I can't find any mention of his being a cabinet minister. He was Conservative Party Treasurer then Deputy Chair, but fell out with them after Thatcher left.
This is quite an interesting article from the Sydney Morning Herald published in 2000 and mentioned on another site. The last 6 paragraph are particularly relevant (nb it is a slow link)
I can imagine that any defence counsels in any upcoming libel claims might be reading The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business in depth
I'd say that McAlpine's just been hanged by his own petard.
Already the survivor of a massive bypass operation, a checkup last year led to a further heart operation, which went horribly wrong. ``I was in a coma, on life support for three days; they thought I'd gone ... but it just cleared suddenly."
Such a shame too. There must've been people in paedo rings across the UK praying for that machine to be switched off.
Found this video where Stephen Meesham talks to Paraic O'Brien of Channel 4 about being told to remove 30 names from his statements before the Waterhouse Inquiry and in 1979 handing to the police 60 -70 poloroids taking by abusers at parties.
Something bugs me, if there was a massive cover up why at the inquiry did they ask him to name X ? Also, if he wanted to name names why did he refuse to name X, if X was dead who was supposedly carrying out threats on behalf of a deadman?
If in 1979 he handed police 60-70 poloroids and faces of abusers could clearly been seen, he confidently said one of the photos was of a prominent politician because the man had told him his name.
Yet in evidence to Waterhouse he said he was unable to say who had told him X's name.
I think he's been making some things up, the number of times it's only him who claims things and it's mysterous unamed people who have told him he can't do this or that.
Let's say person X gave Steven a name and he believed it for almost 40 years having in all that time never seen a photo of this prominent named man, does it make him credulous?
Here's the part of the interview where he talks at length about the photos.
I'd say that McAlpine's just been hanged by his own petard.
Already the survivor of a massive bypass operation, a checkup last year led to a further heart operation, which went horribly wrong. ``I was in a coma, on life support for three days; they thought I'd gone ... but it just cleared suddenly."
Such a shame too. There must've been people in paedo rings across the UK praying for that machine to be switched off.
I can't find any mention of his being a cabinet minister. He was Conservative Party Treasurer then Deputy Chair, but fell out with them after Thatcher left.
Neither could I but I guess the shape-shifting lizards will assert he was sooo powerful he bossed the police around, blimey a prominent politician couldn't even get a policeman to open a gate for him.
I think he's been making some things up, the number of times it's only him who claims things and it's mysterous unamed people who have told him he can't do this or that.
Seems obvious that he's made most of it up. He's the useful idiot. Most of the other kids who were abused are dead after dying in "mysterious circumstances". Messham's still alive. Go figure.
Seems obvious that he's made most of it up. He's the useful idiot. Most of the other kids who were abused are dead after dying in "mysterious circumstances". Messham's still alive. Go figure.
Oh here we go again..'mysterious' death.
I was reading about a 'mysterious' death at a home and how the body was smuggled off the premises. But it was a myth.
Turned out the truth was the person had a serious drug problem, wasn't at the home at the time, was actually at home taken to hospital where the person died.
Found this video where Stephen Meesham talks to Paraic O'Brien of Channel 4 about being told to remove 30 names from his statements before the Waterhouse Inquiry and in 1979 handing to the police 60 -70 poloroids taking by abusers at parties.
Something bugs me, if there was a massive cover up why at the inquiry did they ask him to name X ? Also, if he wanted to name names why did he refuse to name X, if X was dead who was supposedly carrying out threats on behalf of a deadman?
If in 1979 he handed police 60-70 poloroids and faces of abusers could clearly been seen, he confidently said one of the photos was of a prominent politician because the man had told him his name.
Yet in evidence to Waterhouse he said he was unable to say who had told him X's name.
I think he's been making some things up, the number of times it's only him who claims things and it's mysterous unamed people who have told him he can't do this or that.
Let's say person X gave Steven a name and he believed it for almost 40 years having in all that time never seen a photo of this prominent named man, does it make him credulous?
Here's the part of the interview where he talks at length about the photos.
Keith Gregory and Sian Griffths say the same about names not being accepted.
Sian Griffths says there was a book of polaroids of boys being abused which was burnt.
I'd say the answer to any inconsistencies in Messham's account over the 17 years between when he was abused and the Waterhouse inquiry might lie with the length of time involved.
Alternatively, perhaps one of the journalists involved, Dean Nelson, who seemed to have a prominent role might have a view on what happened around that time?
Fears of an establishment cover-up of sex abuse allegations involving the former Rochdale MP Sir Cyril Smith are growing after claims a special branch officer tried to prevent detectives interviewing a man who alleged that Smith abused young boys.
Paul Foulston, 65, a former detective constable with Thames Valley police, told the Guardian he was working on a routine murder inquiry in 1976 when two special branch officers intercepted him at a remand centre where he was due to interview a 20-year-old suspect. They ordered him to turn back because they were "working on an inquiry relating to an MP" and the suspect should not be interviewed. After a row in the car park, Foulston and his senior officer ignored the demand and went ahead. After the suspect was eliminated from inquiries, he told the detectives he was angry because he had had a relationship with Smith and had been rejected by him.
He told them in graphic detail how Smith preferred sex with young men and that he would discard them when their physiology inevitably changed.
"It was bloody revolting," said Foulston. "He must have mentioned it to the prison authorities and they must have told special branch. There were plenty of people in authority who knew what was going on. Cyril Smith was knighted and the system must have known he was unworthy. How was that allowed to happen?"
Cyril Smith, Peter Morrison and Savile all knighted. Who's responsible for vetting them first? When Savile got knighted, he said something like: "Thank God for that. That lets me off the hook now", meaning what, that being knighted automatically protects you from living within the law?
Keith Gregory and Sian Griffths say the same about names not being accepted.
Sian Griffths says there was a book of polaroids of boys being abused which was burnt.
I'd say the answer to any inconsistencies in Messham's account over the 17 years between when he was abused and the Waterhouse inquiry might lie with the length of time involved.
Alternatively, perhaps one of the journalists involved, Dean Nelson, who seemed to have a prominent role might have a view on what happened around that time?
BIB - and because it now can't be proved who was in the photos, it leads to more people bashing Steve for any inconsistencies in his story. The photos were obviously destroyed because they implicated people who did not want any evidence of their filth coming out in public, otherwise why destroy them? They were evidence which could have corroborated some of Steve's allegations, and because they're 'gone', people are jumping all over him assuming that everything he said is a lie.
If I were Mcalpine I'd be trying to work out a way to fake my own death.
Make no mistake, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the allegations against him (and I accept that they are most likely completely false), I am absolutely and totally convinced that the gutter press, the same Murdoch-owned and other filth-merchants who have been so quick to condemn the BBC, will wait precisely 3.62 seconds after hearing of his death to publish all manner of lurid stories about him.
So, fake one's death, and wait for the *really* big cheque to come once the exaggerated nature of said death comes to the fore.
I was reading about a 'mysterious' death at a home and how the body was smuggled off the premises. But it was a myth.
Turned out the truth was the person had a serious drug problem, wasn't at the home at the time, was actually at home taken to hospital where the person died.
I think the people killed in the Brighton fire and the man who supposedly set the fire dying a few days later in front of a truck can reasonably be described as mysterious.
I agree most of the suicides and drug overdoses were probably suicides and drug overdoses - but at the same time those suicides and drug overdoses will at least partially be the result of their treatment at the hands of their abusers and the establishment.
This whole Jimmy Saville affair has taken a disturbing turn. Now we have Lord McAlpine threatening to sue over defamation.....and rightly so as he should never have been named...and a few minor celebrities being accused of groping! The emphasis should still be how JS managed to get away with what he did for decades and the cover up by the police. Why did politicians give JS such positions of power such as his role in Broadmoor why was he given the keys to other hospitals. It's just shocking that this is all being glossed over.
This whole Jimmy Saville affair has taken a disturbing turn. Now we have Lord McAlpine threatening to sue over defamation.....and rightly so as he should never have been named...and a few minor celebrities being accused of groping! The emphasis should still be how JS managed to get away with what he did for decades and the cover up by the police. Why did politicians give JS such positions of power such as his role in Broadmoor why was he given the keys to other hospitals. It's just shocking that this is all being glossed over.
We've got the Exposure follow-up on Wednesday, delving into Savile's life in some death: that'll certainly get the focus on here back on him.
We've got the Exposure follow-up on Wednesday, delving into Savile's life in some death: that'll certainly get the focus on here back on him.
That should be interesting viewing, but I'm concerned that the public are getting tired of the JS subject. Hope I'm wrong and those in positions of power are held accountable.
This whole Jimmy Saville affair has taken a disturbing turn. Now we have Lord McAlpine threatening to sue over defamation.....and rightly so as he should never have been named...and a few minor celebrities being accused of groping! The emphasis should still be how JS managed to get away with what he did for decades and the cover up by the police. Why did politicians give JS such positions of power such as his role in Broadmoor why was he given the keys to other hospitals. It's just shocking that this is all being glossed over.
I agree to a certain extent. Savile's actions need to be investigated but not at the expense of catching any people involved who are still alive. I would say that should be the priority.
I agree to a certain extent. Savile's actions need to be investigated but not at the expense of catching any people involved who are still alive. I would say that should be the priority.
I agree that all abusers need to be investigated, but can't help but think that there are a few sacrificial lambs being investigated while the rich and powerful are not being held to account. Nothing really changes does it.
Alternatively, perhaps one of the journalists involved, Dean Nelson, who seemed to have a prominent role might have a view on what happened around that time?
Perhaps.
52.17 Witness B was, however, very reserved about these allegations when he gave oral evidence, saying that, after a particular press article had appeared, his house and his car had been destroyed and he had received numerous threats: he was not taking any chances any more. He said, for example, that he knew the christian name of X but that he was unwilling to disclose it. His recollection in the witness box was that he had seen X three times, including once at the Crest Hotel. X had a young man who was his driver and this man liked people to think he was a member of X's family. B was unable to say who had told him X's name.
52.18 Both Detective Superintendent Ackerley and Dean Nelson, a journalist to whom X had been mentioned, were asked about any further enquiries that they made to establish his identity. Ackerley said that it was difficult to identify which member of the family was being referred to: he never had anything tangible to get hold of. Nelson was more outspoken. He said that the name was mentioned to him but he never received any proper allegation about X. He added: "So far as I was concerned the X thing was a distraction. I wasn't looking into X and I never heard anything that made me think I should".
On 29 January 1998, one of the lawyers at the inquiry, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, referred to notes of a meeting between a social worker and an Observer journalist, Dean Nelson, who had been investigating the home and its deputy head, Peter Howarth, who was jailed for abusing the boys. Nelson wrote that a number of boys had told him that Jimmie McAlpine, president of the Wrexham golf club, "was heavily involved with Howarth and was his frequent golfing partner". Nelson explained to the inquiry: "The name McAlpine was one that cropped up regularly … but it was never a name you could pin down. I mean, there were lots of McAlpines and It wasn't something that I took seriously."
52.03 Detective Superintendent Ackerley gave evidence to the Tribunal that all these allegations were investigated by the police as they arose but that no evidence of any substance could be obtained to support them. Most of the persons named by Councillor King were seen (six of the boys had already been seen and were re-interviewed) but the "overwhelming tenor" of the replies was that no party of the kind alleged had taken place; and that many of the persons on the list were not known to each other. Councillor King told the police that he had received the list from Dean Nelson, who in turn had allegedly received it in the form of a sworn affidavit from a former Bryn Estyn resident; but, when Nelson was asked about the matter on 22 December 1992, he told Ackerley that he had never received such information about a party attended by homosexuals. As for the author of the Observer article, he did not have any evidence to substantiate either the headline or the contents of the article.
Keith Gregory and Sian Griffths say the same about names not being accepted.
Sian Griffths says there was a book of polaroids of boys being abused which was burnt.
I'd say the answer to any inconsistencies in Messham's account over the 17 years between when he was abused and the Waterhouse inquiry might lie with the length of time involved.
Alternatively, perhaps one of the journalists involved, Dean Nelson, who seemed to have a prominent role might have a view on what happened around that time?
But are Keith & Sian just repeating what Steven said rather than from their own exoperience?
Re photos Sian Griffiths told ITV there was a photo album which was destroyed, but she appears not to have seen the pictures herself.
Sian Griffiths told ITV that Stephen told her the photos captured lots of men abusing boys including a prominent Conservative figure he accused of abusing him. That he could see men’s faces clearly, but the police said they could not identify them from the pictures.
Re inconsistences, he made numerous statements to the police and then before the inquiry he wasn't satisfied and made his own lengthy written statement.
For example on 24 Aug 1992 he complained to the police about being pestered by Dean Nelson, he made a statement to the police "That at no time did G A ever sexually abuse me". Then on 4 Sep he tells Dean Nelsonon that G A had assaulted him, on 9 Sep he makes his 4th statement to the police that G A did assault him.
Then there's the complaint about two police officers were on 24 Aug 92 he said he had no complaint of sexual abuse against one of the officers but on 13 Oct 92 he gave detailed allegations of sexual abuse by the other officer.
Interestingly a boy not in care made a complaint of sexual abuse against a third officer at the same police, and the officer pleaded guilty.
Boths boys were at cadets together, could Stephen had picked up the story there?
Then there's the bizarre incident involving Cllr Malcolm King, who helped set up NORWAS and was regarded as a friend. At the 2005 benefit fraud trial Stephen said Malcolm had advised him and been involved completing the benefit form and had sorted it all out, Malcolm King agreed he'd advised about making claims but denied having sorted it all out. To which Stephen called him a liar.
It's interesting how these things keep happening to him but not to Keith Gregory who has been just as vocal about the shot comings of the investigations & inquiries.
Note to self: Must stop reading the Waterhouse Report.
BIB - and because it now can't be proved who was in the photos, it leads to more people bashing Steve for any inconsistencies in his story. The photos were obviously destroyed because they implicated people who did not want any evidence of their filth coming out in public, otherwise why destroy them? They were evidence which could have corroborated some of Steve's allegations, and because they're 'gone', people are jumping all over him assuming that everything he said is a lie.
He handed the photos over the photos in 1979!!!
And as part of a cover up they were left lying around to be put with other evidence for the inquiry, over ten years later???
Ms Griffiths says a photo album was destroyed how did she know what it contained if she didn't look at the photos anly knew what they consisted of by talking to Stephen?
Comments
I can't find any mention of his being a cabinet minister. He was Conservative Party Treasurer then Deputy Chair, but fell out with them after Thatcher left.
More arrests likely according to this
I'd say that McAlpine's just been hanged by his own petard.
Already the survivor of a massive bypass operation, a checkup last year led to a further heart operation, which went horribly wrong. ``I was in a coma, on life support for three days; they thought I'd gone ... but it just cleared suddenly."
Such a shame too. There must've been people in paedo rings across the UK praying for that machine to be switched off.
Something bugs me, if there was a massive cover up why at the inquiry did they ask him to name X ? Also, if he wanted to name names why did he refuse to name X, if X was dead who was supposedly carrying out threats on behalf of a deadman?
If in 1979 he handed police 60-70 poloroids and faces of abusers could clearly been seen, he confidently said one of the photos was of a prominent politician because the man had told him his name.
Yet in evidence to Waterhouse he said he was unable to say who had told him X's name.
I think he's been making some things up, the number of times it's only him who claims things and it's mysterous unamed people who have told him he can't do this or that.
Let's say person X gave Steven a name and he believed it for almost 40 years having in all that time never seen a photo of this prominent named man, does it make him credulous?
Here's the part of the interview where he talks at length about the photos.
Have you read the book?
No, have you?
Neither could I but I guess the shape-shifting lizards will assert he was sooo powerful he bossed the police around, blimey a prominent politician couldn't even get a policeman to open a gate for him.
Seems obvious that he's made most of it up. He's the useful idiot. Most of the other kids who were abused are dead after dying in "mysterious circumstances". Messham's still alive. Go figure.
I don't have to, if was going to suggest someone based on a book I'd read it first.
So with this new found info, that he wrote a book, are you and others going to contact Operation Yewtree?
He probably hasn't even read any reviews (by the way, there are other books called The New Machiavelli).
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Machiavelli-Politics-Business/product-reviews/0471350958/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://www.epinions.com/reviews/New_Machiavelli_The_Art_of_Politics_in_Business_by_Alistair_McAlpine_Books
of course it probably helps if people have read Machiavelli, or at least, have an idea about The Prince.
Oh here we go again..'mysterious' death.
I was reading about a 'mysterious' death at a home and how the body was smuggled off the premises. But it was a myth.
Turned out the truth was the person had a serious drug problem, wasn't at the home at the time, was actually at home taken to hospital where the person died.
Keith Gregory and Sian Griffths say the same about names not being accepted.
Sian Griffths says there was a book of polaroids of boys being abused which was burnt.
I'd say the answer to any inconsistencies in Messham's account over the 17 years between when he was abused and the Waterhouse inquiry might lie with the length of time involved.
Alternatively, perhaps one of the journalists involved, Dean Nelson, who seemed to have a prominent role might have a view on what happened around that time?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/16/cyril-smith-fears-cover-up
I'm sure the book is worth a read and value for money.
Dead man cant sue!
I think the people killed in the Brighton fire and the man who supposedly set the fire dying a few days later in front of a truck can reasonably be described as mysterious.
I agree most of the suicides and drug overdoses were probably suicides and drug overdoses - but at the same time those suicides and drug overdoses will at least partially be the result of their treatment at the hands of their abusers and the establishment.
We've got the Exposure follow-up on Wednesday, delving into Savile's life in some death: that'll certainly get the focus on here back on him.
That should be interesting viewing, but I'm concerned that the public are getting tired of the JS subject. Hope I'm wrong and those in positions of power are held accountable.
I agree to a certain extent. Savile's actions need to be investigated but not at the expense of catching any people involved who are still alive. I would say that should be the priority.
I agree that all abusers need to be investigated, but can't help but think that there are a few sacrificial lambs being investigated while the rich and powerful are not being held to account. Nothing really changes does it.
Perhaps.
http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20154.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-scoop-rumour
http://tna.europarchive.org/20040216040105/http://www.doh.gov.uk/lostincare/20154.htm
His articles from that time (in the Observer and Independent, I believe) won't be online, but libraries will have them on CD.
I think this must be the same person
https://twitter.com/DelhiDean
But are Keith & Sian just repeating what Steven said rather than from their own exoperience?
Re photos Sian Griffiths told ITV there was a photo album which was destroyed, but she appears not to have seen the pictures herself.
Sian Griffiths told ITV that Stephen told her the photos captured lots of men abusing boys including a prominent Conservative figure he accused of abusing him. That he could see men’s faces clearly, but the police said they could not identify them from the pictures.
Re inconsistences, he made numerous statements to the police and then before the inquiry he wasn't satisfied and made his own lengthy written statement.
For example on 24 Aug 1992 he complained to the police about being pestered by Dean Nelson, he made a statement to the police "That at no time did G A ever sexually abuse me". Then on 4 Sep he tells Dean Nelsonon that G A had assaulted him, on 9 Sep he makes his 4th statement to the police that G A did assault him.
Then there's the complaint about two police officers were on 24 Aug 92 he said he had no complaint of sexual abuse against one of the officers but on 13 Oct 92 he gave detailed allegations of sexual abuse by the other officer.
Interestingly a boy not in care made a complaint of sexual abuse against a third officer at the same police, and the officer pleaded guilty.
Boths boys were at cadets together, could Stephen had picked up the story there?
Then there's the bizarre incident involving Cllr Malcolm King, who helped set up NORWAS and was regarded as a friend. At the 2005 benefit fraud trial Stephen said Malcolm had advised him and been involved completing the benefit form and had sorted it all out, Malcolm King agreed he'd advised about making claims but denied having sorted it all out. To which Stephen called him a liar.
It's interesting how these things keep happening to him but not to Keith Gregory who has been just as vocal about the shot comings of the investigations & inquiries.
Note to self: Must stop reading the Waterhouse Report.
He handed the photos over the photos in 1979!!!
And as part of a cover up they were left lying around to be put with other evidence for the inquiry, over ten years later???
Ms Griffiths says a photo album was destroyed how did she know what it contained if she didn't look at the photos anly knew what they consisted of by talking to Stephen?