I disagree yogi, there's enough people in England to give a fair trial and its happened in other cases..you can't stop people discussing things and I don't think its helpful to victims of abuse to let it go quiet and brush it under the carpet like a dirty secret noone wants too see....

spot on!

the trial by media/internet lets the loony fringe out, who could spoil the processes by posting all sorts of mad blogs which then become the 'truth' as more and more people, who seem to relish the whole thing and the wringing of hands stuff then link to the nut cases who may or may not have ulterior motives, and the real victims go unheard and the real perpetrators escape charges or proper trials..

I certainly don't want to see anything swept under the carpet. On the contrary, I want to see those who are charged with abuse, to go through the proper process of law, and if found guilty by a court, then I want the full weight of the law to hit them right between the eyes.

What I don't want to see, is a trial by internet, based on no evidence or facts, which results in guilty people being able to claim prejudice and walk free.

By the same token, I don't want to see innocent people being slandered and their lives ruined because of false allegations.

Exactly, Olly.

I'll be very surprised if there is any trials yogi, we know how vast and wide spread these Paedophile rings are but only the odd low down one is ever prosecuted, we never get to the top ones because they are all too well protected....

That's the thing that i feel so sad about, there will be 'token convictions' for minor offenses and that's about it. You think if Savile was still alive that program would have made it to our screens? I honestly don't think it would have. As Stonks just said too well protected

Sadly, there's some truth in what you say, Stonks.

I just don't want to see any guilty person wriggling off the hook. on the technicality that their trial is prejudiced, due to a perceived internet witch hunt.

i tend to  agree jen.

going back to 185k, it's a lot of money but not  so much in terms of damages awarded through the courts, it's the bbc's fault that licence payers dosh has been given to mc alpine, they didn't do the most rudimentary checks before broadcast, it's a price we've had to pay for their incomptetence.

I think the crown prosecution are rather more professional than that..thats why alot of evidence is witheld from the media....

It is a fascinating issue.

I don't remember anyone other than the security services being involved with hacking into web sites with "very modern software."

The interesting bits come when he goes after people who "haven't come forward!"

oh and i don't think the fella who blew the whistle on being abused would have been bought off so easily, having screwed up the courage to speak out after  so many years, i tend to believe his version that he was told it was  one person, but was never shown a picture of that person and when he saw the picture he realised it wasn't him.

but as they say victims of abuse are rarely listened to or believed.

I don't think any outside body could help in this either, it seems every organisation is tainted with them....

I think its easier to threaten and pay off, if you pay off there's a money trail that can be followed but if you threaten that worse will happen to a family member it is likely you will tow the line but I'd still like to know why the police have'nt been questioned over this after all they named him....

Private Eye is your friend.

what does private eye say about it all?

Within this forum I have been called frugal, tight, and worse for not wasting hard earned three figure sums on over priced sheight from various shops. Thus I'm sure you can afford the small sum for such a periodical.

lol.

Conservative peer Lord McAlpine has said  that 20 "high-profile tweeters" will face paying damages, after they allegedly  linked him to a paedophile ring.
Speaking to ITV News, McAlpine's solicitor Andrew  Reid refused to name the 20 individuals involved but claimed that they face  paying thousands of pounds' worth of damages.
He declined to confirm  whether the amount would run into the tens of thousands.

Reid described users on Twitter who  posted McAlpine's name in relation to the claims as committing a "criminal  offence".
Reid added that it was "not over" on Twitter, and that "once  we've examined the extent of the damage they've done, we'll agree suitable  damages".
Former Celebrity Big Brother contestant and wife of the House  of Commons speaker Sally Bercow has denied that a tweet sent about McAlpine was libellous. Earlier this week,.

 

 

On November 8, This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield gave Prime Minister David  Cameron a list of individuals associated with the Conservative Party whose names he  claimed he had found on the internet being linked to paedophilia.
It was  announced earlier today (November 22) that McAlpine has reached a £125.000 settlement with ITV and Schofield, after an  'unfortunate camera angle' meant that the list was briefly visible to  viewers.
McAlpine has already won £185,000 in damages from the BBC, after  a Newsnight report wrongly linked him to child sex abuse

He sure is raking it in.

I feel a bit sorry for Sally Bercow, all she did was noticethat his name was trending.. that's it AND she apologised for it in a tweet on Nov9th

I do too and if I was her I'd make a stand and not pay him....

I would love to see her challenge him

Lord

yet another drunken thread i dont remember starting

Interesting that, isn't it Stonks?

I think so supes, I'd want to know why they'd named me and were the root cause of all the stories....

She's just the one to do it too. I think she's strong enough.

Well, guess we don't know what is happening behind closed doors, but the thing that is ringing in my ears from the Mark Williams Thomas update the other night is that the police who interviewed Saville in his private quarters at Stoke Mandeville claimed that they had no obligation to share information with anyone else: in 2000 and bloody 9! So if anyone can tell me how that fits with Buckinghamshire's child protection procedures for investigating organised and complex abuse http://www.bucks-lscb.org.uk/s...res_January_2008.pdf and for managing allegations against staff/volunteers working with children   http://www.bucks-lscb.org.uk/s...ff_November_2010.pdf

I'd be very interested to hear.  The whole thing bloody stinks

I doubt it. I think she's finally been neutered by her husband's job.

The Eye have gone into the whole sorry mess in a lot of detail, but I will offer you one snippet:

"During Messham's nine days in the witness box at the Waterhouse inquiry [1997], he was repeatedly asked to give an account of his sexual abuse by a man called McAlpine, whom he had named in a statement to police. He refused, saying only that the McAlpine in question was now dead."

Who are the members of this so-called 'ring'?

I'd give you a list but it seems like it's not such a good idea 

We shall have to wait to find out.

Hahaha, Sooz!

It's a lot of money considering the gov't have just cut the criminal compensation amounts.  It's the BBC's fault they're paying money out but it is not their fault that the litigation friendly laws allow for the rich man's sport of litigation.  Absurd and wholly disproportionate awards to the actual damage sustained.  McAlpine is making very good money out of exploiting other people's misery. 

You cannot claim Newsnight not even mentioning his name is worth £185k compensation.  Joining the dots is worth £185k, really?   If a firm is found guilty of illegally bullying/abusing a worker out of their job the maximum payment is only around £80k.

It's not even justice. The BBC, Murdoch press or ITV could call you or I a peado and we'd be lucky to get £20k out of them.  McAlpine has the money to buy legal muscle to hold a gun to the BBC's head. It's basically extortion.

This week, Boris Johnson advised wives of oligarchs to come to London to exploit the UK's laws to get a fat payout.  The moron didn't make the connection that maybe those same oligarchs and their firms may therefore want to avoid potential ruination via the UK's expensive, greed fuelled litigation system, and put their money and businesses elsewhere.

It's a rich man's sport and the licence payer picks up the tab for McAlpine's greed.  Yet another UK system specifically designed to line the pockets of a monied elite at everyone else's expense, just like our deregulated banks.

That'll be me then!  Bit different: I'd rather spend my hard earned cash on decent stuff e.g I'd rather have Sunday lunch out, say once a month or so, with good meat and fresh veg, than every week with shoite frozen stuff or, better still, I'd rather buy good stuff and cook it myself and invite my family and friends around..each to their own

You're confusing me now!

I get it elephants never forget!

You're still a 'watch the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves' type of guy 'though......why deny it, I thought you were proud of it?