Accusations & Trial by media (Schofield & This Morning)

[BLOCK F]

Part of the problem about society in the seventies is that there was still massive pressure on gay men, particularly those in public life, to keep their sexuality out of the eyes of others. This drove people into a world of sexual activity where secrecy had to be assured and blackmail avoided. That's a world in which power is all important. It's also a world in which relationships tend to be unbalanced and that isn't very different from how paedophilia works. Thirty or forty years on, it's hardly surprising that rumours of links between individuals will emerge from any investigations into the furtive activities of some of the closeted individuals involved. In most cases, those rumours feed tales of "guilt by association" - and I'm sure that this is putting the reputations of some leading politicians at risk, almost certainly very unfairly.

The fact that attitudes have changed over the last forty years is something to be celebrated. But we have to realise that it's only very recently that it's been possible for some men in public life to be openly gay.

Well put.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

The whole thing is one of the most bizarre stories of the year. Philip Schofield - the Philip Schofield sans Gordon the Gopher - trying to ambush the British Prime Minister, and then Cameron linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

On a side note, is it the first time a prime minister has used the words 'gay witch' together?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

If Philip Schofield can do it why cant the big hitters like Paxman do it? IMHO it needs to be out in the open and if news programmes wont cover it then someone else should.

Because Schofield shouldn't have done it an Paxman has got more sense

 

[glasfryn]

i rather think it does. a journalist, who's reputation and career are built on how they ask questions and present the answers, might well do the research to confirm what the allegations are, if they have any merit, and how to best form the question to get a useful responce. a TV presenter, who's reputation is built on looking nice for ladies of a certain age, might just trawl the internet for three minutes, write down the first couple of names he find and thrust them in front of a politican in day time TV. that certainly makes the matter more murky, not less.

the internet makes it worse of course because this tv presenter has access to speculation they wouldnt otherwise have. the internet is even less reliable than tabloid journalists, as literally anyone can say anything and someone will use that as their reference. if a bloke down the pub told you, or you over heard something on the train you'd ignore it or at least treat it as gossip. put some HTML code around it and its gospel.

take your point Schofield is not what I would call a journalist anyway, but anyone could ask just about any question of the PM if he puts himself on the TV although I honestly don't think he was expecting to be asked that question


should have had me on there the question I would have asked would have had no relation to whats going on now they would have been more like how to you live with yourself after being part of a government that stood by and allowed the police to lie about the 96 at Hillsborough and the miners strike and now hypocritically look pained when the truth starts coming out.
and he would have undoubtedly known what what was going on then otherwise he would have been as useless as he actually looks now the unfortunate thing about all of this they are all pretty useless.................MP's that is and feel free to replace MP's with any person or institution you like

 

[Pavilionaire]

I'd like to know why Cameron was on such a dumb show in the first place? If it was to appeal to a broader audience it has backfired spectacularly.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The whole thing is one of the most bizarre stories of the year. Philip Schofield - the Philip Schofield sans Gordon the Gopher - trying to ambush the British Prime Minister, and then Cameron linking homosexuality to paedophilia.

On a side note, is it the first time a prime minister has used the words 'gay witch' together?

Cameron sends Schofield list of people who were intimate with rodents

 

[BLOCK F]

Cameron sends Schofield list of people who were intimate with rodents

Nice one!

 

[drew]

i rather think it does. a journalist, who's reputation and career are built on how they ask questions and present the answers, might well do the research to confirm what the allegations are, if they have any merit, and how to best form the question to get a useful responce. a TV presenter, who's reputation is built on looking nice for ladies of a certain age, might just trawl the internet for three minutes, write down the first couple of names he find and thrust them in front of a politican in day time TV. that certainly makes the matter more murky, not less.

the internet makes it worse of course because this tv presenter has access to speculation they wouldnt otherwise have. the internet is even less reliable than tabloid journalists, as literally anyone can say anything and someone will use that as their reference. if a bloke down the pub told you, or you over heard something on the train you'd ignore it or at least treat it as gossip. put some HTML code around it and its gospel.

I think it is totally irrelevant who asks the question. Some highbrow journalists have obviously avoided the issue otherwise they would have made more of Tom Watsons question in Parliament. This isn't just about paedophelia, it also raises more concerns about the corruptness of the establishment who subsequently covered up the abuse and those that perpetuated the cover up.

I doubt very much that Schofield and/or his producer were hoping that CMD would resolve the issue there and then but whatthey have done is put the matter in teh public domain and moved it forward. The more that is disclosed, the less that can be covered up.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Cameron sends Schofield list of people who were intimate with rodents

Brilliant stuff!

 

[drew]

i think you've mistaken Schofield for someone else. he has just regurgitated inuendo he's found on the internet with nothing to back it up, and used his access to the PM to put it out there for a blaze of publicity. Did he forward the list to the local Chief Constable first? Cameron probably does know the names on the list and the inference is they're probably a list of something else, that has been misappropiated to this matter.

the news about McAlpine should clear up the issue raised about "a senior Tory". but the mud will stick and people will belive there is a coverup, in spite of the fact the the person making the accusations said the person was dead (and Lord McApline is very alive if that detail has been missed).

So the investigation carried out by Waterson in 1997 didn't involve the Police! The Police are almost certainly aware of the names on the list but their hands are tied from above. The original inquiry would only consider the names that were included in the statements by the victims and as I understand it, they were only allowed to include in the statements the names of staff at the homes, not the various 'visitors'.

i rather think it does. a journalist, who's reputation and career are built on how they ask questions and present the answers, might well do the research to confirm what the allegations are, if they have any merit, and how to best form the question to get a useful responce. a TV presenter, who's reputation is built on looking nice for ladies of a certain age, might just trawl the internet for three minutes, write down the first couple of names he find and thrust them in front of a politican in day time TV. that certainly makes the matter more murky, not less.

the internet makes it worse of course because this tv presenter has access to speculation they wouldnt otherwise have. the internet is even less reliable than tabloid journalists, as literally anyone can say anything and someone will use that as their reference. if a bloke down the pub told you, or you over heard something on the train you'd ignore it or at least treat it as gossip. put some HTML code around it and its gospel.

Interesting then that no 'serious' journalists have yet to break cover then on what is an important issue, both in the sense of the abuse itself and then the ongoing cover up by Governments since then.

Personally, I don't give a rats arse who breaks the story as long as it is broken and comes into the public domain.

 

[Dover]

Steve Neasham (sp) has just been on the radio and has stated that the person shown on the photograph was not the abuser.

Mr Scofield might be getting ready to give one hell of an apology.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Steve Neasham (sp) has just been on the radio and has stated that the person shown on the photograph was not the abuser.

Mr Scofield might be getting ready to give one hell of an apology.

BBC News - Lord McAlpine gets mans apology over abuse claims

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Steve Neasham (sp) has just been on the radio and has stated that the person shown on the photograph was not the abuser.

... as proper investigative journalists revealed in the Guardian this morning.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Steve Neasham (sp) has just been on the radio and has stated that the person shown on the photograph was not the abuser.

Mr Scofield might be getting ready to give one hell of an apology.

Just goes to show what a shabby TV stunt that was and why it is so important to let the Police deal with such allegations rather than attempt to do so in the full glare of the media. Now the only people likely to do well out of this whole episode are the lawyers, rather than the original victims of abuse whose fight for justice has been rather undermined rather than enhanced. So much for the Leveson inquiry deterring salacious gossip being peddled in the media or encouraging wronged individuals to make erroneous allegations even if they were made in good faith. Surely the subsequent media frenzy was not down to the victim who is seeking some form of redress, and maybe made a naive error through desperately seeking some form of justice, albeit so many years after the original traumas and subsequent investigation.

The timing of this retraction is somewhat ironic given that some quarters of the media are starting to bemoan the restraints brought about by Leveson. Certainl ity doesn't make the BBC (Newsnight) or ITV (Schofield) look very clever. Maybe this underlines why such an inquiry was needed in the first place.

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting then that no 'serious' journalists have yet to break cover then on what is an important issue, both in the sense of the abuse itself and then the ongoing cover up by Governments since then.

see right there you have demostrated the problem, you assume there is a cover up because someones made an accusation and nothings done about it. we know that the "senoir government official" story was wrong, no cover up, just mistaken identity. yes the Newsnight crew got it a bit wrong but at least withheld the name publically, and other journalists from the guardian followed up to uncover the truth. apparently you dont care who breaks a story, or if it has any truth or not. one could say the poster on NSC by the name of "drew" has been accussed of x and y, and you would be fine with that because it means it can be out in the public domain?

 

[East Preston Gull]

All because they were torys! What a bloody disgrace our media is. A total load of bollocks made up to deflect attention from the nonce partys the BBC got caught holding!

I bloody hate the BBC, they are becoming an embarrassment.

They and schofield have tarnished an innocent man's reputation on hearsay and rumours! McCalpine is a rich man, I hope he sues Phillip schofield for loads and sticks him back in his broom cupboard with his hand up a gophers arse!

No more license fee!!!!!

 

[drew]

see right there you have demostrated the problem, you assume there is a cover up because someones made an accusation and nothings done about it. we know that the "senoir government official" story was wrong, no cover up, just mistaken identity. yes the Newsnight crew got it a bit wrong but at least withheld the name publically, and other journalists from the guardian followed up to uncover the truth. apparently you dont care who breaks a story, or if it has any truth or not. one could say the poster on NSC by the name of "drew" has been accussed of x and y, and you would be fine with that because it means it can be out in the public domain?

I don't follow your logic. I assume you are talking about McAlpine who has strenuously denied any involvement. However, I thought the suggestion was it was a member of that family with a similar first name who has now died. Notwithstanding that, you seem to suggest that because one senior government official has apparently been incorrectly identified then there is no possibility of a cover up. Stephen Messham has stated he is not the senior government official involved so whoever it was, has been protected.

 

[Weststander]

David Cameron knew who it was before Phillip schofield showed him the card its why he instantly went on the offensive about a gay witch hunt. They held an inquiery in to the events and Wee willie hauge brushed it under the carpet. This goverment isnt going to haul <mod: names removed - find them elsewhere on the internet if you need to know!> up in front of a judge so I applaud Philip Schofield for making this public. He shouldnt have shown names on telly but he says it was an accident and there was no other way this would have seen the light of day.

Less than a day later, ITV's stunt is looking cheaper and nastier already.

Cameron handled this well.

Schofield can stay in the tittle-tattle camp of Ross Kelly, Lorraine Kelly and other 'presenters', and leave proper journalism for the professionals.

 

[The Spanish]

Is Andy Peters going to weigh in on the issue? And Sarah Greene. Time to wield out the big hitters.

hahaha you can imagine trevor and simon agressively doorstepping suspected nonces and going through bins for shredded documents and incriminating photos. you are right we need everyone on this.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't follow your logic. [...] Stephen Messham has stated he is not the senior government official involved so whoever it was, has been protected.

Messham was told the abuser he identified was Lord McApline. the apologies suggest he's been under a misunderstanding, he had the wrong name and identity. he does not say "i was abused by a senoir politican", that claim of a senior politician comes from the reporting, and the claim is now retracted by the source.