THE PAEDOFILE: Lawyers 4, Justice 4

(Extra time being played)

Some facts appear to be coming clearer as Britain tries to grasp the nature of the Wikipaedofile, and the fecundity of the McAlpine family.

I’m now informed by a BBC insider that, although the initial impression given was that the original Newsnight programme content had been injuncted, it was the Beeb’s own lawyers who advised against any unveiling as such. Lawyers 1 Justice 0.

Equally, the legal beagles do seem (says the same source) to have advised in favour of unveiling Lord McAlpine wrongly. Lawyers 2 Justice 0.

This has allowed Lord Alistair McAlpine’s brother Alfred to write an article condemning the BBC and allegedly clearing his family name. Lawyers 3  Justice 0.

Heads continue to roll at the BBC, and its entirely onanistic news channel is now interviewing itself non-stop on air to say how important it is as an organisation, but nobody seems to care about the Great Escape of those originally accused. However, Polly Toynbee has bravely come to its defence, pointing out how the libel laws favour the perpetrator not the victim in this ghastly backwater of human nature. Lawyers 3 Justice 1.

Ben Bradshawe (the most two-faced horror inhabiting Westminster) just went on air to say the BBC must be given time, only to be told that his leader Ed Miliband has called for an emergency debate. Lawyers 3 Justice 2.

Lord Alistair McAlpine (not Alfred, Robert or Jimmie) has announced his intention of suing people on networking sites who falsely accused him. The Slog is relaxed, as it never has. Lawyers 4 Justice 2.

The Daily Mail has hastily taken down the disgusting piece it wrote yesterday about Steven Messham. Lawyers 4 Justice 3.

(But replaced it with a classic: ‘Child abuse rumours fuelled by zealot who hates Tories’. aka Tom Watson. ‘Polish anti-semites rejoice as Hitler invades’)

Harriet Harman has suddenly distanced herself from Tom Watson’s ‘Paedophile close to No 10′ shtick, which must be a great relief to Tom…but also make one wonder what her ex-PIE agenda might be. Lawyers 4 Justice 4.

NB: after extra time, there will almost certainly not be any penalties. There almost never are.

Advice to self-appointed bigwigs confused by The Slog’s layout: The ‘Search Engine’ is a Search Engine. I’ll repeat that message: The ‘Search Engine is a Search Engine’. The ‘Recent Posts’ column to the right is a ‘Recent Posts’ column. It is a column where recent posts are placed so people can read Recent Posts. Thank you for reading. This site contains no nuts. Warning: may contain nuts in comment threads.

46 thoughts on “THE PAEDOFILE: Lawyers 4, Justice 4

  1. This is a video I made of some of the correspondence I had with Ann Widdecombe MP, following a phone in on Talk Sport radio on Monday 3rd September 2007.

    In it is included part of the Hansard transcript of the conversation between Harriet Harman and Sally Keeble on 13th June 2006, concerning the imprisonment of people without a fair trail in secret courts.

    • Isn’t it remarkable how the human rights types go screamy apesh*t about a few terroists being extradited or banned or suing in partially secret courts, yet never raise a murmour about secret familly courts?

      That whole “justice must be SEEN to be done, secret justice is NO justice” pomposity only seems to apply when it’s in the interests of the legal industry, and not when it isn’t.

      • I would suggest that court secrecy is insisted upon only where the political class realise that injustice will be done. Where the state has something to hide in essence.
        It matters not a jot to the legal profession – they get their payout whether or not the court is open or closed.
        Good rule to hold close – Whenever you hear the phrase ‘in the interests of the children’ (or the like) – there is likely some scullduggery being done on behalf of the politicians (or their ‘supporters’) which they do not want becoming public knowledge.
        Hiding what would be unacceptable in most cases, is tolerated when done in order to benefit or protect ‘our children’ – I think it was Hitler writing in ‘Mein Kampf’ who established the principle behind the ‘secret justice’ wheeze, but am happy to be corrected if anyone knows better :)

  2. John we are a bit concerned about steven messham at the moment. He is going through hell. Weve been trying to help and support him . But a few hours it got too much and he went for a walk and weve not heard from him. Since then weve had weird comments on blogs attackinf him badly and thr mellor stuff hasnt helped either .

  3. Pingback: John Ward – The Paedofile : Lawyers 4, Justice 4 – 12 November 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  4. This is all terrible. I do hope Mr.Messham is alright. I am sure that all decent people everywhere support him & his courageous stand against this wickedness.
    I see that ‘they’ have put an elephant into the room by bashing the BBC.Let’s hope it won’t work & the digging continues. Is Tom Watson the only member of parliament who isn’t a paedofile or one of their supporters?It makes one wonder about all of them……

  5. With respect JW, I think you are confusing two entirely seperate issues.

    The first is the pursuit of justice for the victim of organised paedophilia. Obviously this must be done with all proper vigour. The key word is proper.

    The second is the right of any citizen to redress for unsubstantiated smears on their character. The Newsnight report and subsequent tweet undoubtedly smeared McAlpine-there was no properly supported evidence. The BBC allowed that report to be broadcast and is responsible for the subsequent effects.

    Point one above does not justify point two-AND NEVER CAN.

    The BBC is a publicly funded body over which the public apparently have no control. Independence does not imply the right to be irresponsible. The Regulator, the BBC Trust, seems only to react once something has gone wrong. Surely it has a responsibilty to prevent such abuses rather than just punishing (if it even does that!) once there is a breach. The police most certainly have a duty to prevent crime, not just catch perpetrators.

    Unfortunately, the BBC has for too long been a sinecure for the great and the good. It must be drastically restructured with outside, and lay representation on the governing body. Personally, I would prefer elections to the board-on the basis that if you pay, you should have a say.

    • MickC – you are so nearly right. With respect, you ,too, are confusing two issues. 1. Yes – pursue paedophiles properly, and 2. Yes – Lord McA got smeared and should have the right to clear his name and 3.Yes – the BBC dropped a huge un-de-constructed bollock ion the 2nd Newsnight prog. and 4. – I like your idea of elections of outsiders to the Board.

      BUT – it doesn’t take new regulators to make a new, newsnight, news-light balls-up less likely. A straightforward streamlining of the chain of editorial control isn’t rocket salad or even rocket science.
      Jackie Ashley has it right (today’s Ganurdia). Newsnight is strong when it deconstructs current events, but doesn’t have the resources to research investigative scoops or – more importantly – to undertake the editorial fact-checking required of a national broadcaster.. On this occasion, it succumbed to the temptation to re-brand as their own story an item put together by the under-researched and under-edited City University BIJ.

      • Agreed.
        The Beeb once had a good investigative team-e.g the “old” style Panorama. I imagine most of the money now goes on managent, rather than decent product-the story of the UK in general.

  6. Been reading the morning papers and it is scary the way the comments sections are shut down wherever the mention of paedophilia occurs in an article.
    The obfuscators are in full flow and will brook no dissenting voices. Our good friend Boris is of course to the fore. This of course will filter out the wheat from the chaff and we can see clearly now who stands with the Establishment cover -up of this horrendous abuse.
    Where the comments are allowed , I have found an abundance of trolls and obviously any comments that try to focus people on the main issue of child abuse, instead of the BBC nonsense are censored.
    Just goes to re-inforce Johns assertion that the MSM is totally suborned. and also his previous stated opinion of Boris.

  7. John –
    given your extraordinary output, nobody sensible should expect you to get it right all the time (maybe you are the exception to this?).
    You seem reluctant to admit that you were simply flat wrong about Lord McAlpine even if the secrecy and police incompetence marking the 1990s enquiry make that understandable. And of course you may be right that the Great Treasurer may have had knowledge of his relative’s crimes. And you may be right that he even colluded in a cover-up to protect his family name without thought for the damage this might do to already damaged victims of abuse.
    Nonetheless, it would reinforce your credibility in this matter and my credence if you first wiped your own slate clean. To all who haven’t seen it: please read this short note:
    http://www.monbiot.com/2012/11/10/lord-mcalpine-an-abject-apology/ .

    • InTeleGent,

      Some bloggers, including JW haven’t maligned Lord McAlpine.

      And so, I don’t understand what you mean by ‘wiping the slate clean’

      Why don’t you find a post by JW that maligns McAlpine for which he should apologise for.

      I await eagerly.

      • Gojam and JW – My memory is that my awareness of Lord McA and child abuse comes from the The Slog. (I don’t tweet, read twitter or follow other blogs). I don’t know have time to rearch through the slog archive to find the references I think I remember. If I am wrong about this – then I unreservedly apologise to JW and thank ‘Gojam for drawing my attention to this. I trust enough in JW’s honesty to clear this up either way (assuming he reads this little exchange)

      • Well, JW writes in the article above,

        “Lord Alistair McAlpine (not Alfred, Robert or Jimmie) has announced his intention of suing people on networking sites who falsely accused him. The Slog is relaxed, as it never has. ”

        And I don’t recall him writing anything about McAlpine connected to paedophile until McAlpine’s recent statement.

        But I’m sure he’ll reply

      • How about this for starters:

        ‘ . . Personally I think Obama is home and dry, but the rest of the summary is excellent. I don’t, however, understand its reference to a “mystery politician” at the centre of the Welsh care-home abuse cover-up when pretty much everyone knows that the accused is Lord McAlpine . . ‘
        At the End of the Day Nov 03
        http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/at-the-end-of-the-day-210/

        This looks pretty malign to me if it is, as now seems clear, untrue. InTeleGent is absolutely correct to raise this with JW and I look forward to reading what he has to say in his defence. I too first got this story from the Slog.

        What a British jury will make of this affair if and when they get a chance to deliver a verdict at a libel trial I can’t imagine . .

      • “when pretty much everyone knows that the accused is Lord McAlpine” is JW stating who the accused is, not JW accusing him himself.

        Example:
        Person 1: Who is this indiviudal everyone is accusing in connection with all this Welsh care-home nasty business?
        Person: 2: Lord McAlpine.

        Person 2 hasn’t accused ord McAlpine of anything.

      • Spiller: the test is how a libel jury would interpret this remark, having heard all the evidence and listened to counsel for both sides. In this case I think they would agree with me. [Post reposted where it belongs].

  8. Bloated, unaccountable, excessively fond of itself. That’s the BBC, an organisation that rakes in £3.3bn a year from reluctant licence fee payers. And yet that’s not enough… programmes are mostly rubbish and at the local radio level, wholly awful.

    I don’t want to change the financing model, but I do want to stop them wasting money, especially on gigantic pay-offs for their misbehaving top management and endless delivery channels with tiny audiences. And I would forbid them to enter into any tax avoiding schemes for their staff (and that would also apply to every government department and quango).

    The BBC has had a good run, has become seriously overweight and lazy and is now in need of drastic weight reduction and a fitness (for purpose) regime. What is left will be good, and far less expensive.

  9. We’ve been here before, and will no doubt re-visit paedophilia, the modern equivalent of the ongoing medieval horror story, many times again in the future. Here’s what Peter Wilby wrote in 2008, in relation to the collapse of the Haut de la Garonne story – you know, that place in Jersey where countless children were allegedly abused, massacred and then thrown into pits, except that in the end, no evidence could be found to support the lurid allegations and the story collapsed.

    I should explain that the “Webster” referred to in the extract is Richard Webster, author of the book The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch Hunt.

    Here’s the quote from Wilby: “Presented with what the trade calls “a cracking good story”, reporters and editors do not waste time asking if it’s true. They try to unearth more details and “take it further”. From hundreds of people who formerly attended children’s homes, many of them vulnerable and suggestible, it is not hard to find at least a few who will assist. The press is interested above all in narrative, not, as it likes to think, in that elusive and untidy entity, “the truth”. Jersey and similar cases offer ideal ingredients, recalling such films as The Wicker Man (a comparison actually used by the Sun in its coverage of Haut de la Garenne): unspeakable acts perpetrated against children; powerful men who take advantage of sexual opportunities and then help “cover up” the truth; demonic conspiracies, probably based on Masonry; isolated, closed institutions where nobody can hear you scream. Note how often these stories emerge at locations remote from the metropolitan centre: Jersey, north Wales, Belfast or, to take one of many instances from abroad, Nova Scotia. As the old maps said, there be dragons.

    Webster argues that modern “scandals” of mass abuse – which, he emphasises, “inevitably undermine the credibility of those who make genuine allegations” – echo the witch-hunts of the middle ages. It is not surprising that the media, a sort of modern priesthood, play such a central and willing role.”

    Good luck, chaps, with the cracking good story, and with all the gossip and imaginative and smearing that you’re so good at. Heaven forbid that the truth should ever come into it.

    • @houndstooth “Heaven forbid that the truth should ever come into it”.

      That would be the ‘simple sword of truth’- as wielded by Jonathan Aitken for example?

    • The glaring crater in your argument is thast there WERE huge numbers of children abused in the Jersey and north Wales care homes, over decades. And in many others, closer to, or in, metroplitan areas.

      So you’re talking utter bollocks, frankly. I’m not one of these tin hat types, and when I first heard about these allegations I was intenselly sceptical.The “top politician is peado” meme is fairly common. I no longer am, because of the cumalitive effect of the evidence, and the authorities reaction to it.

  10. Yes, heaven forbid that the truth should come out – but not in the way you would prefer. I was under the impression that the media were now ignoring the perverts & trying to burn down the BBC & am I right in thinking that you seem to be inferring that paedophilia is a figment of the imagination & not such a big deal anyway. I suppose it was all invented in Ireland as well & those priests imprisoned for countless assaults are all innocent.

    I do not know why you are so desperate to protect the high & mighty, who are well able to protect themselves by suggesting that these people are really the victims, it seems to me you are putting forward a classic defence of somebody who is trying to hide something, or at least provide a smokescreen to confuse the issue, the kind of tactics as it happens, usually employed by paedophiles.

    PS The legend of the werewolf was based around an incident in medieval Germany where a paedophile / cannibal / serial killer, was in operation, the legend was built up afterwards because basically his disgusting behaviour was considered not possible for a human, so he must have somehow been taken over by a wolf.

    http://www.history.co.uk/shows/true-horror/videos/true-horror-werewolf.html

  11. I’m not anxious to protect the high and mighty, or anyone else who has committed a crime as serious as paedophilia. But I’m far from convinced that a cacaphanous witch hunt, with bells, whistles and trumpets, and one that smears all and sundry as it gallops by, is the best means of nailing the guilty paedophiles.

    As I have already said on another thread, noisy witch hunts, and especially those mounted by bungling amateurs, simply cause the real witches to hide away, along with those helping them. Witch hunts no doubt make the witch hunters feel holy and righteous – just as they did in the Middle Ages – but they rarely nab the guilty, and as we know from history, they can often end up by grabbing and torturing the innocent.

    I suspect that on balance, it’s best to leave detection work to the professionals. This must be a difficult proposition for witch hunters to swallow, because among witch hunters, the professionals are held to be on a par with the worst of the criminals. But I have yet to see a witch hunt yield useful results – mostly they tend to cause a lot more harm than good..

    • @ Houndstooth. “Leave it to the professionals….” And if the ‘professionals’ don’t want to do anything? You’re ‘avin a larf ain’tcha?
      It strikes me that leaving things to them is the reason the country is in the state it’s in today. Perhaps the ‘amateurs’ are the people who could really sort the country out!

  12. “The Daily Mail has hastily taken down the disgusting piece it wrote yesterday about Steven Messham. Lawyers 4 Justice 3″.

    No they haven’t – unfortunately.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/Steven-Messham-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    P.S. I’m grateful to you for taking on this story. It’s a gruesome task but it needs telling. Thank God for bloggers like you, the few MPs (Labour & Tory), and those in the media who are speaking up for the victims, and working so hard to expose the grotesque individuals who abused them.
    Thank-you

  13. This seems to be a classic case of losing sight of the wood for the trees. Or, alternatively, it is a brouhaha which has been fomented (deliberately?) to such a pitch that attention is now focussed on just a few diversionary trees, to the exclusion of the forest behind.

    The ‘forest’ is ongoing child abuse and, regardless of whoever is the perpetrator, the difficulty that the genuine victims have in:
    a. summoning the courage to speak out;
    b. finding someone who will listen;
    c. getting the case taken to court;
    d. being represented by a lawyer who diligently assembles the facts.

    Instead, most of the noise now being generated revolves around peripheral issues:

    Eviscerate the BBC!
    Yes, they got it terribly wrong. And may well do so again. Their budget has been slashed; there are too many jobsworths (what, exactly, does Patten do?); their news/current affairs programmes have become bland and self-censoring. Investigative journalism — which needs time and money — has been the loser.

    Steve Messham lied/is a weirdo!
    Way back, during the original Bryn Estyn investigation, Steve said that one of his abusers (whom he identified only by surname) was, he believed, dead. Subsequently, it was suggested to him that the person was Lord [surname], still extant. Steve had been misled. He has been forced to apologise and is now being vilified. Which means that the heat is off any other prominent person who was an abuser — short of a video, in which the perpetrator is clearly identifiable and announces his name. Even then, I wouldn’t count on it.

    Hundreds of victims come forward!
    There were, and still are, too many young people who suffer abuse. However, there is currently a *handful* whose stories, being given an unquestioning airing by the MSM, do not stand up to scrutiny. They will, in due course, be revealed as opportunists. This fact will no doubt be given prominence in the forthcoming enquiries. Tragically, it will deflect attention from the genuine cases and allow the canard of “children have vivid imaginations/cannot be trusted” to be revived.

    Cameron announces an inquiry/another inquiry!
    Apparently the economic situation is so dire that essential services, such as those that relate to child welfare, are being pared to the bone. However, money can be found for any number of inquiries. Which, as in the case of all previous inquiries, will no doubt find that there were lapses in oversight. Perhaps one or two lesser mortals might be named and indicted. And “lessons will be learned”. Except that they won’t.

    After a brief flurry, everything will be as it was before. Apart from the BBC, that is. Murdoch may yet have his wicked way with Auntie.

  14. J W… This particular thread re-inforces the reason why I log in so often from one of the Colonies.. :-))
    So many comments from people that are awake..Have their own understanding of life.. With intelligent discussion…

    Please Ladies and Gentlemen .. Carry on..

    .

  15. Nothing can explain away the fact to me, that interviews with abused were reported decades ago, with crystal clear pictures of the ‘wrongly accused’, so the abused must have seen the photos next to the articles and now it’s mistaken identity?? What is the punishment for breaking the terms of a D Notice do you think? And why do people keep getting threatened when digging this if there is nothing massive to hide? Tom Watson MP the latest. Don’t think it’s fooling as many as the establishment had hoped – too many things that don’t add up Once the smokescreen created by the Tory Crisis Management Team has died down, people won’t forget the cosy New Years Eves with Savile and Thatcher, the question of which high up official signed the docket for the keys to Broadmoor for Jimmy – and here’s a clue, it wasn’t the BBC!
    The public really want to hear the full story it’s clearly been a series of cover up’s and this is like de ja vue of the last one!
    Disgusting that paedophiles are afforded more protection than their victims, disgusting that the names on that forbidden to reveal list have never been so much as questioned. The public aren’t stupid and if people don’t let this lie, eventually these scum bags will be outed.I only hope it’s before they do a Savile and get away with it forever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s