Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-17-2012, 03:20 AM   #1
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
How to make being falsely accused of being a paedophile pay


  • The BBC aired a story where an abuse victim referred to a 'senior Tory cabiney minister' (not naming an individual).
  • The blogosphere filled in the blanks/made up the rest, naming McAlpine.
  • McAlpine disproves his connection to the abuse allegations.
  • The BBC goes into implosion mode, firing it's chief executive, an orgy of self flagellation ensues, a cash settlement is agreed with Lord McAlpine before he can even pick up the phone to his lawyers.
  • McAlpine instructs his Lawyers to trawl Twitter's archives and 'harvest' anyone who even indirectly named him...

Well I'm very sorry for Lord McAlpine, for being falsely connected to child abuse allegations. But I think it's pretty pathetic how (nearly) everyone who merely *tweeted about* the allegations seems to be caving in and agreeing financial settlements with McAlpine.


QuoteQuote:
Lord McAlpine, who is 70 and suffers from heart trouble, has not decided how to use the libel damages he receives, which could run into several hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The friend stressed: “He’s not doing this in order to make money. He’s doing this to clear his name and clear his family’s name.

OK then - why not just ask for public apologies? You're a very wealthy man. It is hard to see how the allegations have damaged you financially, especially now they are being publicly retracted.


QuoteQuote:
It appears to be de rigueur to offer one’s apologies to Lord McAlpine these days. I’m told everyone is doing it, and it’s the fashionable thing to do over there on that Twitter thing that people use all the time. Everyone’s apologising to Lord McAlpine, and those who don’t need to apologise to him are insisting that everyone does because he’s 100% innocent and besmirched and HE MATTERS.

You see, Lord McAlpine is apparently the most important man on this planet, from everything we have heard. He’s SO IMPORTANT that the BBC, who didn’t name him as a paedophile in a documentary that named nobody, has to hand over 185,000 to him. That’s a measure of how important Lord McAlpine is, you see. Even if you DON’T mention his name, you have to give him money.

Myself, I’ve started up a McAlpine savings fund because I’ve not been mentioning his name for many, many years. Now I’ve mentioned his name several times already in this article (and elsewhere on the Daily Shame), I suppose I’d better put it in a high-interest account to make that money work for me. If only there were such a thing, eh.

Lord McAlpine has a few pennies, though. What with being THE MOST IMPORTANT MAN in the world, whose word must be respected and whose will must be imposed. He’s not short of a few bob, is old McAlpine. Which is why he can pay people to trawl that Twitter and look for people who have mentioned his name.

And lo, here’s one such fool who mentioned his name. Sally Bercow, she of the bedsheet and the Houses of Parliament fame. She of Big Brother and being married to someone who apparently is a politician. I really had no idea who Sally Bercow, to be honest. I’m a busy man.

But apparently she was on that Twitter, and she asked people why Lord McAlpine was ‘trending’, which is Twitter speak for ‘everyone is talking about him and using a hashtag in front of his name’ and then did this *innocent face* thing which apparently is Twitter speak for ‘he’s deffo a paedo’. And because everyone seems to dislike Silly Sally, she’s apparently the one Lord McA’ is going after. Not the ones that actually said “Lord McAlpine’s a paedophile” on Twitter, no, he’ll get to them later. First of all, he’s after Silly Sally Bercow.

First of all, I don’t give a shit about Sally Bercow. Worst of all are the media types who think that she’s worth impaling as part of their crusade on behalf of THE MOST IMPORTANT MAN IN THE WORLD, Alistair McAlpine. She tweeted something about his name trending on Twitter, so ing what? She’s another nobody who tweeted, nobody gives a , and nobody in the media has the right to campaign against a woman simply because they don’t like her.

And secondly, why the massive media crusade on behalf of Lord McAlpine? So he’s not a paedophile – so ing what. Let’s find the ones who are, shall we?

Or are you too busy licking the shiny shoes of your favourite Lord McAlpine that you’ve forgotten about Steve Messham and the other boys who were raped on a daily basis by a bunch of sick ers, many of whom haven’t been imprisoned and many of whom have avoided prison because they’re too rich and powerful.

Justice for Lord McAlpine first, and bollocks to the rest huh.


11-17-2012, 06:28 AM   #2
D0n
Banned




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 530
it's called accountability. people who spread malicious gossip and slander and libel deserve prison sentences and financial restitution should be paid.
It does not matter if you're making up lies and spreading them, or if you're mindlessly spreading someone else's lies.... you're spreading lies and destroying ot even taking lives. What if the man hid killed himself over the false allegations? Can you give a kid back thier dead parent? No.

Make them ALL pay is reasonable. It might stop them from killing the next innocent victim.
11-17-2012, 07:15 AM   #3
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,168
Why not just ask for apologies?
Because if apologizing was the consequence for this sort of thing the last remaining shred of integrity that the media possesses would disappear in a heartbeat.

Last edited by Parallax; 11-17-2012 at 07:33 AM.
11-17-2012, 07:33 AM   #4
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
Let me rewind... I do think legal action is appropriate against whoever put this out there, but I'm not so sure against people who 'retweeted', and I'm not sure about the BBC, who didn't actually publish McAlpine's name. It's just typical of the BBC to disembowel themselves in the face of criticism....

I also agree that what people put on twitter needs can't be without consequence, but I don't think it's practical to attempt to sue the whole twittersphere (and it wouldn't be an option for most people who don't have McAlpine's legal resources).

11-17-2012, 08:16 AM   #5
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,680
I'm happy the guy is going after every big mouth.

QuoteQuote:
Porn charges can ruin innocent lives
`Once you're charged, it's over'
London suicide triggers memories

BETSY POWELL
CRIME REPORTER

A 32-year-old London doctor's suicide last weekend after he was charged with possessing child pornography has sent shockwaves through that city and raised questions about the way police and media handle the arrests of people accused of lurid crimes.

When he heard about it, the events of April 15, 2003, came flooding back to Toronto resident James LeCraw. That was the day the 51-year-old man was charged with possessing child pornography. The charges were withdrawn last September.

He was asleep in his west-end Toronto condo when five police officers banged on his door.

"There was something about `You've been charged with child pornography.' It was all pretty embarrassing and humiliating," LeCraw recalled.

The day before, he'd been "on top of the world" after learning he was in line for a big promotion at the non-profit agency he had successfully turned around. "I was thinking, no matter how this goes, I'm screwed now; once you're charged it's over."

The next day, Chief Julian Fantino and Staff Inspector Bruce Smollet, head of the Toronto Police Service sex crimes unit, held a news conference. Each year, Toronto police arrest some 50,000 people, but only a small fraction are singled out in news releases and conferences.

Those cases are highlighted for many reasons, said Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash. Police have "an obligation to public accountability, public safety, for people to be aware of what law enforcement issues are, about what is happening."

Pugash said the public also wants to know what police are doing to deal with those issues.

News conferences can also encourage other victims to come forward, Pugash said.

At the briefing, police released the names and ages of six Toronto men, including LeCraw, arrested as part of Project Snowball. "They only have one thing in common," Fantino told reporters. "That is the criminal approach to their relationship with children." He demanded tougher prison terms and asked Ottawa for more money to combat the victimizing of children.

The story received prominent attention in the media. But five months later, the crown quietly withdrew the charges against LeCraw. Crown Attorney Mary Humphrey will say only that the decision was made for a variety of reasons. Pugash, speaking "purely hypothetically," said there are some situations where "the crown may decide not to proceed with a case ... that does not mean that the evidence wasn't there to charge."

In 2002-03, 303 charges of possessing child porn were laid in Canada, not including Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. There was a 46.2 per cent conviction rate, with 140 guilty verdicts, two acquittals, 123 charges stayed or withdrawn, and 38 "other" dispositions.

LeCraw said he'd been on an adult porn Web site owned by a company that also runs child pornography sites. Police found his credit card number and used it to obtain a search warrant. He said they searched his computer and found four "pop-up" addresses of child porn sites and a barely visible, tiny image police alleged to be child porn.

Ray Wyre, a leading independent consultant on sex crimes in the United Kingdom, said in a recent interview there are a host of ways people can unwittingly bring illegal material into their computers. "The fact is that you're only three clicks away."

Wyre, who works both for police and for people accused of sex crimes — "I'm not a hired gun for one side or the other" — says "it can come in as a pop-up or a pop-under or possibly as a virus and there are some trojans (computer programs) that have been bringing this stuff in; or maybe somebody was on wife-swapping.com and they got an attached document and they haven't asked for it, and as soon as they saw it they deleted it."

He said the crackdown — the same one that swept up LeCraw also netted rock legend Pete Townshend — has created "problems ... throughout the world" because police were obtaining warrants based on credit card information without conducting more thorough investigations. Townshend, who said he had looked at an image for research, paid a small fine.

Even though he was not convicted, LeCraw feels he was punished. He lost his job, is still unemployed and has taken a second mortgage on his condo. "With this crime there is absolutely no assumption of innocence. I've lost lifelong friends that, to their discredit ... didn't even make a phone call to me, they just read it in the paper."

He has complained to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and says he can't afford to launch a lawsuit.

Bob Steele, a journalism ethics professor at the Poynter Institute in Florida, said it would be appropriate and "humane" if, when charges are withdrawn, there is acknowledgement of that by police and the media. The media have a "profound responsibility," he says, to "make sure we have an exceptionally high level of fairness to those who are accused in these cases, because they will be tried by the public long before, sometimes, they're tried in a courtroom."
Actually I would go even further, I'd say this kind of accusation should be a criminal offence. Having once having a teaching colleague accused of being a pedophile, there was absolutely not a chance anything had happened and the charges were clearly motivated by a student's desire to blackmail him into giving her better grades. However it still took two months for him to be "cleared". I have to say "how are you cleared" of something you haven't been convicted of. And the answer is clear. Yo've been convicted in the public court. I personally feel these kinds of charges are an assault on a person's character and should be treated as such. Personally I'd rather be beaten up on the street than falsely accused of molesting children.

So I hope this guy finds everyone of these foul mouthed tweeters and sues every one of them. I've seen lives ruined by this type of cavalier attitude when it comes to hurling charges of sex abuse. I'm not sure there's anything much worse than child abuse, but next on the list would be those who falsely allege the sexual abuse of children.
11-17-2012, 08:32 AM   #6
Veteran Member
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,632
I think some of you are missing the point. He is supposedly going after some of the more famous people who did not accuse him of anything, but only mentioned his name on twitter - instead of going for people who accused him of pedophilia.

In other words - it seems he is selectively targeting people who can pay him, even if their twitter didn't say a bad thing about him.
11-17-2012, 08:40 AM   #7
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,680
QuoteQuote:
In other words - it seems he is selectively targeting people who can pay him, even if their twitter didn't say a bad thing about him.
Then he won't win those cases will he?
11-17-2012, 08:45 AM   #8
Veteran Member
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,632
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Then he won't win those cases will he?
The issue here is that people are caving to him and paying even without the suits going to court - as they are afraid of his financial clout. That is what the article was trying to say, these super rich have far more power than normal individuals, and wield that power without regard.

11-17-2012, 05:22 PM   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,680
The ultra rich COnrad Black did that for years. Here in Canada. Nothing new about that. Microsofts favorite strategy was to rip somebody off for their intellectual property and then drag the case out in court until they other company ran out of money. I find it hard to believe someone wpi;d cave in, if they hadn't said something. Mentioning him without mentioning the accusations would be very British, there would be a "wink, wink nudge nudge" involved and it would be defamatory. Or a reference to him that assumed he was guilty of something. There could be all kinds of statements that could be considered defamatory, without actually mentioning the crime.

But hey, it's all conjecture for me... I don't care enough about it to read about it.
11-17-2012, 06:38 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
There are a couple of interesting corporate-internal things going on with this story as well - reminding me of how banks in the USA, as long as they follow the rules and document every step, can still make bone headed mistake after another. These are not necessarily GOVERNMENT REGULATION related procedures, but rather cook-book + ship's log approach to following process, whether internally or externally motivated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/world/europe/bbc-failures-show-limits-of-guidelines.html?_r=0


As Mark Thompson Starts New Job, the BBC's Implosion Is Felt in New York | The Public Editor - NYTimes.com

Again, large corporations are animals onto themselves. There may be friendships that skip levels of hierarchy, there's back stabbing, and there are unfortunate consequences to down-sizing, out-sourcing, and PR related personnel moves. I've seen plenty of each at my time on Wall St, starting with a company run by then King of Wall St.

Last edited by Nesster; 11-18-2012 at 05:59 AM.
11-18-2012, 04:03 AM   #11
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
Original Poster
11-18-2012, 06:44 AM   #12
D0n
Banned




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 530
I don't care if it's only one rich white dude...
the ripple effects will reduce the amount of this crap that goes on for many...
it's bound to weight on peoples minds "I can get sued for this, if it get proven to not be true"
11-18-2012, 06:57 AM   #13
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,168
QuoteOriginally posted by D0n Quote
I don't care if it's only one rich white dude...
the ripple effects will reduce the amount of this crap that goes on for many...
it's bound to weight on peoples minds "I can get sued for this, if it get proven to not be true"
Exactly. As the saying goes "Shoot one, teach a hundred".
11-18-2012, 07:35 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,560
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Then he won't win those cases will he?

I'm kind of not seeing the logic in indiscriminately suing people for false allegations they didn't make, and then saying "If it's a false allegation of false allegations, defending a false allegation will make that OK."

I mean, of course these kind of allegations can ruin people's reputation, but rich people suing for chilling effect can cover up real things as well.
11-18-2012, 02:09 PM   #15
Veteran Member
magkelly's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,900
Why not just ask for apologies? Because once something like this spoken the damage is done and your life is never the same. Every person who called this man a pedophile could pay him a million bucks and it still would not give him back his reputation and people will forever think he is a pedophile and imply it even though it looks like he's not one.

Look at what happened with Michael Jackson. There was not one shred of evidence that he was actually a pedophile. Mac Culkin flatly denied it as did every kid he ever hung out with except for the two who accused him. The first kid actually disowned his father over issues with the money he got, and over some violent incident regarding him, and close friends of his have basically come out and said the first lawsuit was a sham planned out by the father who apparently had mental issues and later committed suicide. Likely this kid's so called memories of abuse were planted in his head by his father who used inhibition lowering sedation drugs on him while doing dental work not too long before the kid came out with those accusations.

If was that kid, I'd have some serious doubts by now. I really wish he'd come out and just say so publicly, clear Jackson's name once and for all, but he's said to be too worried about legal repercussions to go there. That's the same kid though that as an adult flatly refused to testify in Jackson's second trial and who left the country for a while to avoid having to do so. Me? If I'd been sexually abused and knew likely some other kid had been I'd have totally testified if asked. Not run away to avoid having to answer awkward questions, and btw, Jackson did not authorize the pay out to that first kid. His insurance company went over his strong objections to do so.

2nd kid? About as steady in his testimony as a row boat in a bad storm, and his mother was even worse. NO ONE believed him at all by the time it was all said and done. The only people who ever came forward to accuse Jackson otherwise were two employees he fired and who apparently sold their stories to the tabloids first. No evidence at Jackson's homes. No kiddie porn, no gay porn, just one art book that had a pic of a nude toddler by some famous photographer, and btw, there was plenty of adult female oriented porn apparently because the so called "gay pedophile" Michael Jackson apparently liked to look a lot at nasty picks of busty WOMEN. No other kids saying he molested them, despite thousands of kids visiting his home for years.

A few ex-girlfriends (and a current one) he supposedly had sex with and a certain very famous ex-wife who claims they had a pretty nice sex life. Evidence of pedophilia? Nothing, nada, zip, and yet when he died Jackson was still being vilified all over the world as a pedophile. His reputation was in shreds and he was still so paranoid and anxious about the whole thing that he had chronic insomnia to the point where he felt he needed heavy sedation just to go to sleep. I'm not a huge MJ fan. I'm not a blind believer. I believed it at first. It really bothered me a lot because of who he was and all the contact he'd had with kids. I couldn't even listen to a song of his for a long time I was just so weirded out by the whole thing.

But after the second kid's trial, and what a mess it was, I got to thinking that maybe I should look at the actual evidence instead of just accepting what was being said all over. I read the court transcripts. I read all the documents on The Smoking Gun and I read what Mac Culkin had said and others who also played with Jackson. I read about the first kid the whole thing with his father and I began to wonder if what was being said was true. In the end I just couldn't go there. There simply was not any evidence of Jackson's guilt. Quite to the contrary actually, and there was one other thing that finally convinced me. Elizabeth Taylor was a pretty good Mom by all accounts and truly loved her grandchildren. She let them play with Jackson all the time. So did Priscilla Presley with her kids. I just could not see it, those women letting someone they thought even "might" be a pedophile near their kids. It just didn't jibe. These women were pretty responsible parents from all accounts and that's just not something I could see them doing. One whiff of that and they'd have cut Jackson's balls off most likely. I mean we're talking Elizabeth Taylor, a truly smart businesswoman, one of the most outspoken, assertive women on the planet and Elvis's daughter who is no slouch in that dept herself. No way.

But still the rumors persist and even now you see his name on the internet and it's usually followed with some smilie that means snicker. Pedo Jackson jokes are rampant and in the eyes of many he was just that a pedophile, even if he likely wasn't. Financially, emotionally, and mentally Jackson truly suffered because of those accusations and they likely contributed to his anxiety, to his drug use and eventually to his death, and that's why this McAlpine should sue.

People falsely saying things like this, they can utterly destroy lives. They should be made to suffer too, where it counts, right in the wallet so they'd likely never think about doing it ever again. Apologizing doesn't hurt. Doesn't mean they won't just go there again with someone else. It's one thing to mock someone, to label them when there is actual evidence and they've been arrested and found guilty. It's another thing entirely to do that to a person who likely is innocent. You don't just get a free pass to insinuate something like that without actual evidence. That is blatant slander, period.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
lord, media, money, name, paedophile, people, twitter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
36 years of Pentax ownership (and addiction to being a gearhead) garywakeling Welcomes and Introductions 3 08-28-2011 05:16 PM
Would my being either a democrat or republican make you not talk to a person? troglodyte General Talk 14 09-23-2010 12:30 PM
Terrorists Tired of Being Accused of Being Photographers mithrandir General Talk 7 08-15-2010 11:39 PM
Yes, being a Pentaxian is being a little obsessed. ebooks4pentax Photographic Technique 10 08-10-2008 05:15 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top