Yes we can, if we wish criticise them for not publishing and or revealing earlier and more openly their in house concerns on Jimmy Saville's behaviour over the years. And yes individuals within the BBC may have their own skeletons to hide away in the corporations prop cupboard.
But then after acknowledging what they got wrong ask yourself a few simple questions. Such as, when Jimmy Saville abused young girls on the wards of NHS hospitals was it the BBC who let them in onto ward in the middle of the night? When accusations were made to the Police over his possible paedophile activities was it the BBC that the police referred to over any possible prosecution not the CPS? And were the BBC not Social Services running the Children's Homes where he and others committed their vile acts? And was it the BBC who tied up young boys at the home before then transporting them around the country to large houses where they were abused and used as personal sexual playthings by evil men?
And then we have the more recent accusations related to the Bryn Estyn children's home in North Wales, Newsnight may well be sued by Lord Mcalpine for their role in repeating and reporting the allegations being made against him, even though they didn't name him at the time, but can they be really be guilty of encouraging the trial by internet which had already began to gather pace online prior to their report being aired?
Of course its not the BBC who is responsible for these wicked acts and the current blanket press coverage focusing on their role is both ridiculous and becomes little more than a self lit smokescreen.
We are now in danger of forgetting that this whole story is really about wicked and depraved child abuse, and not about who has accused who of what? This story isn't about the BBC or Lord McAlpine's and his internet accusers, it is about children and young people, going back many decades, who were subject to cruel and depraved sexual abuse.
That abuse centred on (but does not end with) children's homes in north Wales - and specifically the Bryn Estyn home near Wrexham this became news again earlier this month when victim Steve Messham spoke to Newsnight, claiming that the Waterhouse inquiry, released in 2000, had uncovered only a fraction of the abuse. This claim is also backed up by the questions asked by my good friend Tom Watson MP in Parliament.
But it was Steve Messham not the BBC who said McAlpine had abused him, and then withdrew his accusation a week later, saying he had been mistaken after the Police had shown him the wrong photo back in the 90's!
So what the hell is going on here, it was not the BBC it was the Police who had shown Steve Messham the wrong photo So are we not able to question, despite the obvious harm caused to Mr Messham as a result of his abuse, why in all the period of the 1990's to the current day he suggests he has only been shown and or has seen himself only two photos related to the case?
In his own words he says
"After seeing a picture in the past hour of the individual concerned, this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine,"
Lord McAlpine will of course seek his own recompense against those who named him prior to his own statement, and his lawyers I am sure will look very carefully at the role played by the internet in publicly revealing and repeating Steve Messhams accusations, but it is important for all of us I believe to concentrate not an individual accusation, but on the wider issues involved. Only then will we get to the truth instead of us all indulging in wild speculation as to what individuals and/or the BBC did or didn't do.
I still believe Tom Watson's claim that the abuse at Bryn Estyn Children's Home and others was carried out by a powerful group of Paedophiles which led all the way to the door of Number 10 during the Thatcher years and maybe even before her tenure, and I also believe that the current attacks on the BBC are far more than simply a coincidental sideshow.
Imagine if you will an establishment shook to its foundations by the whole scandal desperate for a quick diversion, in need of having the heat and light shone in a different direction, how could they possibly buy some time and sow confusion in the minds of the public, who could they use as a scapegoat? how could they manage and indeed change the news?
Well, simply by controlling it. If I was Lord Patten I would be more worried by who in high circles is deciding that it is acceptable to hang the BBC out to dry rather than simply castigating Newsnight and Panorama. I would be more worried as a Tory peer about any accusations of insider collusion rather than who will be the next Director General.
Premature publicity around the witch-hunt of dead celebrities and current political figures in absence of the facts is now detracting from what should be the real purpose here, which is to find out the truth over the child abuse that has gone on in the past and bring all those guilty to justice in the hope that the victims (apart from the 12 who have all died prematurely since) some closure and make sure that such a cover up and collusion can not happen in the future.
The Public must not join the Police and the BBC and become obsessed with their own internal fault lines. They must not forget that by contemplating their own navels that by default they may be helping to conceal evidence that the abuse ever existed.
And they also mustn't be afraid to go to all lengths to get to the truth, even though the establishment will as ever put every obstacle they can find in it's way.
Hear hear. Then again Lord McA has enough power, money etc at his disposal. If he is innocent why does he not use the means available to him to not only clear his name but also find out the real culprits (and not just those already deceased). This way maybe some good is going to come out of the awful mess. Seems there is no point relying on the organisations that are there to protect those that needed protection, children in care and hospitals. Are there no decent investigating journalists left to rise to the task?
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me Region was involved right from the start.
ReplyDeleteonce again Anon, not relevant and not funny in the circumstances, and acts as a warning to others, I do not delete posts to which I disagree and I do not agree with censorship, but I will in future delete trivial posts which are not connected to the blog subject and only posted as a distraction.
DeleteHow can you not agree with censorship but promise to delete posts that you think are trivial? That's censorship. Talking of only covering what suits the story teller, thats what the BBC are being accused off here!
ReplyDeleteanon, I haven't deleted it, but left it there as a warning that people who continuously use the comments page for their own agenda and do not add to the sum of the debate of the subject under discussion can expect that their post is removed as an irrelevance to the topic. To continuously tell the same unfunny joke re the role of the Regional Labour Party in any or every aspect of political and or social life backfires as it shows the obsession rests with the accuser rather than the accused. The unfolding story over child abuse possibly involving major political establishment figures is major news and the victims deserve a better audience for those concerned as to their plight than being the butt of poor internal jokes. So far I have only had to delete a small handful of posts (advertising and or unacceptable and unintelligible racist abuse) and I wish to keep it that way.
DeleteObsession? I have just looked at the right hand column of you blog Tony where you list the labels on issues you write about the most - David Cameron has (10) Labour has (9) and ...... East Midlands Labour Party has (9) - hardly my obsession. For someone who talks about the modern day irrelevance of Labour they do well for mentions in this blog. No doubt this one will be removed!
ReplyDeleteanon above, I am glad I am not grading your Uni essays, take another look David Cameron actually has (17) tags not (10) and the Labour's (9) and the East Midlands Labour Party's (9) are somewhat neglected by me in terms of posts. The Northampton Liberal Democrats have a whopping (38) tags and even the Northampton Conservatives manage(12) Most of course pale into insignificance when matched against Northamptonshire County Council(26)and Northampton Borough Council(54) and no on this occasion I won't be removing your comment but would rather let it rest there as a permanent indicator of your stupidity quotient on
I like to post comments (annonynously) on the chron site and on your lee barron blogg. This (i'm not even going to say his name- but the peer you allude to) is a game changer. He's going for everyone who even retreated. A judge said to me at the weekend- he's looking at 20 million, and i thought silly old out of touch coot- like you do, but it's looking likely that it's right.
ReplyDeleteI notice back on the chron site they have dumped some of our half baked legal comments.Yours parralleing sands and bradlaugh with Lee, mine saying watch being held culpable.My main point was to dot the i's and cross the t's the local party along with lee should have said very clearly- do not vote for me.
This is quite a good topic- the idea that democracy can be circumvented.I wonder if they will touch on it at corby tonight?
anon above, just for the record I do not allude to any one person in my posts outside of the details that have already been widely reported,(like Steve Messhams accusations already aired on Newsnight and followed up in the national press the day after) and even when reporting the accusations of others I am always careful not to name any individuals without first having absolute proof and or evidence.
ReplyDeleteThankfully any reference to Lord McAlpine by name on this blog you will notice (to my relief but not surprise) were written after his own personal press statement and subsequent comments to the media and refer only to the fall out within the media (particularly at the BBC) after Steve Messham had withdrew his allegation.
I am also pleased that in my post titled JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED -- SHAME ON THEM I correctly predicted/reported without naming any names that the person identified by Steve Messham "denies the claims and has threatened to sue if he is named." and that is what he has done.
However Tom Watson's wider questions in the Commons are still very relevant and the links he identifies to number 10 still valid, all of which will of course be followed through by the police, but the ever growing list of "potential" individuals who others refer to and which have been banded around on the internet (even before the Newsnight programme went on air) are not at all helpful to the police or anyone else in getting any nearer to the truth.
Without any clear evidence being presented it just heightens the risk of even more people being wrongly accused and of any real culprits being able to hide behind a confused media frenzy. It also reveals a warped sense of mischief by those willing to continually name people without having even a shred of real evidence to back the accusations up.
McAlpine's lawyers should of course feel free to take any legal action against any wherever they feel it relevant to do so, and many bloggers and tweeters too easily fell over the poorly camouflaged trip wire left for them by prematurely identifying him by name at a time when it was so obviously incorrect to do so.
What will be interesting though I think, is how a court will determine the damages done from each and every individual twitterer (is that a word?) as the more followers a twitter account holder has then supposedly the wider the damage inflicted?
As to the Chron, they play everything so safe that at times you have to second guess just exactly what the story is that they are trying to report on in the first place, and like you I amazed at how many totally innocent and or factually correct and evidenced posts are removed for very spurious reasons.
good well reasoned comments. The (his) lawyer said on tv approach us and offer a settlement before we have to come and find you. And might just as well have added with the words and intonation liam neelson used in taken; .... ..But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you......Imagine how scary that must be, if you've made some stupid and flippant comment and then have to tell the wife, oh by the way dear we might be losing the house.
ReplyDelete