BBC to out Senior Political Figure as Paedophile

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

I think the BBC have put their case clearly.

A case for what, and to whom? A case for the BBC being a political force maybe but we knew that. In this context they ought to be a force for bringing news to the public, in the public interest, and why has it taken so long for them still not to manage it?

[rohrl]

Derek Smith said:

Politicians have criticised the BBC for not naming Savile.

The BBC want to name a senior tory and they are stopped doing so, presumably by an injuntion.

I think the BBC have put their case clearly.

It sounds like the scale of organised criminal sexual abuse in the Conservative party is far worse than the BBC. That said I must confess that as neither a follower of crappy reality TV or the minutiae of political fundraising the names most prominently linked don't mean much to me. I would be rather wary of linking Tories other than the two it seems are dead certs on the basis of their association. Did they go on holiday together because they were both paedophiles or because they were both senior Conservatives?

[turbobloke]

rohrl said:

Derek Smith said:

Politicians have criticised the BBC for not naming Savile.

The BBC want to name a senior tory and they are stopped doing so, presumably by an injuntion.

I think the BBC have put their case clearly.

It sounds like the scale of organised criminal sexual abuse in the Conservative party is far worse than the BBC.

No such behaviour is worthy of defence, anywhere for any reason, but that wording conveys an image which may have been unintended and is likely to be inaccurate. Did Central Office organise such things? Are both organisations not seen to be a host more than the parasite itself?

[elster]

rohrl said:

Derek Smith said:

Politicians have criticised the BBC for not naming Savile.

The BBC want to name a senior tory and they are stopped doing so, presumably by an injuntion.

I think the BBC have put their case clearly.

It sounds like the scale of organised criminal sexual abuse in the Conservative party is far worse than the BBC. That said I must confess that as neither a follower of crappy reality TV or the minutiae of political fundraising the names most prominently linked don't mean much to me. I would be rather wary of linking Tories other than the two it seems are dead certs on the basis of their association. Did they go on holiday together because they were both paedophiles or because they were both senior Conservatives?

This seems to have now entered the European Commission, due to one of the named people. Who is very high profile.

[Derek Smith]

rohrl said:

Derek Smith said:

Politicians have criticised the BBC for not naming Savile.

The BBC want to name a senior tory and they are stopped doing so, presumably by an injuntion.

I think the BBC have put their case clearly.

It sounds like the scale of organised criminal sexual abuse in the Conservative party is far worse than the BBC. That said I must confess that as neither a follower of crappy reality TV or the minutiae of political fundraising the names most prominently linked don't mean much to me. I would be rather wary of linking Tories other than the two it seems are dead certs on the basis of their association. Did they go on holiday together because they were both paedophiles or because they were both senior Conservatives?

There are always rumours of course about various politicians and others with influence. Just a few years ago the media would cooperate to a great extent by ignoring such things.

It is impossible to tell the exent of corruption in parliament as, almost by definition, they can exert influence. One thing which has been proved time and again to me is that if there are no checks, there is corruption. Priests abusing children is a case in point. You only have to look at Boothby. If the owners of the newspapers were involved then there was no chance.

We now have judges able to limit our freedom by inventing superinjunctions. A little while ago a journalist I know said that there were so many that his unit had trouble remembering them all. And then forgetting them of course. Once a judge can stop even parliament discussing matters then we've got problems.

To suggest that MPs are pure and have only the interests of the public at heart is, I would suggest, unsupportable.

We now have the BBC under attack from MPs. There motives are not pure.

Whether the BBC is biased or not is not the point. We have fox 'news' on the one hand and ITV, owned to a large extent by the Daily Mail, on the same.

I think the message is clear. They have information about an MP. They cannot publish it because they will get hit with a writ of libel. It doesn't matter whether you are in the right or wrong: once courts are involved then costs are astronomical. So even the threat of a writ is enough.

A strong move by the BBC. This move must have gone through their new boss who, one assumes, must have said go for it.

Anyone who thinks there are no paedophiles in parliament should not be allowed their own bank account.

From what I can see, if I had anything to do with Stoke Mandeville, Broadmoor or umpteen children's organisations around this country I'd be laughing and the press are going for the BBC alone. The concentration on the BBC is political. Fox news is loving this.

The Thatcher bit is of little relevence. She showed time and again that she lacked the ability to judge people. She was taken in by Archer, and everyone knew what he was. She probably thought Savile would make her look cool in the mind of the public. All it showed was that Savile wanted to build a fari bit of protection around him.

[rohrl]

tb - I didn't say or imply that there was a paedophile ring organised by Conservative Party Central Office. It will be interesting to see if those who've been the most vehement critics of the BBC over the Savile affair apply the same standards to the Conservative Party though. I do think that if the central narrative about the main characters whose names are 'out there on Twitter' stands up then it's an order of magnitude more organised and sinister than what is alleged to have happened on BBC premises (rather than in Savile's life beyond the BBC).

[turbobloke]

rohrl said:

tb - I didn't say or imply that there was a paedophile ring organised by Conservative Party Central Office.

The way the word 'organised' appeared in that post could be misconstrued don't you think? As I said, I strongly suspected that it wasn't intended.

Piers Morgan said:

So Newsnight bottlted it again tonight re exposing a paedophile? And they have the gall to mock tabloids? Grow a pair, Paxo.

Miaow. Cue two yellow bottles song.

[elster]

turbobloke said:

Piers Morgan said:

So Newsnight bottlted it again tonight re exposing a paedophile? And they have the gall to mock tabloids? Grow a pair, Paxo.

Miaow. Cue two yellow bottles song.

I'm sure the producers of Newsnight will be taking advice from a man who is on his way to jail.

[turbobloke]

elster said:

turbobloke said:

Piers Morgan said:

So Newsnight bottlted it again tonight re exposing a paedophile? And they have the gall to mock tabloids? Grow a pair, Paxo.

Miaow. Cue two yellow bottles song.

I'm sure the producers of Newsnight will be taking advice from a man who is on his way to jail.

If you say so, but whose advice have they been taking previously to do such a marvellous job?

[thinfourth2]

Well all the conservative party need is 1 person convicted of having a slightly rude picture and they are finished as the mainstream media will die with excitement


If it was the labour party it would be ignored as a 1 bad apple as the mainstream media have a hard on for bashing the tory party as the media is mostly made up of media students who are well errmmm media students

[anonymous-user]

A note on injunctions.

If a broadcaster or newspaper wishes to publish a story which it maintains is true, the Court will NOT grant an injunction to restrain the publication. This long established principle has been reiterated by the Court of Appeal on two or three occasions quite recently. Prior restraint of a defamatory publication is very rare.

Save in exceptional circumstances, any application for an order which may infringe the right to freedom of expression must be notified to the media. See section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

An injunction may be granted to maintain confidentiality (but there is no confidence in inquity), and, in some cases, to protect the integrity of a police investigation. Bizarrely, I once had to act for the Chief Constable of one police force to obtain an injunction against the Chief Constable of another force who was threatening to disclose some information about an investigation.

Super Injunctions are no longer common:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/media-releases/2...

[rohrl]

turbobloke said:

elster said:

turbobloke said:

Piers Morgan said:

So Newsnight bottlted it again tonight re exposing a paedophile? And they have the gall to mock tabloids? Grow a pair, Paxo.

Miaow. Cue two yellow bottles song.

I'm sure the producers of Newsnight will be taking advice from a man who is on his way to jail.

If you say so, but whose advice have they been taking previously to do such a marvellous job?

We'll see that as a result of the independent inquiries set up to find out what happened and why. just the kind of independent inquiries chaired by figures from outside the organisation that we haven't seen from any other media organisation over the past few years.

Your antipathy towards the BBC in regards of their coverage of the climate is well noted tb, try not to let it cloud your judgement in other areas.

[turbobloke]

rohrl said:

Your antipathy towards the BBC in regards of their coverage of the climate is well noted tb, try not to let it cloud your judgement in other areas.

My comments on the inappropriate political bias at the BBC can hardly have gone unnoticed, yet if the BBC lived up to its original Charter and was scrupulously impartial and unbiased these remarks wouldn't be needed.

In terms of other more topical matters, this latest tactic by the BBC is purely diversionary. Their paedo-files appear to be well stocked, and the choice in this case as a target for leaking rumours while claiming to lack sufficient substantive evidence to name names, has left one possibly guilty party facing the music at some point (fine) but has also led to other very likely innocent people being put under suspicion. The behaviour of the BBC is sadly lacking in public interest and full of self-interest.

Noting this situation and posting about it is hardly controversial or without basis.

[Rollcage]

Is this "senior Tory" a Lord, and named after a winter themed fast food?

[HowMuchLonger]

Hilarious looking back for the posts that have been deleted.
Even my post about what google autocomplete comes up with if you type in part of someones name has been deleted.

[rohrl]

Rollcage said:

Is this "senior Tory" a Lord, and named after a winter themed fast food?

Yup, Baronet Yul Logg is on his way to chokey the old perv.

[HowMuchLonger]

Rollcage said:

Is this "senior Tory" a Lord, and named after a winter themed fast food?

One is named after a Mac-car. Or Mac-type of forest
The other is not a Lord but is a Laud, the big brother. We used to see him playing tennis in battersea park.

Edited by HowMuchLonger on Saturday 3rd November 10:21

[rohrl]

HowMuchLonger said:

Hilarious looking back for the posts that have been deleted.
Even my post about what google autocomplete comes up with if you type in part of someones name has been deleted.

Who owns Haymarket, the owners of PH?

[Ozzie Osmond]

turbobloke said:

My comments on the inappropriate political bias at the BBC can hardly have gone unnoticed, yet if the BBC lived up to its original Charter and was scrupulously impartial and unbiased these remarks wouldn't be needed.

I always thought you were just shouting "bias!" at anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Rollcage]

That info was published years ago, by Scallywag.

It's hardly new news!