Cameron says people could start a witch hunt for homosexuals.

". Either Messham was given false information deliberately by the police or else he has been threatened to retract his accusations."

Maybe a bit of both. He has previously gone through a lot and now just as he seemed to be taken seriously by Cameron, he has been discredited again.

The other witness is Keith Gregory, he's the one who said Messham was mistaken therefore prompting Messhams apology. If you read the apology " this [is] not the person I identified by photograph presented to me by the police in the early 1990s, who told me the man in the photograph was Lord McAlpine.”

Messham is really saying he was tricked by police. He still knows who abused him but is now effectively gagged from saying any more. Poor guy.

On the issue of statements, McAlpine denies ever going to the boy's home but it has been mentioned by witnesses that they were driven to other places.

This retraction seems entirely plausible to me. I've seen people debating this and raising several issues that are important in my opinion.

Obviously, Messham was young at the time, and he was shown a photo of a guy he recognized as being involved in the abuse, and the police told him that it was McAlpine.

I want to make it clear to all our American friends that McAlpine is not a celebrity, not a famous politician in British life, not then and not now. You could have shown his photo to a thousand people on the street and I would bet that not one of them would have been able to name him.

As for the chances of Messham having the chance to see this guys face since then, why is that so probable? There are millions of people who do not use the internet at all, and even millions who do, but don't know how to use it. Messham is not exactly wealthy, not exactly living a stable middle class life (as far as I am aware). I know plenty of people who are in their 20's and 30's now who can only just about use Facebook.

I find it entirely plausible that he hasn't seen a photo of McAlpine in that time, or if he had he might not have understood the connection of the story. I don't think it's wise to just assume that he's an internet user, or that he's capable of doing his own investigative research into his own case. Why would he even need to? He was told by police - people he should have been able to trust - that this was the name of the man. As far as Messham is concerned the guys position in government is pretty meaningless, the name was simply attached to the memory of the man who abused him, and he trusted that association because it came from the police.

I was once jumped by three guys outside a pub, the police caught them, I was interviewed and shown three photos of them, they told me their names. How am I supposed to know that those were their actual names? I'm just giving that example because the detachment of the name is the same, for 99.9% of the British public the name McAlpine would be meaningless. He might be considered a "Lord", but the vast majority of our country doesn't give a rats ass about who is in government, let alone who is a Lord or senior member of government.

I would go so far as to say that those in the police should be investigated for this. There is every chance that those giving Messham that name didn't even know that they were wrong, so who told THEM that the photo was McAlpine? Was there a senior officer giving them these names and associating the photos with them? And if so, why? Could it be that the senior officers were instructed to pick a patsy in McAlpine to cover another senior politician?

The thing that really concerns me the most about all of this is how the links and inner circle of this is not being discussed. A guy doesn't just show up at a children's home and assume that he can have his pick. There would be connections in place, and those connections last for decades. There is a deeper conspiracy here waiting to be uncovered, and it seems to me that those in the police and government are keeping that quiet.

While they are focusing on one man, they are not mentioning the infrastructure that would need to have been in place for this to be able to happen. People at these homes would have known about this, there would have been lists of names, there would have been a lot of covering up. No one seems to be talking about how this all happened and how it continued for years without anyone being held accountable for it.

I do not believe for one moment that the police never knew about it at the time. There was a cover up, people were being protected, there was massive corruption and massive abuse of power. With the numbers of staff going through those homes, someone would have spoken up in those years, someone would have gone to the police, and I'm betting that many did and every avenue was closed off.

This network needs to be exposed, then and only then will we actually get to the truth of what happened. If this does go to senior political life (as I suspect it does) we will not get the truth from any inquiry. I hope the press with stick with this, and that decent MP's like Tom Watson will not let it go.

reply to post by detachedindividual


As you say it's important that the police are looked at. Who was the photo of? Why did they tell SM it was McAlpine?

The awful thing is, that the media is now just full of stories about Messham being confused and 'admitting' his mistake. That is the gist of the headlines and that is where most people's interest will end.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Did you watch Newsnight, last night. Very weird. They are now to stop ALL Investigations after getting it wrong with the witness and lord McAlpine.

I did... and frankly it was very surreal.
The BBC Newsnight Programme saying "We tried to get someone from the BBC to comment but there was nobody available"



And saying "is this the end for Newsnight"

Just insane.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid r have spent too much time on here. But this looks like the beginning of the cover up that we discussed yesterday. It's all smoke and mirrors and misdirection. Making witnesses look like liars and frauds.

Oh for sure.

Think about it.

Steve Messham says that Lord McAlpine told him his name before abusing him and warned him that if he tells, he'll kill him.

Steve Messham was shown a picture by Police who TOLD him it was Lord McAlpine, years later Jimmy Savile story breaks, people start coming forward, as does Steve Messham.
He tells the press and Welsh Secretary it was Lord McAlpine and only yesterday, after god knows how many years, does he actually see a picture of him the "real" Lord McAlpine... and finally says "wrong man"

He has a Twitter account and obviously has the internet and a computer.

Why would he have never googled this person?


The story stinks..

Either he's been threatened.... I mean he has a daughter and to be honest, I wouldn't blame him for worrying more about his life and his families life, than getting a prosecution.

Or

The police Deliberately showed him the picture of the wrong man and told him the wrong name

Either way.... NONE of it is the fault of Steve Messham OR Newsnight.

Messham was "tricked" by police and Newsnight didn't even Mention the name of the accused.

This story just stinks.

Of course this is the start of the coverup.

Discredit the witness, place doubt among the public about these "care home boys" and their "tall tales" and people start doubting it.

Already this story has become about Lord McAlpine the "victim"


NOBODY is talking about those abused by Savile any more, nobody is mentioning the BBC being Complicit in the crimes of Savile and his paedo buddies at the BBC

Nobody is talking about the Paedophile ring at Number 10....

Nobody is talking about the Victims

It's almost mission accomplished as far as the Government are concerned and as far as royalty, Celebs and others including care staff, judges, police chiefs, Traders...et al, who abused children for decades in care homes and other institutions.

*sigh*

Originally posted by detachedindividual
This retraction seems entirely plausible to me. I've seen people debating this and raising several issues that are important in my opinion.

Obviously, Messham was young at the time, and he was shown a photo of a guy he recognized as being involved in the abuse, and the police told him that it was McAlpine.

You are missing the point. It was NOT Messham who misidentified McAlpine but, supposedly, the police - which I wouldn't believe for a million years. His retraction does not stack up. The error (if, indeed, it was) has nothing to do with Messham being young at the time.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I want to make it clear to all our American friends that McAlpine is not a celebrity, not a famous politician in British life, not then and not now. You could have shown his photo to a thousand people on the street and I would bet that not one of them would have been able to name him.

Again, beside the point.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I find it entirely plausible that he hasn't seen a photo of McAlpine in that time, or if he had he might not have understood the connection of the story. I don't think it's wise to just assume that he's an internet user, or that he's capable of doing his own investigative research into his own case. Why would he even need to? He was told by police - people he should have been able to trust - that this was the name of the man. As far as Messham is concerned the guys position in government is pretty meaningless, the name was simply attached to the memory of the man who abused him, and he trusted that association because it came from the police.

So you don't think Messham ever sought out or accidently saw a photo of the man he had been told was Lord McAlpine? I find that implausible. McAlpine's photo appeared in the newspapers during the Thatcher era because he was a close adviser to Thatcher. It does not strike me as plausible that he never saw such a picture.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I would go so far as to say that those in the police should be investigated for this. There is every chance that those giving Messham that name didn't even know that they were wrong, so who told THEM that the photo was McAlpine?

You have got to be kidding! Are you suggesting that the police were incapable of checking beforehand what Lord McAlpine looked like before interviewing Messham? NO ONE needed to tell them, and suggesting a senior officer misinformed them is ludicrous. The officer could never risk deceiving his colleagues in such a way! No, this had to be a deception carried out by the whole police team.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Was there a senior officer giving them these names and associating the photos with them? And if so, why? Could it be that the senior officers were instructed to pick a patsy in McAlpine to cover another senior politician?

Why complicate the conspiracy unnecessarily by hypothesizing "senior officers"? It is far more realistic that the whole team was involved in the deception.
Given the fact that Messham has previously put on record that his life was threatened, I find it quite feasible that his retraction is based upon another threat. In fact I find it more plausible than that the police fed him a false name.

reply to post by blupblup


Thing is blup, it was all so predictable.

We knew that those responsible were going to do something to deflect attention away from those responsible for the abuse.
The momentum is lost and they have averted the public's attention.

The BBC could pay a heavy price for this.

Jimmy Saville and a small handful of has-been 'celebrities' will be demonised, (ETA, and they deserve everything and more that is coming to them), and someone will conveniently be found to carry the can for the Welsh care homes abuse - and in the mean time those really responsible will be able to skulk back into the shadows safe in the knowledge that they can continue their vile practices whilst being protected by the power and influence of 'the establishment' of which they are very much a part of.

reply to post by Freeborn
No one has asked the question. What photo was Messham shown yesterday?

None of this adds up TBH. With all the sources that named names for years, why the witch hunt of the BBC only?

I don’t believe Messham has never seen a photo of this guy he has accused for 20 years.

I don’t believe he suddenly recants the accusation one day after the News night programme

I do believe many guilty people have had a great sigh of relief and expect to be back in business in less than a month.

I for one will ALWAYS think there is a strong correlation between Homosexuals and Pedophiles.

I think Homosexual men are predatory towards young children.

The Link between homosexuals and Pedophiles


David Cameron is just saying what he thinks.....they are one and the same. Hate what I say....? It is because you know it is somewhat true. I view homosexual men with a certain suspicion around children. I do not accuse flat out but I do keep an eye.

Originally posted by Six6Six
I for one will ALWAYS think there is a strong correlation between Homosexuals and Pedophiles.

I think Homosexual men are predatory towards young children.

The Link between homosexuals and Pedophiles


David Cameron is just saying what he thinks.....they are one and the same. Hate what I say....? It is because you know it is somewhat true. I view homosexual men with a certain suspicion around children. I do not accuse flat out but I do keep an eye.

No David Cameron is protecting people by creating a smoke screen. I don't think I even want to get drawn into what you just said, exept that I hope for their sake none of your children turn out to be gay.

British paeodophiles Savile and Glitter (that started this whole thing) were into abusing girls.

I cant believe phillip schofield handed over a list he got off the web as absolute concrete proof, everyone knows the web is full of inaccurate information repeated often with no factual basis to it!

Originally posted by LUXUS
I cant believe phillip schofield handed over a list he got off the web as absolute concrete proof, everyone knows the web is full of inaccurate information repeated often with no factual basis to it!

Not sure he said anything about concrete proof at all?

Just that he's been able to find names after a quick search.

A society without homosexuals or pedophiles both, is not a bad thing. Would have a real positive impact.

reply to post by Unidentified_Objective


A society without bigots and morons would be even better!

reply to post by Unidentified_Objective


Just to avoid any confusion - I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed about paedophiles, just the other bit I find abhorent.

Has anyone seen that MacAlpine is going after those on Twitter that accused him? Good on him says I. Perhaps people will learn the hard way why it is a bad idea to publicly accuse someone without any proof.

I have to say i fancy his chances of success, seeing as the BBC has already settled with him.

Originally posted by Flavian
Has anyone seen that MacAlpine is going after those on Twitter that accused him? Good on him says I. Perhaps people will learn the hard way why it is a bad idea to publicly accuse someone without any proof.

I have to say i fancy his chances of success, seeing as the BBC has already settled with him.

Wonder if he'll go after the writer of this article

scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk...

reply to post by fireflower


Hopefully.

Provide evidence or face the consequences for making false allegations in public. People really need to start thinking about their actions. You simply do not accuse someone of something as abhorrent without any evidence to back it up.

reply to post by illuminnaughty


He says at one point... "if anyone knows, regardless of how high up in society they might be....bla bla bla".....then he says........"we are a democratic civilized society under law....bla.....bla....bla..."

Problem is that the people at the top write the laws. They are also not subject to and are above the laws they write. That's why in a court it says "you will be judged by a jury which is a group of your peers". Well I've never seen it happen, but if a person at the top was "judged by a group of there peers..." that would be what.... other aristicrates who are on the inside in terms of knowing how everythign works? And would never in a million years let one of there own go to the jails they built specially for the common man, the people they use them to enslave.

Anyway no one would even end up in front of a jury. It just doesn't work that way. The builders and controllers of a prison don't just decide one day that if they do something wrong that they will go into the prison that they own and control. Hitler was not thinking of signing up to go into one of his concentrations camps because he did a boo boo.

Anyway upper or high class people are basically above the law for the most part. Then the system has to once in a while threw the dog a bone by giving a elitist a short sentense inside a resort jail which they put all over the media as simply a form of propaganda to try and trick the people into thinking the system is equal and fair at all levels of society. What a joke.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by fireflower

 

Hopefully.

Provide evidence or face the consequences for making false allegations in public. People really need to start thinking about their actions. You simply do not accuse someone of something as abhorrent without any evidence to back it up.

The article posted is 20 years ago. They were never taken to court. I wonder why that would be?