I'd whack him at poker.

Good luck in court though  

I can understand him being annoyed and upset, but I think he's taking it too far now...

I have no idea why the man never sued before, it's not the fist time his name has been linked to allegations of child abuse.

Almost Saunders feigning.

I'd give him a ten  

How the hell did he get away with that!

My theory's the cuff links.

Sygnet rings on the pinky are too obvious.

You have lost me .I am talking about the Guiness guy who said he had Alzheimer's and got  released from prison, only for his "Alzheimers"  to disappear.He was cured !

I think he's allowed to run around the internet holding a placate saying: I'm innocent, put that in your pipe and smoke it and while you're at it, if you named me on twitter, spend a few quid on Children in Need.

Me too 

It's been Murphy's ever since.

You baffle me Velvet

Lord McAlpine's a whiney litigation happy martyr who's made big money off the BBC from milking his outrage. He did more than anyone else to keep the story in the headlines and without him constantly keeping it in the media, no one would have made the connection - from the BBC, anyway.

The BBC didn't even mention him in person, just suggested a Tory from the 1980s. 

If advised of a Tory from the 80s, I and most would think of the high profile ones like Tebbit, Heseltine, Howe, Pimm, Keith Joseph, Baker, Hurd or Lawson.  I bet if you asked 1000 people to name a Tory from the 80s (other than Thatcher), none of them would say McAlpine.

He's got £185k from the BBC for hurt feelings. 

Only a few weeks ago, the Tories - the party that claims it's on the 'side of' the victims not the criminals, slashed compensation for victims of serious crime.  The payouts were already a small fraction of the award McAlpine got for his bruised feelings. 

As for Twitter, he sees another opportunity to grab some more compensation, keep the story in the press and play the martyr.

He who protesth too much?

And as for the coalition's policies on safeguarding children and bringing CRB/barred list checks to "common sense levels".....common sense for who? They've turned the clock back, there's a bit of a clue in the protection of freedoms act: protection for adults, not for children

I previously assumed he was something to do with tarmac!

I still think he's dodgy and nothing will change my mind....

I think the whole thing has cast a cloud over victims and the way he's gone about it all could be seen............ You know what i aint got thousands of pounds spare atm so I'm not gonna say what i want to here...... or maybe i just did.

I was really hoping that this whole episode would get right to the bottom of some of the really horrendous stuff that happened/happens to vulnerable kids (especially those in care).

For a while I was actually a little optimistic - it's all been very cleverly orchestrated to 'make a big story' out of the BBC, it's chairman, reporters, Philip Schofield etc. 

Money talks ...........kick up a fuss, shout out loud, muddy the waters, change the focus .....................and the big culprits can breathe a little easier as the heat is off.

All clever stuff  The very reason JS got away with it for so long was all down to his 'connections' - the 'connections' are still there and as strong, powerful, evil and deceitful as they always have been.

Making it all about 'money' and who can claim this , that and the other suddenly changes the focus, It should be about justice and prevention - all forgotten now - all about money.

Ditto

Murphys stout ,another Irish brewer.

 How did I not get that !

i'm seriously considering with holding my licence fee, i don't want to be finacially supporting a paedophile ring and biased news reporting.

mc alpine was right, he could have settled for a lot more but said he wouldn't because it was licence fee money.

he could have settled for a lot more but said he wouldn't because it was licence fee money.                                                                                                                     This just creeps me out..like an abuser..I could have made it worse but I did'nt....

Is he an abuser?

According to him no....

He's unchallenged.

And why did he accept a meagre £175,000 from ITV? No issue with Licence Fees there - it was reputed he was after considerably more. I think he's making a point but he really doesn't want it to go too far. They have clever advisers don't they?

i have no idea why he accepted £175k from ITV, do you?

i see.

No I don't .................I wasn't getting at you when I said that. It was being kind of ironic -  it seems to me he's fighting for his name but doesn't want to fight too hard. Perhaps he has skeletons he doesn't want rattling but at the same time can't be seen to let it go.

Apologies if you saw it as an attack on you - it really wasn't.

Surely you're joking!

You mean he could have set his shyster legal attack dogs for even more undeserved ££££s.  Having got a massive and totally disproportionate pay off, the sanctimonious greedy *** can't resist climbing on his moral high horse. 

Let's put it in perspective.  £185k is a hell of a lot of money.  You can buy a nice house for that - outright!  Eight years salary for the average person before tax.  For that kind of pay-off, the BBC should put the accusation up in neon lights!  I bet most people, for that big big money jackpot, wouldn't mind being very vaguely and very ambiguously hinted as being a peado.

I think it's a bit much to call the BBC 'a paedophile ring'. 

All news reporting is 'biased' depending on your perspective.

Savile was an abuser at a time when attitudes to under-age sex were much more tolerant and irresponsible than they are today.  Listen to songs of the era and they often feature lyrics alluding to sex with under-age girls and young teens being sexually active and available/desirable for sex.  Things have changed a lot since the 60s, 70s and even the 80s.

It should be remembered that at this time Murdoch's rags were putting topless 16 year olds, barely out of school, on Page 3.  "Cor!!! look at Sun stunna Sam Fox's (16) boobs!"

i ddin't take it as an attack sooz, i just find it a bit odd that a lot of fm's seem to think being labelled a paedophile isn't that bad, and that suing some one for defamation is being  a big girls blouse about it, people are deciding that he is one on what appears to me to be no evidence at all.

And for Carnellian - yes i do call it a BBC paedophile ring,if it's not that, then what is it? 

Child abuse is one of the most vile crimes, imo.

To be falsely accused of such a crime must be horrendous, and I don't blame anyone in such a situation for suing for defamation.

If evidence is found to convict someone of paedophilia, then you can lock them up and throw away the key, as far as I'm concerned. However, I think it is very wrong to decide someone is guilty, purely because their name has been bandied about on the internet.

Just my opinion.

He got money from the BBC who did'nt name him..he got money from ITV who did'nt name him but the one organisation that did name him he left alone and that was the Police..funny how 3 victims all changed their stories right at the same time....

Unless they are powerful and you have to wait until their dead....

And an opinion I share Yogi, well said.

No denying - it happened with JS and I've no doubt is still happening.

I understand that people are furious and frustrated that Saville was not brought to justice, but speculation, supposition and conspiracy theories about others who have been named but not charged or convicted, do not constitute evidence or fact.

I think that this trial by media/internet will have a detrimental effect when cases are eventually brought to court, because the accused will be able to claim that it is not possible for them to have a fair trial. I can't see how that is helpful to the victims of abuse.