Too quick, and too much.
The allegations against Lord McAlpine have been published in print and on the internet since at least October 15th, 1997. And yet Lord McAlpine did not sue for libel. Why not? The BBC lawyers could have used this in their defence.
Given the above it follows that settling for £185,000 was a waste of taxpayer's money.
Update:
If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to claim defamation. If Mr Smith turns round in court and says, 'but two years ago this was published in Magazine Y and you didn't protest then, only when I put it in Magazine X,' it is a strong line of defence.
Update 2:
Those named to the Waterhouse tribunal included:
A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter. Two witnesses have told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.
McAlpine and McAlpine.At the Waterhouse Tribunal:
Gerard Elias QC: “Does the name McAlpine mean anything to you.”
Steven Messham: “Yes, sir.”
Elias: “In what context?”
Messham: “I was also abused by him sexually.”
Sir Ronald Waterhouse: “Is the person you referred to alive or dead?”
Messham: “I believe he is dead.”
Jimmie McAlpine and Alastair (Lord) McAlpine
Wot i Reckon is ... This is a blatant attempt to deflect attention from the heart of the matter - insidious, rampant, establishment-ridden paedophilidelphia etc.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately sally knew what she was implying as did twitter, the alleged victim refuted it was Lord Mc A as he was innocent and the bbc where dropped in the shit, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is unfortunately something the press have forgotten and bloggers for that matter, and as a result sally bercow and trust me on this iv'e read up on his solicitor many many others both famous and not will be getting very bad news in the post in weeks to come.
ReplyDeleteit is a classic reason why anyone in a investigation or court case must be kept anonynous until conviction is secured as innocent people are getting their lives destroyed to sell papers
Yes, I agree. It's all a total sham to try and put the lid on it. I don't think it's just a matter of Establishment figures being involved, it's much worse and that's why so many people linked to the abuse cases have died in mysterious circumstances. I think all the abuse of children in care homes was connected and run on a vast scale by the same organisation, most probably by the government and those behind the government with the expertise of the intelligence services. At the time I think there was a huge hole in the Treasury needing to be filled and little unprotected kids without parents were the answer.
ReplyDeleteQuestions newsnight & bbc must answer.
ReplyDelete1. Why did BBC not follow the most basic rules of journalism and show the source a picture of Mcalpine?
2. Why did Iain Overton tweet about the politician, causing a rush of tweets and speculation?
3. who named mcalpine to michael crick and why? crick says HE contacted mcalpine BEFORE the show and he denied allegations.
"2 Nov Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick
The senior political figure due to be accused paedophile activity by BBC tonight tells me that he still hasn't heard from them for response
Expand
2 Nov Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick
"Senior political figure" due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he'll issue libel writ agst BBC"
4. Why did they not contact mcalpine after crick's tweet went out, before the programme, knowing he was threatening to sue?
5. knowing he was threatening to sue, why did the lawyers not make a very careful review and advise properly. bbc lawyers were involved.
Something just does not add up here. One mistake, fine. A litany of errors about an explosive story that had set twitter alight at one of the top news shows in the world - bah! humbug!
Someone needs to do some proper research into what happened. BBC are keeping schtum of course.