I have not stated what is or what is not the truth - like everyone else I can just read the two sides.
However, there has been mention on here of Messham sueing the mail for this article. And how this piece is disgusting.
The accusation of abusing children is the worse of the worse of the worse. Having seen McAlpine not necessarily being cleared of any wrongdoing but it being stated there was nothing sufficient to bring charges, Messham with no further 'proof' went ahead and accused him again.
Perhaps McAlpine & his family have suffered emotionally from the accusations. I can just imagine the uproar if McAlpine decided to sue Messham.
This is just my view, and I am not dismissing anyone else's. I am just a little confused as to why this article has been so condemned.
I don't know if people find it hard to accept or not, but the political establishment have always been happy to cover up anything and everything if it suits their purpose.
Well speaking for myself i know i have a very different view on that than i had a few weeks ago.
The culture secretary, Maria Miller, and BBC Trust chairman, Lord Patten, are facing mounting calls from MPs including justice minister Jeremy Wright to intervene over an inquiry into the apparent suicide of BBC broadcaster Russell Joslin, amid bullying and sexual harassment allegations.
Texts on Joslin's phone in the runup to his death show he had been in touch with BBC West Midlands managers including Hearne, who is the head of programmes, and was seeking to address work-related issues which saw him off sick with stress and depression this year.
They included his allegations of workplace bullying and sexual harassment by a former female colleague, and of BBC management sidelining him and mishandling his concerns and complaints over several years.
Joslin's family said the texts also reveal triggers for his actions including the Jimmy Savile scandal and BBC cover-up allegations, and allegedly being told by HR officials the corporation had no record of specific complaints he made to occupational health earlier this year.
Apparent suicide? Are they implying something else? Strangely enough, this story is missing from the BBC site, unless I just can't see it. And once again, they have 'no record' of specific complaints, just like they didn't with Savile.
I find it hard to believe that journalists since have never shown those they've interviewed photos of Lord McAlpine to clarify. Including, those who worked for Scallywag Magzine, who named four political people in their article. A couple of those weren't exactly greatly known in this country at the time, either.
Newspapers like stories that will run and run, why bother clearing up any confusion when there's money to be made.
I can't believe not one showbiz writer isn't heavily into drugs or something if they are mixing with celebs who down the line are reported to have been into drugs or whatever.
I recall one journalist who used to go to pervy sex parties and they both did cocaine but it never made the papers...years later the journalist sold the story to a paper but there was no mention of him partaking.
I have not stated what is or what is not the truth - like everyone else I can just read the two sides.
However, there has been mention on here of Messham sueing the mail for this article. And how this piece is disgusting.
The accusation of abusing children is the worse of the worse of the worse. Having seen McAlpine not necessarily being cleared of any wrongdoing but it being stated there was nothing sufficient to bring charges, Messham with no further 'proof' went ahead and accused him again.
Perhaps McAlpine & his family have suffered emotionally from the accusations. I can just imagine the uproar if McAlpine decided to sue Messham.
This is just my view, and I am not dismissing anyone else's. I am just a little confused as to why this article has been so condemned.
There's still unanswered allegations from the North Wales case. IIRC Keith Gregory has a list of 30 or so names that came up in the victim support group he runs that were never investigated including some still powerful local figures. Sian Griffiths as well. Rubbishing Messham's *initial allegations* involving relatively local figures i.e. Wrexham and Chester, damages the whole investigation.
Paraic O'Brien @paraicobrien
For those concerned, we've spoken to Steve Messham & he is OK.
Retweeted 178 times
EXCLUSIVE: Steve Messham missing for eight hours
By john ward @nbyward
“My walk is waiting” The Slog has learned that, following a sleepless night and acute upset at the slurs made against him yesterday, Bryn Estyn whistleblower Steven Messham (left) is ca...
Thats a relief! I was worried for his welfare yesterday, given his earlier tweets. I hope that charity/organisation MWT mentioned, FBIJ, are helping defend him, he needs support. Its good to see others here are concerned as well, as it seems all the focus is on the BBC and not so much on what the victims have been trying to bring our attention to.
Also if the police did incorrectly identify the person in the photo, as alleged, is anything going to come of that, has the relevant police force received much criticism for it or is it being brushed off as a simple mistake (or something similar)? I'm not entirely sure what could be done but I'm just wondering if there's any quotes from the police force about it or anything like that, rather than only hearing that a paper has ripped into SM over the reliability of what he said, it doesn't seem fair, from the little I'm hearing... it all seems very murky.
He initially denied ever visiting the home, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. Savile’s reaction was to slap an injunction on The Sun who had to withdraw the picture.
This was followed with a series of articles.
That's also my impression, and Lenny Harper who investigated the child abuse on Jersey has said he doesn't think the photo was at Haute de la Garenne home and the Sun were wrong to say Savile refused to assist police, he said they never asked him to.
Although he did say recently he thought Savile could have been implicated in the Haut de la Garenne scandal.
He initially denied ever visiting the home, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. Savile’s reaction was to slap an injunction on The Sun who had to withdraw the picture.
This was followed with a series of articles.
What's getting my goat today is that there's a lot of people saying how you should never trust what's said on the internet and that they're just a bunch of conspiracy theorists etc, which to some extent is true, however it wasn't the internet that allowed celebs like JS get away with decades of abuse and god knows what was it?
Apparent suicide? Are they implying something else? Strangely enough, this story is missing from the BBC site, unless I just can't see it. And once again, they have 'no record' of specific complaints, just like they didn't with Savile.
Did you bother to check how he is said to have died?
Joslin, aged 50, died at Warwick Hospital on 22 October after being found asphyxiated at St Michael's psychiatric hospital, Warwick.
What's that saying... There's none so blind as those who will not see...a pop is taken at there being no record of a complaint and a simple search brings up all those stories you could not see...mmmmm.
I have not stated what is or what is not the truth - like everyone else I can just read the two sides.
However, there has been mention on here of Messham sueing the mail for this article. And how this piece is disgusting.
The accusation of abusing children is the worse of the worse of the worse. Having seen McAlpine not necessarily being cleared of any wrongdoing but it being stated there was nothing sufficient to bring charges, Messham with no further 'proof' went ahead and accused him again.
Perhaps McAlpine & his family have suffered emotionally from the accusations. I can just imagine the uproar if McAlpine decided to sue Messham.
This is just my view, and I am not dismissing anyone else's. I am just a little confused as to why this article has been so condemned.
Did you read the article? Because I'm a little confused over how anyone who read the article could be wondering why so many people found it so distasteful. For me, it wasn't the use of fabrication so much (although that was provocative) as the sneering jubilant tone of it, the whooping and hollering and high-fiving by the authors as they delighted in putting a victim of abuse firmly in his place.
It also needs to be said that Lord McAlpine himself showed compassion in his own statement towards Steve Messham. If Lord McA, the injured party here, can find it in himself to understand how a mistake might have been made, then what possible excuse is there for that pair of thugs, masquerading as journalists, who used the 'unreliability' of a vulnerable person to satisfy their own - and the Mail's - need to stick the knife in, twist it around, and then stick it in a bit more just for their own sad kicks.
That's why I would imagine most people found it distasteful.
There's still unanswered allegations from the North Wales case. IIRC Keith Gregory has a list of 30 or so names that came up in the victim support group he runs that were never investigated including some still powerful local figures. Sian Griffiths as well. Rubbishing Messham's *initial allegations* involving relatively local figures i.e. Wrexham and Chester, damages the whole investigation.
It might damage an internet investigation. I don't suppose it will have much effect on either a police or judicial inquiry
I say no, if you have followed these threads, the first assumption is there is injunction or superinjunction this allows the conspiracy theorists to have free reign, then some obscure website will bring forth a 'D' notice as a reason they can not give names, etc....perfect....it means everyone has take at face value a doughnut munching dude who's probably never been out of their bedroom for 10 years telling us 'the truth' because the 'evidence' is there on some other pringles munching dude's website who regularly has ex military personnel mainly MI5, MI6 or SAS sidling up to them with secrets.
Agree, they know for a fact who edited a Wiki page and why, just by the vibes coming off their computer screens...
If you're going to quote me please quote me in full - there was a rather big OR in my original post.
I did not know anything for fact. I made a simple deduction that it was either someone trying to hide something OR someone else trying to make it appear as though someone is trying to hide something (to make them appear guilty).
Why do you think the entries were removed? Do you think it was a random error by someone who knew nothing about this situation? Someone who just fancied deleting them for no reason whatsoever? Possible I suppose, but highly unlikely, IMO.
Did you read the article? Because I'm a little confused over how anyone who read the article could be wondering why so many people found it so distasteful. For me, it wasn't the use of fabrication so much (although that was unnecessary) as the sneering jubilant tone of it, the whooping and hollering and high-fiving by the authors as they delighted in putting a victim of abuse firmly in his place.
It also neds to be said that Lord McAlpine himself showed compassion in his own statement towards Steve Messham. If Lord McA, the mistakenly accused party here, can find it in himself to understand how a mistake might have been made, then what possible excuse is there for that pair of thugs, masquerading as journalists, who used the 'unreliability' of a vulnerable person to satisfy their own - and the Mail's - need to stick the knife in, twist it around, and then stick it in a bit more just for their own sad kicks.
That's why I would imagine most people found it distasteful.
Fine - but I didn't detect a sneering jubilant tone. Some people on here have got very emotionally involved in all this, so perhaps I was reading it more dispassionately.
But then again, it seems that on here some people used Messham and what he said to stick the knife into a well-off, Tory, member of the 'establishment'. What was the reason for that?
Well if he had well connected people as his contacts, they could have easily stopped the Sun. I'm pretty sure Savile was involved in rings with judges, senior police, politicians, lawyers, and perhaps journalists. One phonecall could have got him all the protection he needed. Certainly he liked to reiterate that he could bring them all down, often enough in interviews
I don't think he got an injunction against the sun but they were warned by lawyers things could get messy and it would cost them in the long run if they pursued it.
Fine - but I didn't detect a sneering jubilant tone. Some people on here have got very emotionally involved in all this, so perhaps I was reading it more dispassionately.
But then again, it seems that on here some people used Messham and what he said to stick the knife into a well-off, Tory, member of the 'establishment'. What was the reason for that?
I suspect it's because there's a suspicion about why certain abuses have been covered up, is it because someone with a lot of power is abusing that power, if so, who?
Well if he had well connected people as his contacts, they could have easily stopped the Sun. I'm pretty sure Savile was involved in rings with judges, senior police, politicians, lawyers, and perhaps journalists. One phonecall could have got him all the protection he needed. Certainly he liked to reiterate that he could bring them all down, often enough in interviews
Here we go again....give it a rest....Louis Theroux put to Savile about being labelled a paedophile, he was secretly filmed...if he was so powerful he'd have had Louis killed in a crash or the programme dropped.
I await the excuse why he allowed the Louis Theroux programme to go ahead....
I don't think he got an injunction against the sun but they were warned by lawyers things could get messy and it would cost them in the long run if they pursued it.
So not dissimilar to the reasons why Newsnight pulled the original programme then........
I suspect it's because there's a suspicion about why certain abuses have been covered up, is it because someone with a lot of power is abusing that power, if so, who?
David Icke?
Think about it he says 'The bigger the lie the more people will believe it'....what better way to cover up by pretending to uncover the cover ups.
Comments
Well I would have thought the Sun would have said if he'd served an injunction on them to show how they'd been censored by him over the years.
I have not stated what is or what is not the truth - like everyone else I can just read the two sides.
However, there has been mention on here of Messham sueing the mail for this article. And how this piece is disgusting.
The accusation of abusing children is the worse of the worse of the worse. Having seen McAlpine not necessarily being cleared of any wrongdoing but it being stated there was nothing sufficient to bring charges, Messham with no further 'proof' went ahead and accused him again.
Perhaps McAlpine & his family have suffered emotionally from the accusations. I can just imagine the uproar if McAlpine decided to sue Messham.
This is just my view, and I am not dismissing anyone else's. I am just a little confused as to why this article has been so condemned.
Well speaking for myself i know i have a very different view on that than i had a few weeks ago.
Apparent suicide? Are they implying something else? Strangely enough, this story is missing from the BBC site, unless I just can't see it. And once again, they have 'no record' of specific complaints, just like they didn't with Savile.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/13/justice-minister-bbc-death
The Sun had already published the photo and ran a series of articles, so it's more likely that Savile threatened to sue for libel. I think the Sun just dropped it. I doubt there was an injunction (gagging order).
http://www.thelawyer.com/jimmy-savile-turns-to-fox-hayes-for-action-against-the-sun/131780.article
I would have thought so too..
Newspapers like stories that will run and run, why bother clearing up any confusion when there's money to be made.
I can't believe not one showbiz writer isn't heavily into drugs or something if they are mixing with celebs who down the line are reported to have been into drugs or whatever.
I recall one journalist who used to go to pervy sex parties and they both did cocaine but it never made the papers...years later the journalist sold the story to a paper but there was no mention of him partaking.
There's still unanswered allegations from the North Wales case. IIRC Keith Gregory has a list of 30 or so names that came up in the victim support group he runs that were never investigated including some still powerful local figures. Sian Griffiths as well. Rubbishing Messham's *initial allegations* involving relatively local figures i.e. Wrexham and Chester, damages the whole investigation.
Thats a relief! I was worried for his welfare yesterday, given his earlier tweets. I hope that charity/organisation MWT mentioned, FBIJ, are helping defend him, he needs support. Its good to see others here are concerned as well, as it seems all the focus is on the BBC and not so much on what the victims have been trying to bring our attention to.
Also if the police did incorrectly identify the person in the photo, as alleged, is anything going to come of that, has the relevant police force received much criticism for it or is it being brushed off as a simple mistake (or something similar)? I'm not entirely sure what could be done but I'm just wondering if there's any quotes from the police force about it or anything like that, rather than only hearing that a paper has ripped into SM over the reliability of what he said, it doesn't seem fair, from the little I'm hearing... it all seems very murky.
Savile’s reaction was to slap an injunction on The Sun who had to withdraw the picture.
This was followed with a series of articles.
http://chris-ukorg.org/cover-ups/jimmy-saville-witch-hunt-or-paedophile/
That's also my impression, and Lenny Harper who investigated the child abuse on Jersey has said he doesn't think the photo was at Haute de la Garenne home and the Sun were wrong to say Savile refused to assist police, he said they never asked him to.
Although he did say recently he thought Savile could have been implicated in the Haut de la Garenne scandal.
But did he get an injunction?
Did you bother to check how he is said to have died?
What's that saying... There's none so blind as those who will not see...a pop is taken at there being no record of a complaint and a simple search brings up all those stories you could not see...mmmmm.
Did you read the article? Because I'm a little confused over how anyone who read the article could be wondering why so many people found it so distasteful. For me, it wasn't the use of fabrication so much (although that was provocative) as the sneering jubilant tone of it, the whooping and hollering and high-fiving by the authors as they delighted in putting a victim of abuse firmly in his place.
It also needs to be said that Lord McAlpine himself showed compassion in his own statement towards Steve Messham. If Lord McA, the injured party here, can find it in himself to understand how a mistake might have been made, then what possible excuse is there for that pair of thugs, masquerading as journalists, who used the 'unreliability' of a vulnerable person to satisfy their own - and the Mail's - need to stick the knife in, twist it around, and then stick it in a bit more just for their own sad kicks.
That's why I would imagine most people found it distasteful.
It might damage an internet investigation. I don't suppose it will have much effect on either a police or judicial inquiry
I say no, if you have followed these threads, the first assumption is there is injunction or superinjunction this allows the conspiracy theorists to have free reign, then some obscure website will bring forth a 'D' notice as a reason they can not give names, etc....perfect....it means everyone has take at face value a doughnut munching dude who's probably never been out of their bedroom for 10 years telling us 'the truth' because the 'evidence' is there on some other pringles munching dude's website who regularly has ex military personnel mainly MI5, MI6 or SAS sidling up to them with secrets.
If you're going to quote me please quote me in full - there was a rather big OR in my original post.
I did not know anything for fact. I made a simple deduction that it was either someone trying to hide something OR someone else trying to make it appear as though someone is trying to hide something (to make them appear guilty).
Why do you think the entries were removed? Do you think it was a random error by someone who knew nothing about this situation? Someone who just fancied deleting them for no reason whatsoever? Possible I suppose, but highly unlikely, IMO.
Fine - but I didn't detect a sneering jubilant tone. Some people on here have got very emotionally involved in all this, so perhaps I was reading it more dispassionately.
But then again, it seems that on here some people used Messham and what he said to stick the knife into a well-off, Tory, member of the 'establishment'. What was the reason for that?
Well if he had well connected people as his contacts, they could have easily stopped the Sun. I'm pretty sure Savile was involved in rings with judges, senior police, politicians, lawyers, and perhaps journalists. One phonecall could have got him all the protection he needed. Certainly he liked to reiterate that he could bring them all down, often enough in interviews
I don't think he got an injunction against the sun but they were warned by lawyers things could get messy and it would cost them in the long run if they pursued it.
I suspect it's because there's a suspicion about why certain abuses have been covered up, is it because someone with a lot of power is abusing that power, if so, who?
Here we go again....give it a rest....Louis Theroux put to Savile about being labelled a paedophile, he was secretly filmed...if he was so powerful he'd have had Louis killed in a crash or the programme dropped.
I await the excuse why he allowed the Louis Theroux programme to go ahead....
So not dissimilar to the reasons why Newsnight pulled the original programme then........
David Icke?
Think about it he says 'The bigger the lie the more people will believe it'....what better way to cover up by pretending to uncover the cover ups.