Explosive Newsnight about Pedo MP in the pipeline.

1787981838490

Comments

  • saralundsaralund Posts: 3,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tokenting wrote: »
    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 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.
  • terry66532terry66532 Posts: 581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Amanda_RaymondAmanda_Raymond Posts: 2,294
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tokenting wrote: »
    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
  • terry66532terry66532 Posts: 581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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?
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Amanda_RaymondAmanda_Raymond Posts: 2,294
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tokenting wrote: »
    identities have been mixed up twiced, hes apologised twice.

    maybe 3rd time lucky -- lets try again eh?

    The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him
  • OrriOrri Posts: 9,470
    Forum Member
    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.
  • JillyJilly Posts: 20,455
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him

    That is what has been said, this will have to be investigated.
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him

    There is no proof that this happened. Just wait for the enquiry then you wont have to go on making wild baseless claims.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tokenting wrote: »
    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.
  • lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    The police told him and other's it was Mcalpine who abused him

    He has alleged.
    The police have yet to confirm this was the case.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,152
    Forum Member
    Annsyre wrote: »
    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
  • lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    jzee wrote: »
    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).
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,152
    Forum Member
    Annsyre wrote: »
    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
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Annsyre wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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,
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lemoncurd wrote: »
    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.
  • queseraseraqueserasera Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    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

    Thanks
  • lemoncurdlemoncurd Posts: 57,778
    Forum Member
    jzee wrote: »
    I don't think there's much doubt about it:

    "he's what they call "

    "I heard "

    "She said "

    "she had heard


    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Could you expand on that a little please, I don't really get what you are saying in the second paragraph

    Thanks

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 33,260
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    again the clues are already out there and have been published in the press in the past.

    the guardian no less: http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/10/01/secrecy-imposed-on-the-exposure-of-alleged-child-abuse-news-and-feature/
  • jzeejzee Posts: 25,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lemoncurd wrote: »
    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.
  • queseraseraqueserasera Posts: 2,999
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    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.

    LOL i don't know what the Aitken situation is and was hoping you would elaborate
Sign In or Register to comment.