The site I had taken down after blacklisting by google had a the information to hand, i have perused my old files from it but there are so many it is hard to pin down.
Front page of The times Tomorrow a certain peer is talking about suing Twitter users.
He has a point but it's still a bit aggravating as the only reason rumours started up about him was the inquiry covered up allegations that pointed towards the local McAlpine.
Front page of The times Tomorrow a certain peer is talking about suing Twitter users.
This isn't somewhere he wants to go unless he wants the whole of his family name dragged through the mud, and people digging deeper and deeper in to the rabbit hole.
"An element of sexual and physical abuse did take place at those homes, it is virtually certain, but what was portrayed was a version of a real life case which, really without any reliable evidence at all, was then used to create this picture of rings of paedophiles outside the home who were preying on boys from the home who were then passed around. These things never happened and when a television station and a newspaper—regrettably my own, The Observer—on the basis of this extremely unreliable evidence had the temerity to suggest that this had gone on, they were sued and went down for very large sums of damages. Those alleged to have been part of this fictitious paedophile ring walked away with, as I say, a very large libel victory. Just apropos that I think one idea which I would like very much to plant in the minds of the committee is this: in none of these cases, in no example of these 90-odd investigations has a so-called paedophile ring ever come to light. There were no paedophile rings in care homes and similar institutions in this country. There were individual paedophiles and abusers operating in some cases with impunity for some years. There were no rings."
There is something very suspect about this, I posted this afternoon about just such a ring convicted in 1989. What is the person's agenda, and what is their link to Richard Webster?
Good thinking. I've been asking Edwina how she (or anyone else) knew the boys Peter Morrison slept with were 16+ but she isn't answering me..
She seems to say that most people in the government & the press knew, and amongst all those people, no one at the time thought to check where he was getting these boys from, or what their age was?
I don't think he's anywhere near as unreliable as the people desperately trying to cover up minibuses of children being brought to paedophile parties in posh flats in London.
As far as i'm concerned the public record is he claimed to have been abused by someone he identified solely as "McAlpine" with no first name, who he believed was then dead, alongside some other info like the man having multiple cars and a chauffeur.
The inquiry didn't follow that up, declared it fantasy and ordered the name not to be reported.
I think people are reading way, way too much conspiracy in this when the mundane and banal may be the simple answer. I in no way hold Messham responsible for the Lord McAlpine likely misidentification. If anyone is responsible, it was probably Simon Regan of Scallywag who failed to check that the wealthy McAlpine, head of the construction business the boys at the Wrexham had had contact with was NOT the same as the wealthy McAlpine, head of the construction business who was the former Conservative treasurer, the difference being one was head of Alfred McAlpine that originally only covered Wales & the North West, and one was head of Sir Robert McAlpine that originally concentrated on the South East.
This isn't somewhere he wants to go unless he wants the whole of his family name dragged through the mud, and people digging deeper and deeper in to the rabbit hole.
Agreed. Too much would come out in court regarding other people and - even if no-one involved is alive (which it would appear they are) - so many reputations are at stake.
If I were defending I'd want to know how on earth it could be possible that Lord McAlpine (and his brother) have been unaware of the mix-up - and the fact his uncle was potentially involved - for many years.
Now can you determin what an officer in thjis case is?
Let the angst go swiney, stop personalising everything I say and move a step closer to being that shining example of tolerence for the opinions of others
Front page of The times Tomorrow a certain peer is talking about suing Twitter users.
He should be careful, if he goes after somewhere familar with the case, they could bring up all kinds of stuff like the fact he had a lawyer at waterhouse
Someone could argue he could have put this all to rest back then if he spoken to the police at the time, he must have had some idea that people were accusing him back then
Now can you determin what an officer in thjis case is?
Let the angst go swiney, stop personalising everything I say and move a step closer to being that shining example of tolerence for the opinions of others
I saw the report in the first instance, you do not have a clue what it means though, therefore makes what you say unreliable. You are asking me a question about something you quoted, it is not for me to answer.
He should be careful, if he goes after somewhere familar with the case, they could bring up all kinds of stuff like the fact he had a lawyer at waterhouse
Someone could argue he could have put this all to rest back then if he spoken to the police at the time, he must have had some idea that people were accusing him back then
BIB - yes, he had a lawyer 'just in case his name came up'. Why would he imagine his name might come up as an abuser of boys at a care home? How many other senior political figures also had a lawyer on hand 'just in case' their name came up? Did McAlpine think the police might stitch him up? Or did he have some other reason for assuming his name might emerge?
This isn't somewhere he wants to go unless he wants the whole of his family name dragged through the mud, and people digging deeper and deeper in to the rabbit hole.
Maybe thinks better the truth be out then let a mob on line continue to insinutate all sorts of stuff. It will bring it all to a head. Folks will have to provide proof of what they are saying or shut up.
BIB - yes, he had a lawyer 'just in case his name came up'. Why would he imagine his name might come up as an abuser of boys at a care home? How many other senior political figures also had a lawyer on hand 'just in case' their name came up? Did McAlpine think the police might stitch him up? Or did he have some other reason for assuming his name might emerge?
Err... Jillings Report. This was the base report for the inquiry so he will have been aware of allegations.
See what I mean he does need to take this to court or otherwise folks are just going to persist with all this.
Comments
No luck with that source then?
and no answer to my question......
Only the 'legal person' can be sued, period :
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/03/legal-person-nature/
The site I had taken down after blacklisting by google had a the information to hand, i have perused my old files from it but there are so many it is hard to pin down.
Sorry, i will keep seeking
He has a point but it's still a bit aggravating as the only reason rumours started up about him was the inquiry covered up allegations that pointed towards the local McAlpine.
What do you mean by officers???
This isn't somewhere he wants to go unless he wants the whole of his family name dragged through the mud, and people digging deeper and deeper in to the rabbit hole.
Woffindon/den is the same person just an error, not surprised at all about a connection with King.
She seems to say that most people in the government & the press knew, and amongst all those people, no one at the time thought to check where he was getting these boys from, or what their age was?
I think people are reading way, way too much conspiracy in this when the mundane and banal may be the simple answer. I in no way hold Messham responsible for the Lord McAlpine likely misidentification. If anyone is responsible, it was probably Simon Regan of Scallywag who failed to check that the wealthy McAlpine, head of the construction business the boys at the Wrexham had had contact with was NOT the same as the wealthy McAlpine, head of the construction business who was the former Conservative treasurer, the difference being one was head of Alfred McAlpine that originally only covered Wales & the North West, and one was head of Sir Robert McAlpine that originally concentrated on the South East.
Exactly, what is an officer?
When the poster does not know about the content they are quoting on, then I would say the information the poster gives is unreliable.
Agreed. Too much would come out in court regarding other people and - even if no-one involved is alive (which it would appear they are) - so many reputations are at stake.
If I were defending I'd want to know how on earth it could be possible that Lord McAlpine (and his brother) have been unaware of the mix-up - and the fact his uncle was potentially involved - for many years.
Here is the report :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8687448.stm
Now can you determin what an officer in thjis case is?
Let the angst go swiney, stop personalising everything I say and move a step closer to being that shining example of tolerence for the opinions of others
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3597054.ece
There's currently a bit more of the article on the homepage (which is obviously temporary)
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
He should be careful, if he goes after somewhere familar with the case, they could bring up all kinds of stuff like the fact he had a lawyer at waterhouse
Someone could argue he could have put this all to rest back then if he spoken to the police at the time, he must have had some idea that people were accusing him back then
I know
He probably phoned in himself.
Ah so a Certain Mr This morning might be in that?
I saw the report in the first instance, you do not have a clue what it means though, therefore makes what you say unreliable. You are asking me a question about something you quoted, it is not for me to answer.
BIB is another riddle
and I would agree - time for the ignore button......
the holiday was not long enough
Maybe thinks better the truth be out then let a mob on line continue to insinutate all sorts of stuff. It will bring it all to a head. Folks will have to provide proof of what they are saying or shut up.
At her trial, Milroy-Sloan apologised to the Hamiltons, saying she did accept she could have made a mistake
Err... Jillings Report. This was the base report for the inquiry so he will have been aware of allegations.
See what I mean he does need to take this to court or otherwise folks are just going to persist with all this.