Posts Tagged ‘Lord McAlpine’

Wikipedia Page Alteration: Has Derek Laud Been ‘Unfriended’ by Tory Elite?

December 2, 2012

The Needle

http://theneedleblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/derek-laud-pic-pa-136264763.jpg

“I only ask because his Wikipedia page has been edited…”

On the 26th October I posted a tweet of his, here, and I copied and pasted directly from his Wikipedia page.

It used to read in the opening paragraph:

Laud is a long standing family friend of Samantha Cameron’s family and a personal friend of David Cameron and attended their wedding at Ginge, in Oxfordshire. He has a wide circle of friends in the celebrity, political and business communities.

But not anymore……….

It used to read under ‘Personal life’:

Laud has a wide circle of friends in the Conservative Party. The list of Tory friends with whom he is known to go on holiday and socialise with is illustrious, and includes Lord McAlpine, Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo.

But alas no longer.

I’m just curious. I wonder if a reader of this is also a Wikipedia editor and can find out when this was changed and by whom ?

RELATED: The Original SCALLYWAG Magazine Paedophile Ring Investigation Turns Up Online

Advertisements

McAlpine Paedophilia Twitter Case Threatens To Expand UK Libel Law

November 24, 2012

By Erik Larson and Kristen Schweizer
Brisbane Times/Bloomberg

A former UK politician wrongly named on Twitter as a paedophile after a false report by the BBC may expand the reach of libel law with his threat to sue thousands of people over online posts.

Alastair McAlpine, 70, a former Tory party treasurer, has said he’ll take legal action against about 10,000 people who he says tweeted or retweeted defamatory posts after the BBC wrongly implied he sexually abused a boy in the 1970s.

The cases may correct the view that libel on social media isn’t as bad as in print publications, said Ruth Collard, a media lawyer at Carter-Ruck in London.

“It’s no defence to say you had no idea.”
– Ruth Collard, media lawyer

“With Twitter and the internet generally, people think it’s not the same as publishing a newspaper, book or magazine, but if you are the author, then you take responsibility for it,” said Collard, who isn’t involved in the dispute. “It’s no defence to say you had no idea.”

The BBC, the world’s biggest broadcaster, agreed to pay McAlpine £185,000 pounds ($284,096) after the November 2 error on its Newsnight report, which gave hints about the ex-politician’s identity without naming him. Before the mistake was uncovered, Twitter postings accusing McAlpine were already spreading, setting the stage for the biggest case of its kind in Britain.

McAlpine, who was deputy chairman of the UK Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher, wants Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers to apologise and donate to the BBC Children in Need charity, said Charlotte Offredi, a spokeswoman for McAlpine’s lawyers.

500 followers

Twitter users with more than 500 followers, including a journalist at The Guardian newspaper and Sally Bercow, the wife of House of Commons Speaker John Bercow, should also apologise for naming him, she said, though McAlpine hasn’t decided what legal action to take against that group.

McAlpine’s libel dispute has caught the attention of the Metropolitan Police Service in London. Officers are meeting with “interested parties” to determine whether a crime may have taken place, the service’s press office said.

Until now, the highest-profile Twitter libel in Britain involved former New Zealand cricket captain Chris Cairns suing Lalit Modi, ex-chairman of an Indian league, for tweeting that he fixed matches. Modi failed to prove the claim in court and was ordered in March to pay £90,000 ($138,202) in damages.

As McAlpine brings the threat of such legal claims to average citizens, the former politician who now lives in Puglia, Italy, may create a “tipping point” in the public’s view of defamation, including libel, said Andrew Terry, a media lawyer at Eversheds in London, who isn’t involved in the cases.

Hard time

“What the extreme nature of this situation shows is how easily reputations can be damaged by social media and why it is so important that there can be redress, whether those defamed are public figures or not,” said Terry.

While newspapers can defend mistaken reports by showing they tried to get it right, Twitter users don’t have the same standards and may have a hard time defending postings that are later proved wrong, Collard said.

Twitter limits postings to 140 characters and users can share another person’s tweet with a few clicks.

“At least if you’re writing an article you can ask the other party to comment and you can be balanced,” said Steven Heffer, a media lawyer at Collyer Bristow in London. “But in a short tweet you’re taking a risky step if you allege something, but you can’t prove it.”

Honest belief

It doesn’t matter if the Twitter users believed they were spreading correct information at the time, because the “good intention or honest belief of the publisher doesn’t help”, said Eddie Parladorio, a media lawyer with PSB Law in London.

Although tweets that name McAlpine and accuse him of crimes are clearly defamatory, Parladorio said, a tweet doesn’t even need to cite him or the word “paedophile” to give him a case if a “reasonable reader” of the post would link him to the BBC report.

After the BBC report, Bercow tweeted, “Why is Lord McApline trending? *innocent face*”. She later tweeted that the tweet wasn’t libellous.

John Bercow’s office in Parliament declined to give out Sally Bercow’s phone number and said she could only be reached through standard mail delivery. She didn’t immediately reply to an email to her husband’s office and her Twitter account has been turned off.

English law

If the threatened cases make it to court, the defendants may be helped by a provision of English law allowing judges to reduce damage awards based on how much money someone has already received from other sources, Heffer said.

McAlpine’s potential lawsuits are “an unusual approach, particularly when he’s received a large award from the BBC,” Heffer said. McAlpine may also have a hard time identifying users who don’t name themselves on their Twitter pages and may have to sue Twitter to do it, Heffer said.

Twitter, based in San Francisco, is often resistant to requests for users’ personal information. Helen Prowse, a spokeswoman for the company, declined to comment on McAlpine.

The scandal started when Steve Messham, a victim of abuse at a children’s home in Wrexham, north Wales, alleged involvement by an unnamed senior figure in the Tory party. He said he was “sold” to men for sexual abuse at a nearby hotel.

McAlpine issued a statement on November 9 denying subsequent internet rumours he had been part of a paedophile ring, complaining of a “media frenzy” and saying he “must publicly tackle these slurs and set the record straight.”

“A lot of people who made the allegations were just repeating what had come to them,” Collard said. The McAlpine case “may make people think more cautiously about sending on rumours or gossip without really knowing anything about it”.

Read more at Brisbane Times

RELATED: McLibel 2.0 – Why Did ITV Hand Over 125K for ‘Schofield’s List’ and Can You Sue 10,000 Twitter Users?

….

McLibel 2.0 – Why Did ITV Hand Over 125K for ‘Schofield’s List’ and Can You Sue 10,000 Twitter Users?

November 23, 2012

By Peter Sterry
21st Century Wire
Senior Editor

Extraordinary – another out of court settlement – this time by ITV over the notorious ‘Schofield’s List’. Is this getting out of hand?

Notice the pattern emerging. All deep pockets, all settling out of court. It stands to reason though, if you’re going to sue, because lawyers need to be paid and paid a lot – so it makes perfect sense from the plaintiff’s point of view to go for the fattest targets. All very sensible, wouldn’t you say?

What’s becoming very clear, very quickly here, is that this is no ordinary libel case and the media atmosphere surrounding the case is a labyrinth of smoke and mirrors, set on the background of a highly charged political and social debate involving this nation’s most prestigious and long-standing institutions.

Yesterday afternoon on the UK Column Live daily show, 21st Century Wire colleague, Patrick Henningsen, effectively re-coined the term “McLibel” as a transplant on to Lord McAlpine’s current ‘litigatorial charge of the light brigade’. But the ‘Mc’ similarity in the name is not all that draws comparison here, as we’ll explain.

Although McLibel 2.0 has been reported throughout the media, very few, if any, media moguls are challenging the technical basis of it. None seem to be able to state categorically who, and exactly how, and on which technical basis the BBC and ITV have libeled this seemingly powerful establishment figure.

Act One: ‘The Case of the Missing Leak’

Nothing about this case makes much sense.

We all watched the Newsnight broadcast that Friday night, with many viewers expecting that a ‘top Tory’ name would be revealed in relation to their investigation into the North Wales child rape and abuse scandal. The BBC’s lead investigator Iain Overton from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism(BIJ), and Channel 4’s Michael Crick – both tweeted earlier that day something to effect, ‘If all goes well…’ blah, blah etc, ‘a name will be revealed on the programme tonight..’. Wonderful. Only it wasn’t revealed on the programme. The BBC did not broadcast any name, and in the end Lord McAlpine’s name was never mentioned on Newsnight.

The current party line is that the whole fiasco began with a cock-up by the police – Lord McAlpine was not the “McAlpine” apparently identified by the police to Steven Messham, we are told that it was probably Alastair McAlpine’s cousin the late ‘Jimmie’ McAlpine, who died in 1991. Another case of ‘mistaken identity’, as it were. So why not sue the police? Hmmm.

The BBC Scotland have been asked to conduct another ‘internal investigation’ (the BBC are very adept at investigating themselves when there is any alleged wrong doing) into what actually took place, and naturally their chief snoop into this affair, a rather affable chap named Ken McQuarrie, seemed to come up with everything except the one thing the license paying public was actually interested in – who leaked McAlpine’s name?

So let’s say it wasn’t the BBC, then was it the BIJ? If not, was it Michael Crick? If not, was it the police? Can anyone actually tell us plebs who done it?!? Apparently not – and that ladies and gentlemen, is the foremost, biggest problem with the BBC rushing to pay the McLibel 2.0.

Conclusion: The BBC’s Newsnight programme in question was slapped together in just 5 days, in what has turned out to be a very elaborate smokescreen designed to externalise the issue of child abuse in high places and provide much-needed PR cover for their institutional cover-up of rancid asset Sir Jimmy Savile, and finally to distract the public from its willful failure to investigate itself properly – not that it should be ‘investigating itself’ anyway, it’s a public broadcaster. It appears here that the maligned actor in this drama, Lord McAlpine, was merely a tool used by establishment in order to save the BBC from hemorrhaging public confidence and to shield it from other emerging scandals of a similar nature.

Look at the results – it worked. The BBC did the usual ritual of paying off an outgoing DG, and hired a new safe pair of hands. No one is talking about Savile, and no one is wanting to look for skeletons in the BBC’s basement. Job done.

There is one aspect of this clever plan which will come back to bite the establishment, however. They used a child abuse victim, Steve Messham, in order to pacify their institutional desires. The public will never forgive them for that.

Remember McLibel 1.0, when McDonalds dragged that poor English couple through the courts for 20 years? We’ll get back to that in a minute…

Act Two: Scholfield’s List

This is more or less, a repeat of Act One, where the nation’s second largest British broadcaster, ITVhas agreed to pay Lord McAlpine £125,000 in damages, plus legal costs, in another out of court settlement over This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield’s alleged onscreen stunt confronting David Cameron, a stunt we are told, had linked several Conservative politicians with allegations of child sex abuse.

The only problem here is that this writer, nor anyone else I know, saw any name on ‘Schofield’s List’. Who was actually linked to child abuse? It is alleged that some could see – by freeze framing the show’s recording, names on the list handed to PM David Cameron. I still don’t know who the names were. Does anyone? I did a ‘Schofield 5 minute’ super search on the internet for those names – and I cannot find them! So how did ITV libel McAlpine then? Are we getting ridiculous?

On another legal caveat, it’s also worth pointing out that if a member of the public passes information to an elected representative listing people who may possibly be involved in serious crime – then that official, in this case David Cameron, is responsibly to then pass on this information to the police.

Did this happen? I believe it did not. What are the implications of that?

Still there is not a court in the land that has ruled yet on whether or not Lord McAlpine was libeled by both the BBC and ITV. In the end, it really does not matter whether he was, or wasn’t, because that’s how things work in the injury lawyer. Indeed, decisions were made behind closed doors in both broadcasting institutions to pay out – most likely in order to avoid a drawn out court battle that might sully the broadcasters’ media reputation somewhat, but would it really? After all these things happen in our society every day.

Conclusion: In case of ‘Schofield’s List’, again like the BBC, the public was not aware of Lord McAlpine’s name being mentioned on ITV’s This Morning program. On both counts, the public was only made aware of the name after someone within those media houses, the government, or the police – had leaked them. If a libel case is to be decided on its proper legal merits, then the police and the courts need to begin with finding out those individuals who actually leaked them.

This makes the threat to sue 10,000 Twitter users who McAlpine’s law firm RMPI believe had ‘linked’ their client’s name to the scandal, something built on a house of cards. Find out who is responsible for the leaks first. That would be the proper way to go about this.

Chasing ghosts on Twitter does nothing to find out how his name was leaked in the first place – which started that chain of events, propagating information online.

There we can achieve an accurate trail of accountability.

‘Trial By Twitter’, or echoes on Twitter?

Lord McAlpine and his legal attack team were seen to some out swinging last week, with cries of ‘Trial by Twitter‘. But before we dissect what did or didn’t happen on Twitter, it’s important to understand the nature of this particular social networking tool. It’s amazing how few people in the media and government actually do.

When it comes to news, Twitter is a long way away from a newspaper or magazine of record – it’s a hyper active forum – a 21st century digital echo chamber. In IT terms, it’s a crowd-sourced, information and headline aggregator. For members of the public who aren’t aux fait with the social networking tool, Twitter also allows users to use ‘hash tags’ or #tags in order to group conversations which are taking place within the Twitter information cloud community.

Phrases on Twitter are the lowest common denominator there is when it comes to information. Twitter functions as the online equivalent of a social info-feed, complete with zero depth, zero analysis and as is the case so often – zero credibility when it comes to any reports. Even a headline from CNN on Twitter must be clicked through to a substantial article if one is to believe the headline. It’s highly limited.

After the alleged Newsnight leak took place, and Lord McAlpine’s name was entered into the tertiary conversation surrounding the show, his name began to trend massively on Twitter. This is how Twitter works. Twitter is only limited to 160 characters, and doesn’t really quite qualify as a news publisher – more like a rumour mill.

The other peculiar aspect about Twitter which separates  from the others is how it works on highly a linear timeline, where users are almost exclusively attentive to Tweets which are less than 24 hrs old, and many users with large ‘follow’ lists only see what is less than 1 hr old. After this, it’s almost ancient history for Twitter users, because users are only reading and responding to happening, what is breaking, or is trending – in short, what is happening now. Old news, and opinion is constantly being overwritten by the cloud community of over 500 million active users, which ironically, gives very little weight in terms of public impact as to what ideas actually churn on that platform.

Sadly, it pales in comparison to a major website, newspaper, a well distributed book, or a large TV broadcaster. For any serious opinion forming information on issues, news or op-ed, all Twitter users are forced to migrate over to larger news websites who can display more than 160 characters at a time in order to test the public perception of any said news report or rumour – sites like the Independent, The Times, or even The Drudge Report.

A Tweet by a high enough profile person with many followers, like a celebrity for instance, would be picked up by many readers within a short space of time, so if a celebrity slanders another celebrity, it would move up the media tree very quickly and into the Corporate Mainstream Media sphere – here a public impact could be measured because it was large enough. Should other Twitter users actually commenting on what is actually happening in real-time be considered libel then? For banal subjects such as pop gossip, it’s taken very seriously by adolescents and teenagers who are following the movements of pop artists, Paris Hilton, and who want to know where Kim Kardashian is shopping that afternoon, or what Ronaldo did after Wednesday evening’s match.

Can a personal be slandered or libeled on Twitter? Absolutely. But what constitutes a libel with the narrow margins of Twitterland versus, let’s say, the front page of the Sun newspaper – are two very different things indeed. Firstly, there is the issue of intent. If a publication runs an article saying that Mr X is perpetrating a serious crime – like paedophilia or child abuse, going on to describe the allegations in detail, along with claims of evidence, then Mr X has the right to challenge the both the author of the article, and the publication on the veracity of the allegations in question. In this instance, the intent of publication was clear – to expose the crimes of Mr X. But if the publication does not have the evidence to support such allegations, then Mr X’s libel claim is likely to succeed, and the newspaper’s subsequent claims would then be deemed malicious and defamatory by the courts of justice. The issue of intent is much murkier with regard to mentioning someone’s name on Twitter – especially if Mr X’s guilt or innocence in relation to the media expose was inconclusive at the time. Twitter users were simply commenting in real-time on what they were seeing, without any premeditated malicious intent.

Other recent reports regarding ‘Twitter libel’ cases can be found herehere and here.

Conclusion: How information is presented and distributed on Twitter – and how society defines this, is a conversation which certainly goes hand in hand with McLibel 2.0. To equate Tweeting and ReTweeting with libeling McAlpine, not only over-rates the significance of Twitter in terms of public opinion forming, but sets a rather dangerous and slippery precedent, where we have a law firm issuing a blanket threat over the public, while the basis of the entire chain of events involving Lord McAlpine – has been hidden from public view via a series of out-of-court agreements, namely, the BBC and ITV thus far. Again, we come back to the fundamental question in all of this – who leaked the name?

Remember ‘McLibel’ 1.0?

Ahhh, those were the good old days – pre-internet, when the strong preyed upon the weak and under-resourced. It was known as the “McLibel case”,  where a lawsuit was filed in English courts by the humble McDonald’s Corp against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (“The McLibel Two”) over a pamphlet critical of the company’s environmentally destructive footprints overseas. The original case lasted ten years, plus another 10 for ECHR Appeal – making it the longest-running case in English history, subsequently made famous in McLibel, by filmmaker Franny Armstrong.

Although the goliath character in this case, McDonald’s, won two hearings of the case in English courts, the drawn-out public nature of the litigation embarrassed the company. In short, it backfired in the long run. For McDonalds execs, seemed like a good idea at the time.

After Goliath’s lawyers had collected all their fees and were hence finished destroying David’s life, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) then ruled in Steel & Morris v United Kingdom – that the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The court awarded a judgment of £57,000 – against the UK government. In the end, McDonald’s itself was not involved in, or a party to, this verdict.

Conclusion: After the state’s own corrupt justice system was finished protecting the rich and powerful McDonalds, and abusing the poor free speech activist, the state ended up paying the victim in the end.

The left wing of the establishment used Leveson in order the hijack free press and speech. Now we have the right wing of the establishment using the Savile and Newsnight incident to curtail free speech and to cover-up the disgusting problem on organised institutional paedophilia, not only in the BBC, but in government, and especially within in the child care industry itself. Shame on our leadership for allowing this issue to be reversed back into the shadows through their clever spin and cover.

Wikileaks is being shut down for publishing public interest information, and it’s founder put under permanent house arrest, and now Twitter is in danger of being nothing more than a shopping guide for commercial news, shoes, and handbags – because users are being intimidated for doing nothing more than commenting. What’s next, ‘Trial by #HashTag’?

The establishment don’t like, and never have liked, the horrid internet, because of what it represents – an affordable, endless community of open source networks and information. A vulgar concept for those who have successfully monopolised and controlled media for hundreds of years.

A local carpenter named Paul, whom I often share the odd pint with at me local in Crouch End, said to me yesterday, “I think that Lord McAlpine is over cooking the pie, and that’s not on, son.”

That is the crux of the matter, as we see it.

RELATED: The Prince and the Pedophile: What Are Charles’ Connections to Jimmy Savile OBE?

RELATED: Are Secretive Cabals Keeping Us in the Dark Over UK Child Abuse?

RELATED: The BBC, Lord McAlpine and ‘The New Machiavelli’ Book

….

BBC Appoint Royal Opera House Boss Lord Hall of Birkenhead as New Director General

November 22, 2012

21st Century Wire Says: With the BBC, it’s an endless parade of Director Generals, as the public broadcaster is seen as reacting from one government related scandal to the next. Baron Hall of Birkenhead looks like a nice enough bloke, has a killer CV, but isn’t the whole purpose of the DG position designed as a highly paid office chair whose job it is to fall on his sword when the next meltdown takes place? History will really answer that question for us.

This latest appoint has once again, seen the state-funded gravy train give the nod to one of their own, ‘a safe pair of hands’, as it were. As we are well aware that the entire institution is in danger of collapsing under its own weight of corruption and self-regarding arrogance, we only give Lord Hall a finite reign over the controls – until the next debilitating crisis ensues. Questions on institutional paedophile Jimmy Savile OBE and who actually buried his report, Newsnight’s now completely fobbed-off child abuse investigation – and others still remains though, but will any of them be answered? It’s time to target the BBC Trust and see exactly what it is, and isn’t doing for the broadcaster’s license paying public. 

The question still linger though: who leaked the Newsnight name of Lord McAlpine in the Steve Messham investigation? Was it someone in the BBC, the BIJ, or someone in the Murdoch press exacting revenge on the Beeb? Will we ever know? And why did the Beed pay out of court on a libel accusation – if they didnt actually libel anyone on air? We need answers – because if a public broadcaster is forking out large sums of money to private individuals, it’s in the public interest to know!

BBC confirms Tony Hall to be appointed new Director General

By Rob Williams

The BBC has appointed Tony Hall – Lord Hall of Birkenhead – as the new Director General of the corporation. 

Lord Hall, who is currently chief executive of the Royal Opera House, was head of  BBC News and Current Affairs from 1996 to 2001.

He is expected to start in the role in early March, and the BBC said in the interim period Tim Davie will remain as Acting Director General.

The appointment of Lord Hall follows a tumultuous few months for the BBC, which culminated in the resignation of the former

Director General George Entwistle earlier this month after just 54 days in the job. Entwistle left his job on 10 November after a Newsnight report into child abuse allegations in North Wales was found to have incorrectly named a Tory peer.

Public trust in the BBC is said to have been knocked by the furore and a number of inquiries are under way into the fallout from the Savile problems.

Lord Hall will be paid £450,000 in the role – the same level of salary as his predecessor – and his appointment was unanimously agreed by Trustees this morning.

BBC Trust Chairman Lord Patten said: “While there are still very serious questions to be answered by the on-going inquiries, it is in the interests of licence fee payers that the BBC now starts to refocus on its main purpose – making great programmes that audiences love and trust.

“In doing this it will need to take a long, hard look at the way it operates and put in place the changes required to ensure it lives up to the standards that the public expects. Tony Hall is the right person to lead this and I am delighted that he is taking on this role. For its part I want to make sure that the Trust gives Tony Hall whatever help and support he needs to re-build the BBC’s management around him.

“Tony Hall has been an insider and is a currently an outsider. As an ex-BBC man he understands how the Corporation’s culture and behaviour make it, at its best, the greatest broadcaster in the world. And from his vantage point outside the BBC, he understands the sometimes justified criticisms of the Corporation – that it can be inward looking and on occasions too institutional…

Read more at the Independent

RELATED: THE BBC: IT’S THE VATICAN AND THE MAFIA ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

More Public Funds: Lord McAlpine Wants Police To Open Special ‘Twitter Investigation’

November 21, 2012

Lord McAlpine, the former Conservative Party treasurer wrongly named as a paedophile by people on Twitter, has made a formal complaint to Scotland Yard

By Steven Swinford

This morning the peer asked police to investigate potentially thousands of people who used the website to make “malicious communications” against him but have failed to apologise.

The police complaint could lead to mass prosecution, fines and criminal records for people who wrote about him online.

Scotland Yard said that officers will begin “scoping” whether any offence has taken place but said it is “too early” to say whether a criminal investigation will take place.

Lord McAlpine has promised to take on the “Twittering fraternity” and to force people to “start thinking about what they are saying” before posting messages.

Last week the BBC, which wrongly linked him to allegations of sex abuse on Newsnight, settled with the peer for £185,000.

‘McLibel’ Tweets: Tory Lord wants Scotland Yard to get involved.

He is also seeking up to £500,000 in damages from ITV after This Morning presenter Philip Schofield showed a list of alleged Tory paedophiles to David Cameron

Lord McAlpine’s lawyers have hired a team of experts to collate the offending Twitter messages, including those that have been deleted, as well as “re-tweets” in which one user republishes a message posted by someone else.

They have identified more than 1,000 people who sent their own tweets implying or directly saying he was a paedophile, and a further 9,0-00 who “retweeted” the claims of others.

Last week, Lord McAlpine said he was left “terrified” after becoming a figure of public hatred” because of people naming him as the subject of a BBC Newsnight report wrongly claiming a senior Tory was a paedophile…

Read more at The Telegraph

RELATED: The BBC, Lord McAlpine and ‘The New Machiavelli’ Book

The BBC, Lord McAlpine and ‘The New Machiavelli’ Book

November 19, 2012

DISCLAIMER: This post is NOT a plug for Lord McAlpine’s book, although sales may receive a bounce by all the recent publicity – which isn’t a bad thing, is it? To be completely honest, after reading a few passages from this book, I am almost certain it was really written by that infamous jock Alastair, not Alistair.

This blogger below has made a very compelling argument regarding the BBC-Lord McAlpine libel scandal, based partly his own Radio 4 interview last week, an interview in which a few possible inconsistencies have been raised by the writer on his website. More interestingly, however, is McAlpine’s book – a fascinating read espousing some of the dark virtues of political spin and deception in manipulating public opinion – a revelation which could shed some new light on the present context of McApline’s snap settlement at the expense of the BBC TV license paying public…

John Ward
The Slog

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’

When you think ‘Machiavelli’, this is the Alastair who first comes to mind.

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.’

(…)

‘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.’

Read the full article here

RELATED: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT – ‘THE BLACK ARTS OF SPIN’

‘Trial by Twitter’ Talking Point Now in Full Swing…

November 16, 2012

Peer’s revenge over Twitter slurs: McAlpine will sue internet gossips 

  • Tory peer ‘terrified’ by BBC’s false implication that he abused children
  • Terms of the agreement will be announced in court in a few days’ time
  • And lawyers will sue ANYONE who named him on Twitter

Mail Online

Lord McAlpine is taking landmark legal action against internet gossips who falsely branded him a paedophile.

Lawyers for the Tory peer warned Twitter users ‘we know who you are’ and urged them to come forward voluntarily or face being pursued through the courts.

His action is intended to stop so-called ‘trial by Twitter’ and, if successful, could radically change the way the internet is policed and make those using social networks more directly accountable for defamatory comments.

Lord McAlpine, the former Tory party treasurer wrongly accused of being a child abuser following a botched Newsnight report, yesterday agreed a £185,000 compensation settlement with the BBC – funded by licence-payers.

Read more

The Original SCALLYWAG Magazine Paedophile Ring Investigation Turns Up Online

November 15, 2012

21st Century Wire

It seems that the original 1990’s SCALLYWAG Magazine paedophile investigation has popped-up online, included in it the complete exposé of the North Wales Boys Home scandal, and details of a sophisticated child abuse network running through Westminster, and elsewhere.

The SCALLYWAG article in questions is as hot today as it was back then, and names X, Y, and Z – including top Tory Party officials, police, along with other detailed information on men surrounding Bryn Alyn Boys Home in Wrexham, Wales. The article states:

“This ‘rent boy’ ring has operated for more than 20 years, and is still in operation at addresses all over Britain, despite the fact that the mastermind behind it all is at present on bail awaiting trail with 10 specimen cases against him…”

At the time, this particular Scallywag Mag in-depth investigative article from the 1990’s contains pieces of information from other investigations in the Observer, Private Eye, HTV and the Independent on Sunday, all of which were under threat of libel of North Wales ex-Supt Angelsea at the time.

Some commentators believed that Scallywag had sufficient evidence during the time of their publishing the article, but details are sketchy. Other famous politicans did sue Scallywag, like John Major, over allegations of an extramarital affair.

This Scallywag article was very controversial at the time and continues to be so today, with speculation that it may have been connected to the bizarre death of the magazine’s editor Angus  James, co-founder of Scallywag, who died  in Cyprus in 1994 some time after the magazine  was investigating the elite paedophile ring.

Photo: Scallywag publisher, Simon Regan

The  letter below was penned  by Simon Regan, Editor of Scallyway Magazine, and  half  brother  of Angus  James Wilson,  co-founder of Scallywag, who later died  in Cyprus in 1994.

Regan laments the tragic  cover-up by the Courts and the Establishment – a concerned shared by most of Britain, especially in the wake of hundreds of  different Jimmy Savile revelations. Here’s his letter:

Abuse

The Waterhouse Report 

By Simon Regan 

20 February 2000 

The fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any investigation which tries to break through a ‘cult of silence’ is the lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg….

Read full text of Regan’s letter here

So why are the Law Lords so eager to shut this case down?

Here is a recent interview with survivor Steve Messham, where it appears as if the police deliberately lost the key evidence…

It’s an incredible story, but only a proper resourced, independent investigation can do this kind of story justice.

Will we get one this time around?

Good question… good question.

….

RELATED: Max Clifford on Alan Clark: ‘I have all the evidence’, know where all bodies are buried

RELATED: CAMERON JUST DOESN’T GET IT – The Police and Judiciary are Part of UK Abuse Problem

A SHOCKING INTERVIEW: Wrexham Child Home Abuse Victim Describes Elite Paedophile Sex Parties

 

INTERVIEW: Wrexham Child Home Abuse Victim Describes Elite Paedophile Sex Parties

November 14, 2012

21st Century Wire

Watch this shocking documentary 

Harrowing interview with this man who was in the North Wales Boys Home in Wrexham, where he describes how he was taken from the children’s residence at 12-13 years of age, on a weekly basis, into London – and possibly to a military barracks as well – for sex parties in expensive properties where older men would abuse them until the early hours of the morning. In this scenario, large amounts of money would have changed hands between the older male clients and the operative who delivered the boys from the care home to the ‘party’.

Yet, some media figures are still claiming that this type of organised paedophilia among the nation’s powerful elite doesn’t exist and is just a ‘conspiracy theory’. We do not believe this to be the case. According to the evidence, victim Steve Messham was violently abused and intimidated – by older men in positions of power, and finally, he was hung out to dry, publicly humiliated by the BBC who folded to establishment demands of silence on this issue.

He also describes how children were brought from other care homes from around the country to the same parties…

RELATED: The Original SCALLYWAG Magazine paedophile ring investigation is available online

….

Gatekeepers Attempt to Erase Pedophilia: BBC and Gov’t Operatives Still Hoping To Stop Hemorrhaging of Public Confidence

November 11, 2012

Nicholas Myra
21st Century Wire
Guest Columnist

A disturbing shift has occurred over the weekend in Britain.

A very noticeable pressure has been building against Britain’s elite establishment composed of politicians, highly paid media executives and celebrities, over the ugly issue of pedophilia and child abuse – a crime which has, for generations, been allowed to be carried out in secret.

Since Friday’s assessment of David Cameron’s most embarrassing TV challenge by seemingly harmless personality Philip Schofield, the whole national conversation is now being engineered by Downing Street and top media executives, to rotate away from Jimmy Savile and MP Tom Watson’s call for a rooting out of organized pedophilia in government – and over to protecting the allegedly fragile reputations of hereditary elites like Lord McAlpine, who according to major newspaper editors and TV pundits, have suddenly become victims of a ‘witch-hunt’ for paedophiles.

Lord McApline: “I never abused children’.

Following a rather obvious, internally staged damage control event, where the embattled BBC Director General George Entwistle went on BBC Breakfast Show and the Radio Four Live programs to fall on his sword for ‘bad journalism’ over last week’s Newsnight set-up – Entwistle resigns. Now the government are crying witch-hunt. It’s an attempt to apply a new spin to the old spin, where the public are now expected to feel sorry for Lord McAlpine and any other ‘proper person’ like him, for being accused of child abuse, or pedophilia.

This is the latest effort by Downing Street spin doctors and certain media executives and hired writers, to shut down any serious debate on paedophiles in power, and close the doors on any more fruitful external or internal investigations.

They really hope to end it here with Jimmy Savile and Sir Peter Morrison, and maybe throw in the clown Gary Glitter for good measure.

Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Why? Because when it comes to its children, parents nationwide will not accept the standard government cover-up inquiry and perverting the course of justice. The nation will not let go of this issue, because it’s out there, and because 9 out of 10 plebs agree that pedophiles should be eradicated from all public institutions.

Up until this week, the major media gatekeepers were locked into a spiraling narrative which they could not escape because the implications towards the people involved threatened to entire power structure – because they are very afraid about what people will find out. In their dark world of cloak and dagger, the most coveted prize of all is dirt. It’s the most valuable form of currency behind the scenes. Newspaper editors, executives, TV producers, police, MI5, lawyers, MPs, Ministers and gangsters are constantly trafficking in information about each other in order to gain an advantage. In this black market of classified information, reports of pedophilia, child abuse – and also homosexuality, are as good as gold.

The key word here is classified.

Gatekeepers and Consensus Makers

David Aaronovitch published his column in the Times on  Thurs Nov 8, 2012, entitled, ‘Beware of a modern Salem over child abuse’. This was 24 hours before another intellectual giant, Prime Minister David Cameron went on national TV and cried ‘witch-hunt’ when ambushed by housewife pin-up Schofield. Predictably, Aaronvitch has led the charge calling for the sacking of Philip Schofield on LBC Radio. Aaronovitch also stating on air that some of the allegations against Jimmy Savile “may not be true”, quite a shocking sympathetic stance regarding the nation’s worse-ever child abuser. Pretty shocking.

Aaronovitch’s ‘witch-hunt’ is a rather hysterical claim. Yet, it’s hard to believe that the great and the good would be crying scared so much to scream “witch-hunt!”, but there you have it. If this scandal wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing right about now.

On its surface, the new witch-hunt talking point sounds like a desperate establishment meme, from an elite criminal ring who are now in such a panic as to try and equate the very serious and documented problem of organized paedophilia operating through positions of power, in government, the media, the police – and the judiciary, with a sensational event which happened in colonial Massachusetts. No, we have stacks of forensic evidence, and police reports that prove that, unlike witches in Salem, paedophiles in British institutions do actually exist.

Rather ironically, the cause of that old Salem witch hunt was guilty men in power trying to cover-up and silence anyone who dared speak of their heinous crimes.

Paedophiles and sexual deviants in positions of power – is a reality, not a ‘conspiracy theory’, as the Times writer Aaronovitch hoped to define it, by denying it exists. Documents in the Belgium child rape and murder case pointed at the involvement of both Belgium AND Dutch politicians, judiciary and police – all taking part in the Mark Dutroux child abuse scandal, but writers like Aaronovitch will tell you that it’s just another ‘conspiracy theory’. The UK’s police and security services do have reams of evidence, but unfortunately for us the public, most of these crimes are sealed by government D Notices, while the rest are buried through internal institutional investigations.

It was also more than a little disturbing to watch how Aaronovitch is said to have spoken to “a Senior BBC journalist”, whom he claims, like Aaronovitch, was “deeply skeptical” about child abuse victim Steve Messham’s testimony. Notice how David Aaronovitch doesn’t name the journalist, but is clearly using his column to draft a conviction – for all we know, David Aaronovitch could just be making things up to spread false information – just like those pesky internet blogs he says he loathes. Anyhow, I think it’s pretty darn safe to say here that the last person I would call on would be a BBC journalist for a second opinion when it comes to child abuse cases (I cough here).

So here we have it, a senior Times columnist who appears to be using his column in a national daily newspaper to deliver his own verdict in the North Wales Child Home scandal by trying to convince the public that victim Messham’s testimony was “shaky”. If I didn’t know better, I’d say he has an ulterior motive, maybe ‘moonlighting’ as they say, but it’s really so hard to tell these days who’s who in the world of big money media.

Aaronovitch: Drafted in again to protect the establishment line.

I suppose that Aaronovitch might also be a little upset to know that fixer Sir Jimmy Savile was also acting as a go-between for Israel and Britain.

What was Jimmy up to in Israel? I can tell you this much – it’s no secret in Whitehall. That’s not a conspiracy theory by the way, and as upset as some folks might be about it, you can’t rewrite history.

Moreover, writer David Aaronovitch also made a highly questionable, and arguably insensitive, if not bizarrely inappropriate statement in the same article:

“The unattractive (because complicating) truth is that sometimes people do lie about being abused. Sometimes it’s for money, sometimes for attention, sometimes because that’s what they infer their listeners want to hear.  Or fantasy has become solidified as fact, the dream as daylight.”

Pretty shocking stuff. Aaronovitch’s statement about victims ‘fantasizing’ about their abusers, is designed to support his rather disingenuous ‘witch-hunt’ thesis, when it appears a paragraph before his own self-styled verdict on Steve Messham’s ‘shaky’ testimony, and this type of statement in the face of what is clearly a national institutional problem almost looks again like Aaronovitch has been put up to help steer public opinion completely away from a problem. His statement is Salem in reverse. Shame on you David.

Aaronovitch has a history of making some rather ridiculous statements, and then cleverly covering their own tracks.Whether defending the mythology of WMD’s in Iraq (after his pro-war campaigning for Gulf War II, he tries to cover his tracks in 2004 saying, “From the outset of the Iraq debate I was a WMD agnostic”), or defending Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, Aaronovitch has a pretty shameless record as an establishment gatekeeper, whilst touting some sort of Marxist pedigree. As a former Observer columnist, he is the classic example of a 20th century media-annointed, intelligentsia gatekeeper who typically writes a column per week, appears on the odd panel, looks to be busy by writing a few mediocre history books debunking ‘conspiracy theories’ – and somehow gets paid handsomely for it. His job it seems, is to put his own memes out there into the public conversation in order to get people thinking along received establishment wisdom. The irony here is, when it comes to opinion forming, when it’s all said and done, more people will have read our article here on this website than David Aaronovitch’s piece for the Times – thanks to Rupert Murdoch’s subscription firewall at the Times.co.uk.

Tories in Arms

Mellor: Here’s one guy who shouldn’t be calling anyone ‘weird’.

The great thing about a Tory is, they will come out to defend their own, even if it’s a bit off key. Another much celebrated (although slightly odd) Tory politician turned media intelligentsia figure, David Mellor, has also come out this weekend in support of pal Lord McAlpine to help discredit Steve Messham by labeling the abuse victim a “weirdo”. Here Mellor is joining the fight to protect the elite, but his motives are obvious. Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP has rightly pointed out that victims could now fear being “taken out to dry” by the media if they name any public figures as paedophiles – something I’m sure the Tory government would hate to have happen now.

The latest rewriting of history is underway with North Wales Child Homes latest ‘photo swap’– enter stage left, ‘Jimmy’ McAlpine, because it doesn’t take a Times reader to figure out that Steve Messham would have looked at images of McAlpine prior to yesterday, “Oops, we made a mistake”. He’s either been threatened or bribed, or both. Would this have been done if McAlpine was not guilty?

This latest establishment stunt is designed to stop the momentum of the revelations about elite involvement in Savile’s activities, and to discredit information on the internet about elites involvement paedophilia.

So Aaronovitch and Mellor’s gatekeeping on the issue of institutional pedophilia in Britain is just one example of how members of the media regularly conform, and in some cases, streamline, to Whitehall’s desired talking points on any major issue involving national security – and make no mistake here, paedophiles in government is a national security issue, just ask the Russians and the Israelis. The media, for the most part, also did this before and during, the war with Iraq. The same thing is happening with this paedophile scandal, and it should sicken the public. It’s a vile exhibition of symbiotic members of the establishment covering each others asses – figuratively, and literally.

Savile: A friend if the elite, protected by the police, the royals and media.

So Pope Entwistle has resigned (aka sacked). Big deal. A new Pope will replace him. No matter how many Director Generals they sack, no matter how many Tory heads cry “mistaken identity!”, the fact is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not working alone and the BBC are beyond guilty with their shameful cover-up. The BBC are officially a damaged brand.

Jeremy Paxman is said to be upset over Entwistle’s departure, and will probably resign next.

Could it be that the system is so corrupt it cannot be trusted to investigate itself?

I would sincerely hope that the public will be the judge of that one – and not highly paid media gatekeepers and secretive politicians.

Investigations – as well as debates on child abuse, need to be opened up, not closed down. Those who are trying to shut either of these down, are very probably covering for the guilty in power.

More and more revelations will be forthcoming. The gilded age of paedophiles could soon be over, because no matter how hard they  try, they cannot rewrite history now.

….

Writer Nicholas Myra is a former actor and television producer, now a community youth worker, and originally hailing from Tipperary, Ireland. Myra spends his winters in the UK and his summers touring Europe and North Africa by Harley Davidson.

RELATED: The Trouble with BBC ‘Children in Need’ Ambassador Max Clifford and Tory MP Alan Clark

RELATED: THE BBC: ‘IT’S THE VATICAN AND THE MAFIA ALL ROLLED INTO ONE’

RELATED: ‘HE’LL FIX IT!’ SIR JIMMY WAS A CHILD ‘FIXER’ FOR THE ELITE

RELATED: ‘I RAN THE GAUNTLET OF PEDOPHILES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY’