i think Messham should disappear from the public eye -- i think we have had enough of his fairy tales -- no journalist should ever give him the time of day.
i think Messham should disappear from the public eye -- i think we have had enough of his fairy tales -- no journalist should ever give him the time of day.
They are not fairy tales, you obviously haven't been following much of this
Although Watson was referring to another case his speech in the HoC the other week was frustratingly lacking in information and was (morally) no different from the unsubstantiated rumours which Newsnight broadcast.
Watson's "evidence" boils down to receiving a letter from someone working for social services with a "gnawing suspicion" that there was a link to a former PM via a paedophile ring involving convicted Paedophile Peter Righton.
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?
The victim in a defamation case does not have to disprove the allegations against them. Just as the accused does not have to disprove the charges against them in a court of law. There is probably a fancy latin name for a defense where you point the finger at someone you think is the true perpetrator of a crime but there may not be any compulsion to do so unless the evidence is so strong that you risk being wrongly convicted. Unless you actually know that a relative committed a crime there is no conspiracy involved in not mentioning that you think they might be guilty and there is no guarantee that you actually even suspected it.
I am not claiming this to be the case but it's possible to imagine a scenario where you are aware of the evidence in a case you are being put in the frame for and suspect it's a relative of yours who is the real guilty party. You know that if you take that case to court you will win but at the cost of having it aired in a venue where said details become public risking exposure of the relative who might be innocent after all.
If nothing else this highlights a worrying trend in the media to give unsubstantiated allegations more credence than they may have and without looking into if they do and consulting those who the allegations are made against either. It also highlights the present increasing use of the likes of Twitter as a sort of pseudo newsfeed.
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.
Tom Watson said nothing about McAlpine, his case was about the convicted paedophile Peter Righton. And we now have at least two former MPs who say Margaret Thatchers' Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison was likely linked to the Wrexham abuse.
There is no proof that this happened. Just wait for the enquiry then you wont have to go on making wild baseless claims.
Proof being someone filming the police saying it was Mcalpine who was doing the abusing?
You have two people saying this, the police won't admit to it. Some people will refuse to believe the police could have done this but after Hillsborough I find it very hard to trust the police and wouldn't put anything past them
Tom Watson said nothing about McAlpine, his case was about the convicted paedophile Peter Righton. And we now have at least two former MPs who say Margaret Thatchers' Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison was likely linked to the Wrexham abuse.
Again, we must be careful though - as yet, there is no definitive proof of this. It's just an allegation. "Was likely" is not a suitable get-out clause (it's like Ian Hislop joking about using the word "allegedly" on HIGNFY).
Proof being someone filming the police saying it was Mcalpine who was doing the abusing?
You have two people saying this, the police won't admit to it. Some people will refuse to believe the police could have done this but after Hillsborough I find it very hard to trust the police and wouldn't put anything past them
Your misgivings about the police does not alter the fact that there is no proof. There is an investigation going on at the moment about the handling of the case. So just wait until that reports.
Repeating twitter tittle tattle will not alter anything.
Your misgivings about the police does not alter the fact that there is no proof. There is an investigation going on at the moment about the handling of the case. So just wait until that reports.
Repeating twitter tittle tattle will not alter anything.
Not twitter tattle, This is from a) Messham's statement and b) interview with the widow of a victim on channel 4 news
Your misgivings about the police does not alter the fact that there is no proof. There is an investigation going on at the moment about the handling of the case. So just wait until that reports.
Repeating twitter tittle tattle will not alter anything.
Stop with the smokescreen, people are entitled to discuss what they want within the T&C, it's not for you to say.
The whole problem is that the last investigation was deemed to be ineffective. There is nothing to say it won't happen again, one only need look at recent history of inquires to see that.
The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him
I guess the Police who were involved in showing pictures and talking to witnesses are dead now?
It will be interesting to see if the wronged person is willing to go in to court under oath or will settle outside for undisclosed amounts. Didn't Jonathan Aitken make that mistake once? It could end up very messy for others if he does,
Again, we must be careful though - as yet, there is no definitive proof of this. It's just an allegation. "Was likely" is not a suitable get-out clause (it's like Ian Hislop joking about using the word "allegedly" on HIGNFY).
I don't think there's much doubt about it:
""Now he's what they call 'a noted pederast', with a liking for young boys; he admitted as much ... when he became deputy chairman of the party but added, 'However, I'm very discreet' - and he must be!"
"I heard he would take them to his hunting lodge in Scotland and they would have a whale of a time. I think that's what he meant to be discreet."
"She said Morrison was protected by a "culture of sniggering, of giggling and of nudge-nudge, wink-wink" as well as by the difficulties of getting cases to court at that time."
"she had heard that Sir Peter Morrison, Thatcher's parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the party, had sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of consent was 21. "Was he doing anything illegal? Almost certainly. Would it be illegal today? Hard to tell now the age of consent is down to 16," she said.
The former Welsh secretary & Conservative MP Rod Richards has also said he saw Sir Peter Morrison's name in the unpublished Jillings report.
I guess the Police who were involved in showing pictures and talking to witnesses are dead now?
It will be interesting to see if the wronged person is willing to go in to court under oath or will settle outside for undisclosed amounts. Didn't Jonathan Aitken make that mistake once? It could end up very messy for others if he does,
Could you expand on that a little please, I don't really get what you are saying in the second paragraph
These are the all important weasel words which you have to be very careful about when dealing with allegations like this. Lots of third party quotations.
These are the all important weasel words which you have to be very careful about when dealing with allegations like this. Lots of third party quotations.
She says that Morrison had personally admitted it to her:
"he admitted as much 'However, I'm very discreet'"
Add to that Rod Richards saying he had seen Morrison's name in the Jillings report.
Comments
Tom Watson raised the issue of a completely different case. He's not the reason for the current hue and cry over North Wales.
The BBC were already in trouble over Jimmy Savile when Tom Watson raised the matter of the Peter Righton case in parliament.
'Brought to george's attention'? It does not seem to have been physically possible to bring George's attention to anything at all.
They are not fairy tales, you obviously haven't been following much of this
identities have been mixed up twiced, hes apologised twice.
maybe 3rd time lucky -- lets try again eh?
Watson's "evidence" boils down to receiving a letter from someone working for social services with a "gnawing suspicion" that there was a link to a former PM via a paedophile ring involving convicted Paedophile Peter Righton.
The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him
The victim in a defamation case does not have to disprove the allegations against them. Just as the accused does not have to disprove the charges against them in a court of law. There is probably a fancy latin name for a defense where you point the finger at someone you think is the true perpetrator of a crime but there may not be any compulsion to do so unless the evidence is so strong that you risk being wrongly convicted. Unless you actually know that a relative committed a crime there is no conspiracy involved in not mentioning that you think they might be guilty and there is no guarantee that you actually even suspected it.
I am not claiming this to be the case but it's possible to imagine a scenario where you are aware of the evidence in a case you are being put in the frame for and suspect it's a relative of yours who is the real guilty party. You know that if you take that case to court you will win but at the cost of having it aired in a venue where said details become public risking exposure of the relative who might be innocent after all.
That is what has been said, this will have to be investigated.
There is no proof that this happened. Just wait for the enquiry then you wont have to go on making wild baseless claims.
He has alleged.
The police have yet to confirm this was the case.
Proof being someone filming the police saying it was Mcalpine who was doing the abusing?
You have two people saying this, the police won't admit to it. Some people will refuse to believe the police could have done this but after Hillsborough I find it very hard to trust the police and wouldn't put anything past them
Again, we must be careful though - as yet, there is no definitive proof of this. It's just an allegation. "Was likely" is not a suitable get-out clause (it's like Ian Hislop joking about using the word "allegedly" on HIGNFY).
Your misgivings about the police does not alter the fact that there is no proof. There is an investigation going on at the moment about the handling of the case. So just wait until that reports.
Repeating twitter tittle tattle will not alter anything.
Not twitter tattle, This is from a) Messham's statement and b) interview with the widow of a victim on channel 4 news
Stop with the smokescreen, people are entitled to discuss what they want within the T&C, it's not for you to say.
The whole problem is that the last investigation was deemed to be ineffective. There is nothing to say it won't happen again, one only need look at recent history of inquires to see that.
I guess the Police who were involved in showing pictures and talking to witnesses are dead now?
It will be interesting to see if the wronged person is willing to go in to court under oath or will settle outside for undisclosed amounts. Didn't Jonathan Aitken make that mistake once? It could end up very messy for others if he does,
""Now he's what they call 'a noted pederast', with a liking for young boys; he admitted as much ... when he became deputy chairman of the party but added, 'However, I'm very discreet' - and he must be!"
"I heard he would take them to his hunting lodge in Scotland and they would have a whale of a time. I think that's what he meant to be discreet."
"She said Morrison was protected by a "culture of sniggering, of giggling and of nudge-nudge, wink-wink" as well as by the difficulties of getting cases to court at that time."
"she had heard that Sir Peter Morrison, Thatcher's parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the party, had sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of consent was 21. "Was he doing anything illegal? Almost certainly. Would it be illegal today? Hard to tell now the age of consent is down to 16," she said.
The former Welsh secretary & Conservative MP Rod Richards has also said he saw Sir Peter Morrison's name in the unpublished Jillings report.
Could you expand on that a little please, I don't really get what you are saying in the second paragraph
Thanks
These are the all important weasel words which you have to be very careful about when dealing with allegations like this. Lots of third party quotations.
Whether the person named decides to go through with litigation and it gets to court. Look at the Aitken situation to see how it can get messy.
the guardian no less: http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on-the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/
"he admitted as much 'However, I'm very discreet'"
Add to that Rod Richards saying he had seen Morrison's name in the Jillings report.
LOL i don't know what the Aitken situation is and was hoping you would elaborate