LORD McALPINE: Shock new question from Australia:

Is he a Machiavellian scribophile?

Twelve years ago – over in his favourite place, Australia – Lord Alistair McAlpine was promoting a book about somebody he seems to admire….Prince Machiavelli. Funny how the desire to promote book sales can come back to haunt a man anxious to cultivate an image for unworldly naivety and scrupulous honesty. The Slog invites all those with an open mind to judge for themselves about just who has been manipulating whom over the last five days.

I can’t claim anything approaching an exclusive on this one. I have been sent this interview with Lord Alistair McAlpine during 2000 in Australia by no fewer than nine Sloggers. It is, shall we say, incredibly revealing. And my guess is that most readers (and few if any currently terrified hacks) have read it.

The interview was to promote Lord Alistair McAlpine’s then new book, The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business. I am, by the way, repeating Lord Alistair McAlpine’s exact name ad nauseam to ensure that nobody is misled as to whether he did actually write this book, or whether one of the many other McAlpines did so, and then ran away.

Because that simply isn’t true, you see: Lord Alistair McAlpine wrote this book. No other McAlpines were involved in the writing of this book. This book was not produced in a factory making McAlpines. None of Alfred James ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine (1908-1991) who lived at Gerwyn Hall, Marchwiel, Wrexham (the son of Sir Alfred David McAlpine (1881-1944). Lord McAlpine of West Green is the son of Robert, Baron McAlpine of Moffat (1907-1990), the son of William McAlpine (1871-1951), who was the son of Sir Robert McAlpine 1st Bt. (1847-1934) played any role in the writing of the book. Not so much as a footnote.

Lord McAlpine’s Great Grandfather was the same as A.J. ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine’s Grandfather. That makes him a cousin, once removed. But nobody except Lord Alistair McAlpine played any role in the writing of this book, and you can probably rest assured that the McAlpine lawyers will vigorously pursue the entire fortune of anyone who suggests otherwise, allegedly.

Sorry, sorry. Just been on to the legals. I’d like to add that nobody involved in the writing of this book either is or ever has been a paedophile. Excellent.

Anyway, let’s first of all examine the similarities between the content of his entirely self-penned book, and Lord Alistair McAlpine’s behaviour over the last ten days. No doubt all of us can recall in graphic detail how Lord Alistair talked of the horror, dicky-heart anxiety, and utter shock of the discovery that his name was being associated with heinous sexual perversion. He had definitely been knocked to the ground and besmirched, and felt defeated, lost, beside himself, and horrified. From the Oz 2000 interview:

‘McAlpine’s advice on dealing with the media? Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion.’

Hmm. Words like Radio Four, the Daily Mail, Boris Johnson and Steve Messham spring to mind.

Moving swiftly on, we’ve all seen, heard, and been stunned by this poor old innocent codger who’s never been anything other than scrupulously honest and straightforward. However, in 2000 Lord Alistair readily acquiesced in this description of the book:

‘A book on how to manipulate people for the greater good’

Well Lordy Lordy Lordy and Ali my stair. Good grief old boy, that’s a bit strong. Still, the Establishment and its mysterious ways are, I think we should all agree, worth saving. Well yes, they are. But I’m a little disturbed by one example in the book used to make his point. This we’re told is the key to successful public speaking:

‘Fake a speech impediment: a sudden stutter gets the audience’s attention like nothing else.’

Great Scott sir, how very dare you. Do you not know that Alistair has a dicky heart, can only speak quietly and yet here you are suggesting that he is a fake and a phoney when needs be, well all I can say is….oh hang on, sorry: he’s talking about himself. Oh dear. Right.

Well hahahahaha. Only kidding you know. Alistair’s always been a kidder. Loves a prank. See in this Barnes & Noble publisher’s blurb how the real, genuine and gentle Lord Alistair comes through:

‘Ignore the latest buzz about the kinder, gentler world of new age, team-based management. It’s dog-eat-dog out there, and the sooner you realize it, the better. The New Machiavelli mines Machiavelli’s The Prince for the timeless rules and stratagems that can help today’s business rulers survive and prosper in the jungle of greed and treachery that is commerce.’

Before things get any more embarrassing for Lord Alistair McAlpine, let’s move on to that article his brother Sir William McAlpine wrote in the Mail on Sunday last weekend. In it, Sir William asserts:

‘My brother is one of the most honourable people I know….We were brought up – with youngest brother David – by our father Lord McAlpine of Moffat, never to tell a lie. What was being alleged about Alistair was abhorrent.’

I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up. Only, there does seem to be a bit of a mismatch between that description of Lord Alistair, and the Machiavelli-admiring red-in-tooth-and-claw Sir Alistair being marketed to an unsuspecting public by Barnes & Noble twelve years ago. I say: do you think Sir William himself might be confused on the identity thing here? Only, it would explain the difference.

But no, that can’t be can it? I mean, in the Mail piece Sir William makes it quite clear he knows a Jimmy from an Alistair, by noting in passing:

‘The boys who were victimised said they were taken to work on the garden of a Cheshire estate. Another member of my family did have a house there.’

Come now, Sir William, don’t be coy. We all know that was Jimmie McAlpine, Chairman of the McAlpine firm mining slate for building in the area. You know: Jimmie the man with 12 year-old caddies on the same golf course as that frequented by the two paedophile house-leaders who got banged up after the Bry Estyn scandal finally broke through the police cordon. Yes, that’s the one. Don’t get pulled down by False Memory Syndrome whatever you do.
But hang on a minute here. Hasn’t The Slog been bombarded for the last week with apologists saying there was no reason on earth why poor old Lord Alistair – Sir William’s brother – should even know of Jimmie’s existence? Yet here is Sir William clearly demonstrating (albeit with the customarily vague McAlpine brevity) that he knew who this chap was. Ah well. I suppose he just never thought to mention it to his, erm, brother.
Tune in with me now to Lord Alistair’s Radio Four World at One interview three days ago. Early on he says this:
“I have a big family most of whom are engaged in business or charitable undertakings on a whole range of things. They’re well known. This was as damaging to them as it was to me.”
OK then, fair play. If they were well-known, you must’ve known about Jimmie, Alistair surely? Let’s see here on the heavily-laden McAlpine family tree: Jimmie McAlpine: born 1908, died 1991. And then we have Alistair, born in 1942. So you cohabited the same family with the same surname for almost half a century. Well then, you wouldn’t have heard of him, would you?
And this is confirmed when BBC interviewer BM asks how Lord McAlpine thinks the mistaken identity might have occurred:
‘BM: It is extraordinary – do you have any idea how that could have happened? I mean it seems an extraordinary story.

LMc: It is an extraordinary story and probably more of it will slowly trickle out, over the years, I’ve no doubt. We’ll find things out. People will say things.

BM: But you don’t have any idea at this point of time?

LMc: Well I have my own ideas, but I’m not about to sort of air them because I strongly feel people ought to be damn sure about something before they air it.’

A bit Machiavellian there, Lord Alistair? A bit, shall we say, economical with the truth? Or not. Who knows. As he himself says, it’ll all trickle out in the end. Oh and – while we’re here going full circle back to Australia in 2000 – a little reprise if I may to what he said then….
‘McAlpine’s advice on dealing with the media? Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy’

….followed by what he said three days ago on Radio Four:

‘BM: And let me talk about your reputation.

LMc: Yes.

BM: How much damage do you think there’s done and can this ever be repaired?

LMc: No it can’t be repaired. It can be repaired to a point. But there is a British proverb which is insidious and awful where people say “there’s no smoke without a fire”, you know, “he appears to be innocent, but…” ‘

False defeat? Anyone out there in lalaland who thinks Lord Alistair McAlpine’s reputation hasn’t been fully repaired? Does anyone doubt that he has gained public sympathy from it?

This from the Daily Telegraph yesterday:

‘Lord McAlpine was greeted with applause when he arrived for lunch at The Wolseley this week….A number of other peers are writing messages of support to him, and he was said to have been buoyed by the reaction he received at The Wolseley on Wednesday after flying to London from his home in Italy to consult lawyers about the damage to his reputation.’

I think we’d call that Mission Accomplished, don’t you?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look everyone, I’m tired of trying to teach grandmothers who should know better how to suck eggs. To summarise for the last time:

1. I have never accused Lord McAlpine of being a paedophile. Others have because they’re come-lately, ignorant, sloppy twerps. But I haven’t.

2. My only beef is with the disingenuous nature of McAlpine family interviews over the last week.

3. It is naive bordering on IQ-in-single-figures to suggest that Lord Alistair has ever been anything but an extremely media-savvy bloke. You do not get to be Tory Chairman for 15 years, succeed in business, and gain the respect of Baroness Thatcher by being a silly old wazzock. You do not make a fortune investing in Aussie land, and you do not write and publicise a book about how to manipulate the emotions of others….based on the ideas of Prince Machiavelli.

4. I find it very hard indeed to believe that Lord Alistair has never, ever heard of the flamboyant reputation surrounding his cousin Jimmie. But here again I intend no libel: as I posted earlier this week, if Lord Alistair McAlpine is happy to say on the record that this is the case, I will happily donate £2000 to the care home of my choice. I do realise that this is £183,000 less than the BBC Award Lord Alistair didn’t donate to Children in Need yesterday, but every little helps.

5. I have not the remotest clue if either Lord Alistair or Sir William McAlpine is part of some wicked Daily Mail, Boris Johnson, MI5, Westminster, Masonic, Elders of Zion coordinated conspiracy to cover the tracks of those in power with oddly controlling tendencies towards the nether parts of infants. But I can observe this: we are three weeks into Savile and ten days into Bryn Estyn, and so far not a single one of the well-described, well-heeled bastards who ruined the lives of hundreds of vulnerable Welsh kids between 1974 and 2003 has been apprehended.

The tableau of lachrymose, sick-bucket whining and grovelling interviews we have heard this week has, frankly, been up there with the sort of Italian afternoon Soaps which, for all I know, Lord McAlpine amuses himself of an afternoon while restoring properties in the land of Machievelli’s birth.

But all in all, we won’t be putting the eventual revelation, retribution and compensation of serial institutional sex-abuse across the UK down to Plod, 95% of MPs, the BBC, or the Murdoch/Barclay owned media, then. It will be down to Tom Watson,  perhaps the Independent on Sunday, probably the blogosphere, and the bravery or otherwise of some more ‘weirdos’.

Related: Naivety and Cynicism marching side by side to the chains

109 thoughts on “LORD McALPINE: Shock new question from Australia:

  1. I thought the ‘best’ part of that World at One interview (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/k0uhbi) was one part of his answer to the Scallywag question – at one point he exclaims, re: the Welsh child care issues – ‘You know, they’ve called for, that there was a cover up. **But you can’t have a cover up where there was no crime.**’

    stars added to emphasis the important section – but really, is he now trying to purge any wrongdoing in the place on behalf of everyone by claiming that absolutely nothing untoward at all happened there at all? i.e. the, ‘they mad!’ argument re: the victims themselves?

    • Under that ‘there was no crime comes.. Yeah ok there was a bit of wrong doing but the ‘so called victims ‘ were asking for it. And in pedo land were guilty because they encouraged it or did it to corrupt such good saintly people..

    • @orbialo10

      ‘You know, they’ve called for, that there was a cover up. **But you can’t have a cover up where there was no crime.**’

      Priceless. Almost as good (if not better) is what you can get by going to the Internet rearrangement server (anagram solver), going to advanced options, typing in ‘lordalistairmcalpine’ and filling in the box which says ‘include all outputs containing the word:’ with “cameron.”

      Leave that to the crossword pros on Sunday I guess.

      Nice to see JW still has his high hard one.

      • IDGI. It’s in his statement – I’m not ‘inferring’ anything, or trying to add one and one and get three – now, maybe it was him just getting a bit carried away with himself a bit, but it’s certainly not within his remit to cast aspersions on the whole affair simply because he’s been personally given the all clear.

    • Yeah i saw that in the mail. All this fuss. It seems to imply that macca is threatening to sue EVERYONE.. Just cos you win a case of libel dont mean you are honest . It means you are rich enough to afford expensive lawyers and are mates with people in power.

      • McAlpine hasn’t won a case of libel. The BBC caved in to the threat of libel.

        McAlpine hasn’t, as yet sued anyone for libel over these allegations and they have been in print for almost 20 years.

        Will McAlpine sue Sally Bercow, wife of the speaker, a Tory insider ?

        We’ll see.

  2. yes orbitalo – that’s exactly what they are trying to do, there was an outrageous piece in welsh paper implying that all those banged up were innocent. i bet what comes out in the next whitewash is that nothing really happened at all. #coverup

  3. If I had to spend some time bringing primitive Western Australia up to scratch, I’d probably take some R & R in Thailand or Cambodia. You know, a place with a different culture. The Aussies can get awfully boring, bragging about cricket, rugby and horse-racing all the time.

  4. Why was DL sacked from the home? Just because he was at school with a murderer? How can you be guilty of anything when you are s kid how are you to know that a classmate several years later would kill someone. Basically someone contacted the home and got DL fired. Why? What did DL know that bothered some people.

  5. I get the impression the police are merely pulling in a few famous names from the pop world of the 1970′s in the hope that will shut us all up.
    Whether that’s down to fear, laziness or Freemasonry is open to speculation.

  6. Just read on the Evening Standard that Michael Gove wants more children taken into care, so that they can escape from a ‘miserable life of soiled nappies, hunger’, & err, ‘physical & sexual abuse.’
    Appalling! Hasn’t he been following the news? What planet is he on?

  7. Well JW, what needs to be said is ‘quite so’.

    McAlpine didn’t get to be where he is and stay there by being touchy feely nice, nice. He has had to be ruthlessly self interested at all times. I know others of his ilk, they all excel in acting for their self interest.

    As a result of his wealth and power he can force others in the *establishment* to dance to his tune. No doubt he does.

    If his control over others, was or is used for the benefit of others, I would admire him.

    I don’t admire him, neither do I accuse him of abusing others. But saying that doesn’t prove he hasn’t helped others or been complicit in the abuse of others weaker than himself of course. A point many don’t appear to be able to assimilate.

    He has certainly missed a perfect opportunity to display wonderful generosity in helping those who have been abused.

    You continue to tread a fine line with skill.

  8. I can’t see how monetary recompense restores one’s “character”, surely only something equally intangible would do; otherwise we might ask why the recipient is content to equate the two. Can character be bought, or sold?

    In that respect I find two reported payments by the BBC of many thousands of pounds of Licence Fee money to be somewhat bewildering. I think it maybe that the ex-Governor of Hong Kong is reading too much into the BBC Charter when it rejoins:
    “TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING”
    (upper case in the original, or sic, as we were wont to say when writing academic papers. No I mean sick!).
    He does seem to have a remarkably loose grip, on Hong Kong, on BBC Income, and on his relationship with another member of Thatcher’s Cabinet.
    To whit, I found this article in the Torygraph a good read:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9681744/Lord-McAlpine-the-40-year-feud-with-Lord-Patten-that-has-resurfaced-over-Newsnight-fiasco.html

  9. A man with the title Lord writes a book on how to manipulate folks, genetics I’m sure played a part in this, no doubt his ancestors have been perfecting the art of manipulation for centuries.

    • Basically we’ve all been ‘bred and farmed’ for millennia. Clue to the golem and frankenstien myths. Genetic engineering is nothing new. What is new is that we live in an age where methods and secrets of old are revealed to a weakened and demoralized populace in the videodrome, who in earlier ages might have been shocked enough to rebel.

      This implies their acquiescence to horror and torture applied to themselves, and thus the masters of the ancient cyrptocracy thereby gain more prestige (for being cunning criminals who got away with it all) and honor, and yes, paradoxically worship.

      Just like the people who were forced, on pain of mortal sin, to go to mass every Sunday to see graphic depictions of the best person who ever lived tortured excruciatingly to death. Horrified, they tended with few exceptions to be worshippers of the deadly evil who committed such things — that is how the mind works and is worked or ‘processed’ by viewing the presentations and ceremonies of societies indistinguishable from satan. Why do you thing Marlowe and Goethe wrote Dr. Faustus? And Marlowe was murdered for it.

      • That’s a difficult message to get across.

        ”There is no coming to consciousness without pain…. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.” ~ Carl Gustav Jung.

    • He was Tory party Treasurer from 1975 to 1990 not Chairman.

      What I want to know is why a Non-Dom can sue for Libel in the UK when they don’t pay taxes here ?*

      If you pay your taxes in the UK then you should get the full protection, privileges and services of the state, if you don’t you should get nothing.

      *(of course the Beeb didn’t wait for a summons, they paid out ex-gratia)

      It will be interesting if lawsuits are instigated for libel in the aforementioned case.

      Tweets might be posted from the UK but are published in the US.

      If I have a dodgy article (written on an old olivetti in my cottage in the peak district) published in a magazine in a foreign country and someone brings back a copy, am I guilty of libel ?

      Mr McAlpine would be best advised to take the money he has already gained and leave quietly whilst the going is good, it might be a good idea to leave the opener and the can of worms well alone.

  10. Maybe it’s our sense of fair play makes us reluctant to besmirch someone’s name, but JW’s revelations are compelling.
    Why didn’t the BBC’s legal team just tell his Lordship that they made a mistake, for which they’ve since apologised, and if he chose to go to court then all this stuff will come out?
    The Beeb have (our) money coming out of their backsides, they could easily have seen this through. Instead Fat Pang is shelling out licence payers’ money in compensation and golden handshakes to departing luvvies, in spite of his reported personal animosity to Lord McA.
    Perhaps he’s rather incompetent.
    Terrific work Mr Ward.

  11. “we are three weeks into Savile and ten days into Bryn Estyn, and so far not a single one of the well-described, well-heeled bastards who ruined the lives of hundreds of vulnerable Welsh kids between 1974 and 2003 has been apprehended.”

    Fine words indeed, and I agree with everyone of them.

    Why then are you constantly writing about the one man we are all agreed was NOT involved, and the one other man who may have been involved, but is dead so its all a bit moot? Whether or not Alistair MacAlpine manages to extract £180K out of the BBC, and more out of other stupid commentators is neither here nor there. It won’t make an iota of difference if he gives the money away or spends it on himself. The real culprits are still free men, when are we going to see your searchlight trained onto those who were involved and are still alive?

    Or is that a bit too close to the libel lawyer bone to start doing? Its one thing to write screeds of polemic about a man we all agree is innocent, and entirely another to start making serious allegations against other who may or may not be, isn’t it? You rather need EVIDENCE before making all those sort of allegations, don’t you, and thats what this entire issue should be about. Evidence not hearsay and unfounded allegations.

    • Totally agree. T’other day it was insinuated on this blog that Leon Brittan was a paedo too. Where’s the evidence? David Rose from the Mail is apparently a vile spook doing a wicked lying demolition job on Steven Messham. But nothing he wrote about Mr Messham or the enquiry was untrue, was it? I note Tom Watson has gone very quiet too, since Lord McAlpine was outed as innocent of the charge. I suspect he is more interested in bashing Tories and Murdoch than justice; his famous concern over phone hacking disappeared when the Mirror and the Guardian were in the frame. If he or JW want to be Noncefinder General then it’s time to name names and put the facts out there; if there are any facts beyond a man who may or may not have been involved and has been dead for 21 years. Otherwise it is just an exercise in smear and none too pleasant to watch.

      • There are some, who are not so sure about about the ‘kindly old peers innocence’ and, they have said so publicly for quite a while now. He hasn’t taken legal action against these allegations, has he?
        You have to question, why not, surely?
        http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/andrea-davison-jimmy-savile-serco-and.html
        This is an interesting link, not sure how much truth there is in it, and there lies another conumdrum, there is such a desire to dissemble, that, the truths they seek to undo are now coming back to bite them in the arse. For now, we know not what to believe but, will always believe the worst, as is our nature, being human and all that..

      • OK Seb, the round in circles jamboree continues.
        If the police, the pols, MI5 and the paedos can all stop the truth coming out, where do we get the facts from?
        Do you or do you not accept that McAlpine’s ‘character image’ is changed by the book?
        bonk-bonk 15-all, ad infinitum.

      • Since his image was always a back room shady money man, no, his image isn’t changed. Is he a nice man? Frankly I neither know nor care. The question is was he/is he a paedophile? The answer, as even Mr Messham asserts is “no”.

        I return to the questions regarding Leon Brittan and David Rose. Do you have evidence or not? Or are you just another David Icke smear merchant? Put up or shut up.

    • Yes, but without getting too tin hat about it, it’s quite difficult to get evidence when you’re blocked at every turn. Even Jennings admitted, within his own report (that was subsequently pulped anyway) that he and others working on it considered quitting at times because of the way that their requests for help were being stonewalled by the authorities.

      Even Messham himself is being reframed as being a bit of fantasist the Mail, as others have pointed out here, and as I pointed out above McAlpine is starting to allude to there being ‘no crime’ to answer for in the first place. HIs own personal ‘good name’ is in the clear now; why try to muddy the waters regarding the abuse?

    • @Jim
      “Its one thing to write screeds of polemic about a man we all agree is innocent,…”

      What’s with this WE, have you got a mouse in your pocket?

      • The ‘we’ refers to me obviously, and JW, who is taking great pains to make Alistair McAlpine’s innocence clear. Perhaps I should have written ‘we both agree’, my mistake.

  12. The “wrong Mcalpine” mis-direction is very much like another of John’s stories, the “Brown on heavy duty anti-depressants” revelation, and killed off in a similar way.

    Marr asks Brown whether he’s addicted to painkillers, Brown says catagorically not, which is true, story dies. Stone dead., nothing to see.

    Similarly, Jimmy Mcalpine is proven to be a pervert, which he was,he’s dead, therefore its all bollocks, no crimes commited, story dies.

    It works, because people’s attention spans are short, and the media are bastards.

  13. Just some clarifications on the McAlpines in Cheshire and Wrexham:
    Robert James McAlpine (born 1932) lived (and still lives I think) in Cheshire – Tarporley. Alfrred James ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine (born 1908) – father of Robert James – lived in Gerwyn Hall, Marchwiel, Wrexham.
    The ‘Mary Bell’ whom Lord Alistair McAlpine claimed to have met with on his ‘only’ visit to Wrexham, was Ethel Mary McAlpine (born 1915), daughter of Sir Alfred David McAlpine (born 1881), who in 1939 married Peter Bell. She lived in Marchwiel Hall, Wrexham. Here’s the killer fact:
    Ethel (Mary Bell) was the sister of Alfred James McAlpine’s (Jimmie).

  14. Thank you John. I did read Ishtar on this yesterday and have RT’d you both on Twitter as the only way I can contribute. 20 years of perfectly ordinary psych practice have thrown up unrelated examples relating to institutional abuse including alleged murder which has curdled my stomach and invaded my thoughts over all that time. At last there’s a relatively small thing I can do that has a chance of helping to bust the apparently impenetrable tangle that protects the guilty. Again, thank you. Please carry on.

  15. Incidentaly, the piece by Alistair’s brother in the Mail is very interesting:
    “The boys who were victimised said they were taken to work on the garden of a Cheshire estate. Another member of my family did have a house there.

    It is possible they might have been abused there, but that does not mean my relative was responsible. If the crime was committed, it could have been anyone connected to the estate. I hasten to add I have not seen any evidence whatsoever to say who might have abused those boys.”

  16. Came across these today and had not heard or read them before.
    Rather apt I think. Especially Plato….

    ”The last virtues of a decaying society are tolerance and apathy” Aristotle

    “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato

  17. I read today that to just ‘re-publish/re-tweet’ a link is the same in the eyes of the law as if you wrote/said it yourself…..Funny old World, ain’t it? But, there again, not if you are Lord Youcantsaythat….

    • well, this whole’ retweeting’ libel thing is complete nonsense – the kind of precedent it would set if anyone was successfully sued is mind-boggling. You retweet an article from a newspaper, the newspaper is subsequently sued for libel and loses – does this mean that you’re liable for libel yourself? You assumed that the source was correct. To say that you’re ‘publishing’ by pressing a little button share the link is insane.

      In any case, not quite the same as the McAlpine thing anyway, simply becase the source didn’t actually mention him by name anyway.

  18. Kfc1404,
    How many people are involved in running your blog and who are they all?
    Sorry if that sounds nosy, but I don’t like the tone of some of the comments you are making on different blogs, they sound like threats to me.

    • @Zoompad: I don’t have a blog as such, I tried to get KFC1404 going but, found it more difficult than I imagined, I really don’t understand quite what you are getting at but, you can email me at kfc1404@gmx.com if you want to go into this further, please DO NOT take this as threatening in any way, it isn’t. It’s somewhat ironic because as, I have said here on many occasions that I have a Facebook group and, funnily enough somebody accused me of ‘spamming’ them and when I ‘pm’ them they said they didn’t know what I was talking about.
      Please explain as I really have no clue as to what you are going on about.

      • No, I think I will not email you, I dont trust you now, because of what you keep saying. Your keep making those comments about Lord McAlpine coming to get people is making me feel wary of you, so if I talk to you any more it will be in front of other people. Perhaps you dont mean the comments in a bad way, but they are coming accross as creepy and threatening. Sorry.

    • Zoompad – I came by to have a look at this. Think you are right. The Ying and Yang avatar icon kfc uses and the stylized eye icon of gojam are just give aways imo. Bullies always go around in gangs.

  19. Pingback: John Ward – Lord McAlpine: Shock New Question From Australia: Is He A Machiavellian Scribophile? | Lucas 2012 Infos

  20. I just don’t think you ought to be going from blog to blog frightening people. I expect some of the re-tweeters are child abuse victims, and probably most of them are pretty frail. I know how difficult it is, and in my case not even being able to get proper medical help due to malicious vindictive persecution makes it very very difficult. I have to do my watercolour painting and sewing to calm me down, my GP has refused to prescribe any of that medicine which you reccommended, or any other medicine, she said she was going to refer me but that was three weeks ago, and thats how I have been treated for years.
    You shouldnt go frightening people who are frail by going from blog to blog telling them that the Lord McAlpine and his lawyers are coming to get them, and that they will have all their money, children and homes taken away. its a horrible thing to do, so why do you keep doing it then?

      • Just stop going on different blogs and making remarks that Lord McAlpine is going to hunt down and destroy everyone who retweeted posts, it doesnt help anyone, and if Lord McAlpine is really innocent it doesnt help him either because it just makes him out to be a really horrible vindictive man like Mr Quilp. Just dont do it anymore, please, because it isnt helping anyone at all.

  21. For goodness sake! Whats this then???

    “kfc1404

    November 17, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    I read today that to just ‘re-publish/re-tweet’ a link is the same in the eyes of the law as if you wrote/said it yourself…..Funny old World, ain’t it? But, there again, not if you are Lord Youcantsaythat….”

    And on Aangirfans blog as well. Just quit it, because its nasty!

    • Sad, sad, sad. It’s a shame you can’t get the help you obviously need. Keep trying, if at first you don’t succeed…but, if you want to keep abusing me , that’s ok too.

  22. I’m not abusing you! All I am telling you is to stop scaring vulnerable people by keep going on and on and on about how retweeters can be sued, but on Aangirfans blog the threats went much worse, that people would have all their money, homes and children taken. Thats a horrible thing to keep putting out. Stop pretending to be a victim when someone is putting you on the straight and narrow, its stupid! And stop making me out to be a nutter as well, because I’m not one!

    • I will then. Just remember that a lot of tweeters are probably very very frail, because a lot of child abuse victims dont have many options open to them, and I know myself that the Pindown abuse victims have been systematically persecuted. I didnt know that at first, I just thought I was cursed, it was horrible, but now I know what they put on my medical and social work records, I can see for myself exactly how much they despised me, it is in black and white. And I know Richard Wise was not ill for very long, and he was helping get the Pindown victims out of jail, and they had been deliberatly criminalised so that people could libel us and say WE WERE NO ANGELS in the newspaper headline. It is disgusting what they did and are still doing. I just dont want any of the other Pindown victims to feel so terrified that they lose hope.

      Please, just have a care, ok?

      • @zoompad
        I sympathise with the situation you and your fellow sufferers have endured, but think you have the wrong end of the stick as far as kfc goes. Although I personally don’t think it was warranted, he has graciously apologised to you.
        His threads are always fair, measured and oft times very humourous and I would be disappointed if he did not contribute to the Slog because of a misunderstanding.

  23. A few things still concern me.

    1. In Lord McAlpine’s interview with Becky Milligan on BBC Radio 4’s World at One on 15 November 2012, he infers that no crime had been committed at the homes in Wales as the Judge had issued an injunction stopping (certain) names being mentioned in the course of the investigation. Just because the perpetrators were not brought to justice does not mean a crime has not been committed. Jack the Ripper was not caught and brought to justice, but no one would dream of concluding that no crime had been committed. Are we to derive from this that Lord McAlpine believes his cousin Jimmie’s death in 1991 absolves him of any alleged crime(s) he might have committed? I have this nagging suspicion that Lord McAlpine is more concerned with protecting his family’s name than with the pursuit of the truth as to what happened at Bryn Estyn.

    2. I am still at odds with the fact that the BBC is implicated in libelling Lord McAlpine. How? It did not mention his name during the Newsnight in question and did not write it (to my knowledge). I am in my 50’s and remember Margaret Thatcher’s government well, but I was still completely ignorant at the end of that episode of Newsnight as to whom the “accused” was. I could only speculate. I suspect the majority of the public felt similarly.

    3. It is indeed regrettable that Lord McAlpine was “accused” of a crime he did not commit. No sane person would disagree. However, Steven Messham was quick to say publically that Lord McAlpine was not his assailant and that goes a very long way to absolving Lord McAlpine of any association with wrong doing concerning Steven Messham. Lord McAlpine should rest easy that there will be no smoke without fire in his case. His wealth, privilege and status ensure cap-doffing-deference from most of the public and media. Not to mention a fiercely litigious lawyer fighting on his behalf. This, though, will not be Steven Messham’s experience and we should not forget that what this man has suffered and others like him, surely far outweighs the trauma felt by Lord McAlpine – if these things can be measured.

    I for one, am glad The Slog is not falling prey to the pretence of other media which sites “boredom” concerning this important story. It needs to continue being discussed and thoughts exchanged.

    • As I understand itLord McAline was defamed by the BBC because prior to the programme being transmitted one of journalists on the programme had confirmed taht it was Lord McAlpine to whom the programme referred. By then transmitting the programme the BBC adopted the defamation. That’s the legal side of it. McAlpine was thus entitled to damages.

      Mr. Mesham did not defame McAlpine because he did not say in public that it was Lord McAlpine-the reporter did that (sorry, I meant the useless and crap reporter).

      Lord McAlpine, or indeed anyone else is not protected from any allegation which can be proved as true-whether or not he is rich, poor or indeed God.

      What obviously can be done is use influence to prevent others testifying as to the truth-or distracting the attention of the interested. As mentioned above Marr did a favour for Gordon who almost certainly was on anti-depressants-but what else can you expect from a “journalist” who takes out a superinjunction to save himself embarassment?

      My problem with JWs current line is that it is not germane to the real issue-the abuse and who did it (see Jim’s post above).

      • “Lord McAlpine, or indeed anyone else is not protected from any allegation which can be proved as true-whether or not he is rich, poor or indeed God.

        What obviously can be done is use influence to prevent others testifying as to the truth-or distracting the attention of the interested.”

        I disagree with the first sentence and I believe there is enough material in the public domain to show it is inaccurate but your second sentence appears to contradict it anyway. As does your next sentence

        “As mentioned above Marr did a favour for Gordon who almost certainly was on anti-depressants-but what else can you expect from a “journalist” who takes out a superinjunction to save himself embarassment?”

        Do you really believe that all achieve equality through the law?

        I can see why you assert that JW’s current line is not germane to the real issue but I think it the narrow view in the extreme. The name McAlpine has currently become central to the issue of abuse and the wider question of privileged people in powerful positions avoiding accountability, because of their power, is germane. If those who have been or perhaps still are being abused see how easily corporations and other individuals (Twitterers?) can be cowered into submission whenever the issue of abuse is raised, they might well be dissuaded from coming forward at all.

        What JW’s spotlight is doing is setting out a balance. Is that a bad thing? Not in my view particularly since Lord McAlpine in particular appears to have achieved all he needs to in establishing himself as a victim and yet has asserted through his lawyer his determination to continue to play the role. From my perspective he just looks more like a greedy man with everyday he continues to focus on financial satisfaction. Even more important then, that his actions do not result in disadvantage to victims of abuse.

      • Full Stop
        My post was probably not phrased well.
        The point I was trying to make, but badly, is that if an alleagation can be proven to be true no action for defamation can succeed. The key point, as ever, is proven.
        What JW seems to be trying to do is establish that Lord McAlpine knew about the other McAlpines crimes and covered up and is still doing so. There is no evidence of this at all and it relies on them being related and having business connections. And also that Lord McAlpine hasn’t sued a minor magazine many years ago. It probably wasn’t worth powder and shot-the BBC is.
        In any event, proving what someone knew or didn’t is almost impossible (still not done with Hitler and the Holocaust for heavens sake!).
        I also find a concerted whispering type campaign rather distasteful-in fact just like the “spin” we got from New Labour and in its most vicious form from Gordon Brown and his acolytes. If there is an allegation just say it -publish and be damned is the phrase I think.

    • ” I was still completely ignorant at the end of that episode of Newsnight as to whom the “accused” was. I could only speculate. I suspect the majority of the public felt similarly”

      The phrase “senior Tory” and “thatcher years” may have seemed vague to most people, but a small minority familiar with the Wrexham reports and the conspiracy theorists (Icke, Scallywag) knew exactly who that was, and the BBC should have known this ‘jigsaw identification’ would happen.

      BBC was warned by an internal person to not do the story but they did it anyways.

      Anyone with media experience could have seen that BBC “not naming” someone in the post-Savile atmosphere would inspire massive irresponsible speculation in the public, and knowing that there had been false rumors amongst certain circles should have tipped them off that their “anonymizing” of the ‘unnamed name’ was going to fail.

      On the other hand I think English libel law is idiotic and they should adopt a First Amendment like the US. But then again, the US doesnt have any ‘license fee’ supporting its media so its a different situation. Theoretically newspapers that print lies about people will lose readership in the US and go out of business. (in actuality, they fragment into factions which lie about each other in equal measure).

  24. Mr McP was Tory party Treasurer from 1975 to 1990 not Chairman.

    What I want to know is why a Non-Dom can sue for Libel in the UK when they don’t pay taxes here ?*

    If you pay your taxes in the UK then you should get the full protection, privileges and services of the state, if you don’t you should get nothing.

    *(of course the Beeb didn’t wait for a summons, they paid out ex-gratia)

    It will be interesting if lawsuits are instigated for libel in the aforementioned case.

    Tweets might be posted from the UK but are published in the US.

    If I have a dodgy article (written on an old olivetti in my cottage in the peak district) published in a magazine in a foreign country and someone brings back a copy, am I guilty of libel ?

    Mr McAlpine would be best advised to take the money he has already gained and leave quietly whilst the going is good, it might be a good idea to leave the opener and the can of worms well alone.

  25. “been up there with the sort of Italian afternoon Soaps which, for all I know, Lord McAlpine amuses himself of an afternoon while restoring properties in the land of Machievelli’s birth.”

    His house in Italy does not have television, nor internet so i doubt it. He also doesn’t speak Italian, so I double doubt it.

    This is why ‘the blogosphere’ has problems uncovering things – failure to basic fact check.

    “Oh but traditional journalists havent uncovered anything important”. Uhm, yes they have? A “Traditional Journalist” at ITV using traditional investigative processes is the only reason we are talking about Jimmy Saville right now. I dont think ‘bloggers’ are going to go around to dozens of people, request interviews, get turned down by most of them, go to several of them, manage to draw people’s most painful experiences out of them on camera, without hurting their feelings or insulting them, and then manage to fact check it, corroborate it, edit it, organize it, and fit it into an hour broadcast. I forgot to mention the part where the journalists rely on decades of contacts they have built up in various industries, government offices, etc, to find out what is really happening behind the scenes of places, to understand the jargon, to know a red herring from the real thing.

    Most of ‘the blogosphere’ doesnt do any of that stuff. Hence, mistakes about basic things, like whether McAlpine watches Italian soaps. Probably he doesnt.

    The reason people are doing these nice portraits of McAlpine recently is because they have these things called ‘feelings’, and they ‘feel bad’ when they do something ‘wrong’. They also ‘feel bad’ when they watch a stupid mob attack an innocent person. Its called “morality”. The identity of the person they hurt doesnt really matter. Thats how ‘ethics’ work. They want to counteract the bad so they try to have this thing called ‘compassion’.

    • It was a gag you anal twerp. But hey, if you think Ali’s taste in media holds the key to this case, then rock on.
      Fact-checking? The Sun? The Mail? The Mirror? Aaaaaaahahahahahaha.

  26. It is an unassailable fact that Lord Alistair McAlpine’s name has been connected with allegations of this nature for more than 15 years, and yet he has not once sued. Several threaders here seem to ignore this in the framing of their arguments; this, presumably, is either deliberate or stems, quite simply, from a lack of knowledge. Another canard is the suggestion that he may not have known, or known about, his cousin. Anyone making that suggestion fails to appreciate how these dynastic families – and the ‘great and good’ in general – have a) got there in the first place, and b) ensure their succession. For many of them ‘knowing people’ is a pathological obsession; for the rest it is merely a vital chore, but either way the social pressure is enormous. The degree to which these people will turn a blind eye to, or just shut out altogether, anything or anyone who threatens their tribe defies any moral analysis, but is a highly effective method of defence and survival – which, to them, is everything. The old adage ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know’ contains a powerful truth which is unhesitatingly exploited by those who know it. I have known some of them – and many are good and kind people, or at least well intentioned, even if their politics are usually a bit predictable. Basically, they’ve been networking for centuries – hence the conspiracy theories. Custom and practice dictates that, in an emergency, things can be hidden in plain sight by any means necessary. Two important means, obviously, are unanimous denial and capture/suppression of evidence. Intimidation – either financial, social or physical – is another. No system is infallible, but those who have power do not surrender it easily. More power to you JW.

  27. JW,

    Where was ‘jimmie’s’ funeral, was Allister invited, who attended?

    Questions that might have interesting answers.

    Given the Great and Good’s liking for large occasions it would be surprising if the funeral was not covered by the local/national press this avenue might add further knowledge in the inter-relations of the extensive McAlpines.

  28. You lot can quit making me out as some sort of headcase monster.
    I had plenty of that nonsense whilst on the Mothers for Justice site, attacked relentlessly for two years, because I would not stop posting the truth about Richard Gardner, Ralph Underwager and their horrible paedophile network.
    I notice you, Liz O Donnell, great respected campaigner that you pretend to be, never raised a whisper in my defence, and you were cowardly hiding in the shadows when Stuart Syvret got put in jail as well.
    So you needn’t start coming it with me, just because I want to avoid any of the Pindown victims from getting so stressed out about the threats of being beggered by Lord McAlpine and his legal team.
    I want to protect other Pindown victims because I am one of them myself and know what it is like to be so scared you can’t sleep, I know what it is like to live in terror.
    There are still law abiding judges in this country, we still do have laws, in spite of all the dodgy lawyers, there are still some judges and police who do give a damn, otherwise we would all be knackered altready.
    I wont stand silent when anyone is frightening the Pindown victims, deal with it Liz O Donnell, I think you are a first rate coward, to have a go at me because you think you can get away with it, but you never raised a peep about Stuarts persecutors.

  29. Another thing while I am at it Liz O Donnell, since you have poked your nose in to something that has nothing to do with you (Heaven knows why!), I never said anything before because I just thought at least it was good that you were getting it out into the media, but when you plagurise other peoples research it is the usual thing to at least credit the other people who have done all the donkey work!

  30. Pingback: EUROBLOWN: Witches in the wardrobe as Greece plunges through the looking glass. | A diary of deception and distortion

  31. Another great post!

    Your last paragraph includes: “serial institutional sex-abuse across the UK” and “the bravery or otherwise of some more ‘weirdos”.

    Proud to be a weirdo, and expose a Plymouth Criminal defence lawyer for serial sex blackmail and rape of ( mainly ) boys for 20 years, with Devon & Cornwall POlice fully aware of his actions.

    Proud to be on trial at Plymouth Magistrates Court on 22 JAN 2013, speaking for myself, where I will simply tell The Truth, under The Common Law, because The Law of Karma is the only law I stand under.

    I know men who have told me what that lawyer did ( one took 12 years to even begin to reveal The Truth ).

    And my sign (Zen asks) WHICH PLYMOUTH LAWYER RAPES BOYS?, consistently had the correct name shouted back.

    Truth is, our government, law, and police simply are not capable of properly dealing with a multitude of problems, so they are deliberately swept under the carpet.

    I was myself destroyed by Devon & Cornwall Police Special Branch ( who blackmailed my father to achieve it ) because I caught a Cornish council redhanded falsifying the public record over planning permission.

    I have in my possession the written report to the CPS upon my allegations ( a document never released to the public as a general rule ), and every point of danger to the council is never mentioned.

    I have come to realise that this kind of lies and perjury comes as standard within a primitive fear-based system ( medieval government, bodged ad hoc up-to-date ), and that reform is not possible.

    I believe that we must remove the existing system root and branch, and replace it with something crystal clear, simple, and loving.

    Which is why, win or lose, I placed my head upon the block, to challenge this Plymouth lawyer, whose sex crimes are protected by Plymouth police.

    ~ Zen ~ 18 NOV 2012

    (R)evolution – is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.

    • Yes,Yes,Yes!
      All this needs to happen, people need to come out together bringing their
      photos and diaries too.
      It is time for all abused to come out and expose what power,wealth and privilege has been on about for so long.

      A weirdo supporter

  32. Pingback: The BBC, Lord McAlpine and ‘The New Machiavelli’ Book | Sovereign Independent UK

  33. Reblogged this on Vox Political and commented:
    This is sharp, perceptive, to the point (despite its length) and vital reading for anyone concerned about the Bryn Estyn (north Wales) children’s home allegations and the unfortunate way they were connected with an innocent party – who turns out to have been extremely media-savvy. Has he been manipulating coverage of this for his own ends? You decide…

  34. Pingback: LORD McALPINE: Shock new question from Australia: | Exigency In Specie

  35. An interesting and entertaining article. However, Niccolo Machiavelli was never a Prince. There was no Prince Machiavelli. There is, however, a famous book called The Prince that was written by Machiavelli. It’s a small detail but a small detail can make a big difference.

  36. Pingback: McLibel 2.0 – Why Did ITV Hand Over 125K for ‘Schofield’s List’ and Can You Sue 10,000 Twitter Users? « 21st Century Wire

  37. (1) Did Lord McAlpine accept a caution from Strathclyde Police in 1965 for sexual abuse of an underage boy ? A matter of fact bearing in mind a caution is a criminal record.

    (2) If the answer is YES then his defamation action against Sally Bercow. must be purely that he denies any similar abuse involving the North Wales childrens homes or Cheshire or Brighton that relates. However it would seem self evident that the use of the phrase “Innocent face” would not be helpful to his cause if in fact he shew his guilty face to avoid court and accept a caution in 1965.

    (3) I think there is now concern that his lawyers may have breached law society rules or Pre-action protocols. We must wait to see whether Machiavellian manipulation of media trial (of Sally Bercow) is to be alleged.

    • If you read the Paedophile in full, you will see much of this is already there. I do not know of any such caution from Strathclyde’s finest, but it may well have been Jimmie McAlpine I have yet to see ANY concrete evidence that Ali McAlpine was or is a paedophile.

  38. Pingback: The BBC, Lord McAlpine and ‘The New Machiavelli’ Book

  39. Pingback: Saville and Friends, If a Picture Paints a Thousand Words! | Iceni Rising

  40. Pingback: The New Machiavelli, Lord McAlpine (A book on how to manipulate people for the greater good) | Anti Oligarch

  41. Pingback: Sally Bercow – Guilty ? I don’t think so….Lord McAlpine tho is… | Sheva's Cross of Change Blog

  42. Pingback: PAEDOFILE SPECIAL: After Shapps attack, BBC’s Paul Gambaccini fitted up, sorry, arrested | The Slog.

  43. Pingback: John Ward – Paedofile Special : After Shapps Attack, BBC’s Paul Gambaccini Fitted Up, Sorry, Arrested – 2 November 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

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