It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
I agree to a point, but I also agree that journalists need to be pushing this, and they can keep investigating and opening a route for whistle-blowers who might feel that this is becoming another whitewash.
Of course, the journalists job is to present information for the public to assess, and they have been doing that job in this respect. But they should also keep the pressure on and provide information as the investigation continues. That is the best way, IMO, to better ensure that justice is actually being done.
On the subject of the media and tabloids etc, it all comes down to one thing for me when it comes to the legalities of their information gathering (the whole phone hacking scandal etc.)
The notion of "in the public interest" has been warped and redefined. The trashy tabloids like to pretend that "in the public interest" means anything they think anyone would have the slightest interest in, from the size of Jordan's boobs to the weight of a Hollywood star.
In reality, "in the public interest" means stories that the public has a RIGHT to know about, such as police and government corruption or instances where a cover-up has taken place.
The media should get back to actually reporting based on the idea of what is in the public interest, and that doesn't mean they have the right to hack phones to find out which celeb might be sleeping with another.
This case would be one of those that is most definitely in the public interest, as it involves the potential criminal activity of politicians and BBC staff (who are all paid to provide services to the public), and it involves criminal acts against children.
This is completely different to gossip, and true investigative journalism should continue unabated in this case. I would expect the press to use whatever legal methods they can to uncover the story, while doing so in a way that will not jeopardise the case or accuse innocent people.
Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by detachedindividual
Which was kind of my point about unsubstantiated claims being made against innocent people tarnishing people's reputations etc - innocent until proven guilty.
The author seems to rely on rumour and innuendo and makes some massive assumptions based on them.
But, and it's a massive but, one suspect's there is more than just an element of truth contained in the article - some of the rumours have been around for quite some time and have never been completely disproven.
And do we the public have a right to know when serious questions are being asked about our elected officials, their aides and advisors and other's in senior positions of authority etc?
And be honest, do you trust the police and / or the judiciary to investigate these allegations and to report openly and honestly bearing in mind persistent rumours of their active involvement in both the practices and the cover-up and the history of deflection tactics, misleading and suppressing information, corruption etc?
Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
So in this rather clever article they are ridiculing the claims of the victims and making them out to be confused and stupid. Lord McAlpine's name was hushed up, hardly exonerated!
Any decent person would be trying to find out WHO EXACTLY raped and tortured these victims instead of making them look stupid
Originally posted by Flavian
Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
So in this rather clever article they are ridiculing the claims of the victims and making them out to be confused and stupid. Lord McAlpine's name was hushed up, hardly exonerated!
Any decent person would be trying to find out WHO EXACTLY raped and tortured these victims instead of making them look stupid
Actually, no. Even the person who originally made the allegations said he thought it wasn't McAlpine. Some of the other "victims" have also been shown to be false in their allegations - caught out on interviews on tv.
Does this water down the allegations against this ring? Of course not, no. However, what it does demonstrate beyond any doubt is that people should be sure of their facts before making any allegations publicly. Frankly, if i was McAlpine, my only interest now would be in clearing my name. Sod the investigation, i would be too angry at the false charges smeared against me.
These days we have places in check to stop people dangerous individuals working in environments like Care Homes, as anyone who has been CRB checked will be able to testify. Obviously, there are still errors and some slip though the net. Whilst this is far from acceptable, at the same time it must be accepted that it is a far improved situation to what we have had in the past. That is how the real world works, errors are identified and then corrected. Thankfully we are not in a Minority Report type world yet where things are anticipated and rectified before they have even occurred. Who would want to live in a world like that?
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
So, despite showing inconsistencies, we are simply supposed to take them at their word? Of course not. Equally, they shouldn't be discredited. Instead, they should be investigated thoroughly before naming on national media (if allegations are true). McAlpine should sue the arse off the lot of them.
Aside from anything else, it makes a mockery of true victims. The way it is being handled by the media and online at the moment smacks of mob rule and mob justice, things which are anathema to a civilised society.
ETA:
Nothing personal, think we are just at opposite sides of how this should be and is being handled.edit on 9-11-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
What has been front page news is 'Jimmy Savile' as a peado poster boy for all to focus on whilst those in government can (allegedly) continue their activities.
Journalists have stopped at certain points in the past but they should push on.
The public interest is that this may go all the way to the top and Savile was only a 'fixer' for those involved. The journalists can go back and re-investigate every link and name involved in past abuse cases if they wish.
Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
reply to post by Merriman Weir
Well as I said, I don't think McAlpine will sue. Yes the difference here is that the other people named are still alive and yes the police should really do their job - but they probably won't. i honestly don't know the answer to this conundrum.
In doing so I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
No! Submit, damn you!
Mr Cameron did not look at the list of names and urged anyone who has been abused to contact police.
Originally posted by thebabyseagull
I think the people of Brittan know the difference between a gay and a pedophile,this is clearly a distraction,he is trying to direct the debate away from the filthy nonces who have been running our country.