BiB: It is way too convenient, and it can only be that someone in the family (or close to them) removed it to prevent the public from easily discovering the sheriff connection - though journalists should be able to get the info pretty easily - or that someone else removed the entries to make the family appear as though they were hiding the info.
I would hope wikipedia can provide the IP responsible for the change so the police can check this out, though I fear it will lead to an Internet cafe or similar.
I didn't realise that changing formation on Wiki was a criminal offence that would warrant police investigation.
What part of the article was untrue? Do you really think on a story this sensitive that the article would not be fully checked by the Mails legal team? As far as I know everything in that article was already public knowledge.
You must realise that some people on here are very partisan.
Gerard Elias QC: “Does the name McAlpine mean anything to you.”
Steven Messham: “Yes, sir.”
Elias: “In what context?”
Messham: “I was also abused by him sexually.”
Sir Ronald Waterhouse: “Is the person you referred to alive or dead?”
Messham: “I believe he is dead.”
The Waterhouse report contains Steven Messham’s statement to the police. In it, Steven testified that his abuser “had several cars and a chauffeur.”
The abusers would wait for Steven Messham at the bottom of a lane near Bryn Estyn children’s home when Steven had a late pass from the home. Messham was then abused in the car in a lay-by, and at the Crest Hotel in Wrexham.
Local Welsh councillor Keith Gregory has tesified that boys from Bryn Estyn would be taken to the homes of two McAlpine family members in the area – Gerwyn Hall and Marchwiel Hall, both a few miles from Wrexham town centre. Gerwyn Hall was occupied by Jimmie McAlpine, who died in 1991. Marchwiel Hall was the home of Jimmie’s sister. Their son, John Bell, lived at Marchwiel Hall at the time. He now lives in Thailand.
Jimmie McAlpine’s ID fits to the letter with his chauffeurs, his massive car collection, the house where he lived, the hotel he frequented, and the golf club membership he shared at the time with the two leaders at Bryn Estyn….both of whom went to jail on multiple charges of buggery.
If you assume *Lord* McAlpine is the one being accused then the story is full of holes however if you assume it's Sir Jimmie McAlpine then it all fits.
What part of the article was untrue? Do you really think on a story this sensitive that the article would not be fully checked by the Mails legal team? As far as I know everything in that article was already public knowledge.
I think the mail wrote that Steve Messham had 'fabricated his story' which of course is completely untrue. It was a case of mistaken ID, not Steve's fault at all, the article was trying to discredit Mr Messham but when you look into the author, it's clear to see his motives, worst kind of journalists IMO
If you assume *Lord* McAlpine is the one being accused then the story is full of holes however if you assume it's Sir Jimmie McAlpine then it all fits.
The word "fabrication" doesn't apply.
I think it's clearly understandable why there was this massive mix-up but it wouldn't have happened had the investigation and report been done thoroughly and no-one protected, maybe Lord McA should try and sue those who thought it would be a good idea to cover-up the truth.
It seems that the late MP for Rochdale, Cyril Smith, was investigated in the 1960s over allegations of child abuse in a boys' hostel. Private Eye mentioned it in 1979.
The current Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, has told the Independent that 'many people in his town had “turned a blind eye” to child abuse – and claimed that the wilful neglect may have extended to his predecessor Sir Cyril, who died in 2010.'
What part of the article was untrue? Do you really think on a story this sensitive that the article would not be fully checked by the Mails legal team? As far as I know everything in that article was already public knowledge.
Yes, most of what reported was indeed true, despite it clearly being designed for the Mail's agenda to discredit him & the more particularly the BBC.
But, where I think it may fall down is over the claim that he 'fabricated his story', as pointed out by festyflo, it appears to have been a case of mistaken ID and that does not equal fabrication, defined as 'a deliberately false or improbable account', of his story. Here, I think, he may well have a case against the Mail, I certainly hope so.
Not that I am an expert, but I will ask the solicitor that drinks in my local when I next see him, and report back on his view.
ETA:
Here's the quote from the Mail:
"Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were fabricated, has never been good at dealing with questions about his allegations."
I don't believe has admitted he fabricated anything.
The journalist in the article says he witnessed the incident at the Yorkshire Television studios in Leeds. Yorkshire being one of the former ITV regioal contractors.
'Calendar' was the name of YTV's regional news programme & the brand is still used for ITV's local news in the area.
Can't really see why BBC bosses are to blame if the incident took place at The studios of an ITV company.
I think the mail wrote that Steve Messham had 'fabricated his story' which of course is completely untrue. It was a case of mistaken ID, not Steve's fault at all, the article was trying to discredit Mr Messham but when you look into the author, it's clear to see his motives, worst kind of journalists IMO
I think that's splitting hairs. It could easily be argued that by falsely accusing Lord McAlpine that he had fabricated a story. If the Mail had said that he had fabricated the abuse then he may have a case but I think they were careful not to do that.
I think that's splitting hairs. It could easily be argued that by falsely accusing Lord McAlpine that he had fabricated a story. If the Mail had said that he had fabricated the abuse then he may have a case but I think they were careful not to do that.
I think that's splitting hairs. It could easily be argued that by falsely accusing Lord McAlpine that he had fabricated a story. If the Mail had said that he had fabricated the abuse then he may have a case but I think they were careful not to do that.
If you had read earlier posts, you'd have seen it was the use of the word 'fabricated' that was the issue. It's not splitting hairs at all. They deliberately used a word that was intended to imply Steve was a liar. Mistaken identity (due to the police identifying the abuser by name in the photo, not Steve) is not fabrication. But hey. The Mail doesn't care about 'splitting hairs' so long as it makes their story more 'sensational'. That's what counts.
EDIT: Oh, and David Rose seems to have his own agenda if you do some research on him, so it was hardly impartial reporting, since, as overline has pointed out - Steve didn't admit to any fabrication. Therefore, the Mail actually fabricated part of their own article, which is ironic really....
I think it's clearly understandable why there was this massive mix-up but it wouldn't have happened had the investigation and report been done thoroughly and no-one protected, maybe Lord McA should try and sue those who thought it would be a good idea to cover-up the truth.
Exactly. The mix-up wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a cover-up.
Has anyone here every been subjected to the pressures of testifying in the witness box? I've not, but I can only imagine that it's hellishly difficult, and that being pressed to produce clear and accurate testimony is not easy... doing so, when you have been abused and traumatised, and made to suffer at the hands of people in authority, and the made to talk about your abuse in such a forum, must make it even harder.
It seems now to be recognised that Sir Peter Morrison may have been involved in abuse in N Wales.
It has been established someone else called McAlpine may have been on the scene.
All in all, it seems to me that Steve Messham's account may have been confused and have contained biographical inaccuracies, but that the core of that account remains entirely plausible.
It seems that the late MP for Rochdale, Cyril Smith, was investigated in the 1960s over allegations of child abuse in a boys' hostel. Private Eye mentioned it in 1979.
The current Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, has told the Independent that 'many people in his town had “turned a blind eye” to child abuse – and claimed that the wilful neglect may have extended to his predecessor Sir Cyril, who died in 2010.'
I think that's splitting hairs. It could easily be argued that by falsely accusing Lord McAlpine that he had fabricated a story. If the Mail had said that he had fabricated the abuse then he may have a case but I think they were careful not to do that.
It is splitting hairs in a way but it's still important because if you split the hair one way it makes it *sound* like Messham made it all up whereas if you split it the other way then it sounds like what it was - a perfectly consistent allegation about somebody local to Wrexham up to the time of the inquiry which somehow later became about Lord McAlpine.
I think the mail wrote that Steve Messham had 'fabricated his story' which of course is completely untrue. It was a case of mistaken ID, not Steve's fault at all, the article was trying to discredit Mr Messham but when you look into the author, it's clear to see his motives, worst kind of journalists IMO
Indeed. Here's what Steven actually said.
"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine," he said.
"Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were fabricated, has never been good at dealing with questions about his allegations."
I don't believe has admitted he fabricated anything.
He certainly admitted that McAlpine was innocent of any wrongdoing so how would you complete the sentence:
Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were .......
Using a dictionary definition as opposed to a legal definition the word fabricated fits. I doubt Lord McAlpine would see the accusations as a case of mistaken identity, I think he would see them as a lie.
Libel laws and judicial gaggng orders / injunctions.
Exactly and now we are supposed to wait until they die until they are named. Never mind that these abusers who are still alive are probably still abusing some poor kids somewhere. They will wait till they die and then again everyone will blame the victims for not speaking up earlier. The figures for child abuse now are horrifying, we have a massive problem, where are all these abusers? are we supposed to believe they're all dead?
Comments
I didn't realise that changing formation on Wiki was a criminal offence that would warrant police investigation.
You must realise that some people on here are very partisan.
If you assume *Lord* McAlpine is the one being accused then the story is full of holes however if you assume it's Sir Jimmie McAlpine then it all fits.
The word "fabrication" doesn't apply.
I think the mail wrote that Steve Messham had 'fabricated his story' which of course is completely untrue. It was a case of mistaken ID, not Steve's fault at all, the article was trying to discredit Mr Messham but when you look into the author, it's clear to see his motives, worst kind of journalists IMO
I think it's clearly understandable why there was this massive mix-up but it wouldn't have happened had the investigation and report been done thoroughly and no-one protected, maybe Lord McA should try and sue those who thought it would be a good idea to cover-up the truth.
It seems that the late MP for Rochdale, Cyril Smith, was investigated in the 1960s over allegations of child abuse in a boys' hostel. Private Eye mentioned it in 1979.
The current Rochdale MP, Simon Danczuk, has told the Independent that 'many people in his town had “turned a blind eye” to child abuse – and claimed that the wilful neglect may have extended to his predecessor Sir Cyril, who died in 2010.'
Independent
Yes, most of what reported was indeed true, despite it clearly being designed for the Mail's agenda to discredit him & the more particularly the BBC.
But, where I think it may fall down is over the claim that he 'fabricated his story', as pointed out by festyflo, it appears to have been a case of mistaken ID and that does not equal fabrication, defined as 'a deliberately false or improbable account', of his story. Here, I think, he may well have a case against the Mail, I certainly hope so.
Not that I am an expert, but I will ask the solicitor that drinks in my local when I next see him, and report back on his view.
ETA:
Here's the quote from the Mail:
"Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were fabricated, has never been good at dealing with questions about his allegations."
I don't believe has admitted he fabricated anything.
The journalist in the article says he witnessed the incident at the Yorkshire Television studios in Leeds. Yorkshire being one of the former ITV regioal contractors.
'Calendar' was the name of YTV's regional news programme & the brand is still used for ITV's local news in the area.
Can't really see why BBC bosses are to blame if the incident took place at The studios of an ITV company.
I think that's splitting hairs. It could easily be argued that by falsely accusing Lord McAlpine that he had fabricated a story. If the Mail had said that he had fabricated the abuse then he may have a case but I think they were careful not to do that.
See my edit to my post just above yours.
EDIT: Oh, and David Rose seems to have his own agenda if you do some research on him, so it was hardly impartial reporting, since, as overline has pointed out - Steve didn't admit to any fabrication. Therefore, the Mail actually fabricated part of their own article, which is ironic really....
Exactly. The mix-up wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a cover-up.
It seems now to be recognised that Sir Peter Morrison may have been involved in abuse in N Wales.
It has been established someone else called McAlpine may have been on the scene.
All in all, it seems to me that Steve Messham's account may have been confused and have contained biographical inaccuracies, but that the core of that account remains entirely plausible.
Libel laws and judicial gaggng orders / injunctions.
MPs covering up for each other over child abuse seems to have been standard practise.
Are we aware of Savile using any injunctions?
It is splitting hairs in a way but it's still important because if you split the hair one way it makes it *sound* like Messham made it all up whereas if you split it the other way then it sounds like what it was - a perfectly consistent allegation about somebody local to Wrexham up to the time of the inquiry which somehow later became about Lord McAlpine.
Are you sure you used the right tense?
I thought he had an injunction on that photo of him at Haute Garenne?
good point
Ooops bubble - just seen you said the same thing
Indeed. Here's what Steven actually said.
No mention of admitting to fabricating the story.
He certainly admitted that McAlpine was innocent of any wrongdoing so how would you complete the sentence:
Steven Messham, the former care home resident who has admitted his sex abuse claims against former Tory chairman Lord McAlpine were .......
Using a dictionary definition as opposed to a legal definition the word fabricated fits. I doubt Lord McAlpine would see the accusations as a case of mistaken identity, I think he would see them as a lie.
Exactly and now we are supposed to wait until they die until they are named. Never mind that these abusers who are still alive are probably still abusing some poor kids somewhere. They will wait till they die and then again everyone will blame the victims for not speaking up earlier. The figures for child abuse now are horrifying, we have a massive problem, where are all these abusers? are we supposed to believe they're all dead?
Agree, they know for a fact who edited a Wiki page and why, just by the vibes coming off their computer screens...