and they knew it had to be mistaken identity 20 years ago then why the gag order? Why not want it looked into and your name cleared openly? Why block the victims being able to speak and clear up any misunderstanding openly?
Anyone can be a paedophile but paedophiles can flourish in an atmosphere where their actions are above questioning and I think most people are aware of this. I don't think burying their head, hoping it will go away and lashing out at the victims - aka the Catholic response to abuse was that successful - ultimately it makes the scandal bigger as the scandal then becomes about covering up the various scandals and just how badly X & Y is implicated.
Because there were so many complaints that Thompson was paid so much in a pseudo-public sector position that his successor had a reduced salary.
No this was before he was shown the photo of the actual Lord Mcalpine last week, point is if it was Jimmie Mcalpine who abused him he would have been 103 now
Thanks.:)