If it had been Sky News who had reported on allegations without naming the Labour Peer and were then being blamed for the Peer's name being made public ... yes.

I agree, its a great shame that the incompetence of the BBC has made that more likely.

The BBC aren't being hung out to dry by politicians because they were incompetent, they are being hung out to dry by politicians with a different agenda and who think that the distraction from the subject is a minor issue in pursuing their different agenda.

When the dust has settled and there is no news reporting from the BBC at all, I fully expect the rabid print media to take up the baton and run with it instead, I just won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen though.

It's rather more complex than that, isn't it though?

After all, it was the police who told Steve Messham in the first place that the person he identified on a picture was Lord McAlpine.

The agency that made the film should have checked again. The Beeb should itself have checked once more after that. But then you could point out that the BBC has been butchering numbers of journalists (not management, but actual journalists) for years and checking and cross-checking stories takes time. Sometimes a lot of time.

However, in terms of the chance of proper justice, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20302198this is a very interesting development[/url.

One of the side issues (if you will) of all this is the way in which some (note the word there) on the political right are not simply playing with child abuse as a political football, but they way in which they are quite happy to rubbish a victim. Yesterday's piece in the [iMail on Sunday[/i, by David Rose and Bob Woffinden was, quite frankly, a disgrace. Fortunately, most of those commenting have seen it for pretty much what it was.

And yet the right likes to claim that it's the left that cares nothing for victims of crime.

But reading forums on the [iTelegraph[/i at the time of the Rochdale abuse verdicts, for many (not all, note) the only issue was the ethnicity/religion of the abusers – it wasn't any concern with the abused.

It really is quite sickening.



PS: and before anyone accuses me of doing another version of this, my response yesterday to Harriet Harman jumping on the Bash-The-Beeb bandwagon was not positive.

[url=http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/child-abuse-scandal-can-of-worms-just-who-is-daily-mail-reporter-david-rose/The mysterious David Rose?[/url

A real can of worms is still yet to be opened

Well, if they've appeared in blogs then they must be true! Blogs were just the precurser to Twitter and Facebook, and about as reliable. Rumours are just that: rumours. They should never be mistaken for facts, whether on blogs or in any other context. There can be many reasons for rumours starting - malice being the most common I'm sure.

Unfortunately for Steve Messham he has form when it comes to being an unreliable witness in that he has been mistaken about things before. The police should have been more careful, bearing that in mind. But I suppose the police can't win here either because if they don't take such claims seriously then they will be lambasted.

As for the BBC's involvement, so far as I can gather their mistake was not to check closely enough the so-called research done by the company who investigates on behalf of the Newsnight programme (the name of which escapes me just now). They didn't name McAlpine but apparently the programme managed to make the link even so, although I did not watch it and so I don't know how they achieved that. Twitter then just spread the word, as it does.

I'm not sure I agree that policitians are using this to have a go at the BBC although in some ways I think they should. Although consistently left wing in its reporting, the BBC is still the channel I trust the most and of course there is a wealth of other stuff the BBC do spectacularly well which I would hate to see lost as a result of this debacle. But I do think there needs to be a serious shake up among the management of the BBC. Too long it has been a club, and one which has been shown to be outragiously cavalier with taxpayers' money - the latest example being the pay off to Entwhistle of £450,000: a full one year's salary for failing to do anything right. That is just frankly immoral and all that kind of stuff needs challenging and changing. If that means interference by the present coalition government then so be it because after all the BBC IS financed in part by the taxpayer.

What are your views on Rebekah Brooks walking away from NI with a £7m bung?

I didn't know that was the case. What I do know though is that she didn't work for the BBC. Therefore, taxpayers' money wasn't involved, and that was my point.

One small point to make that has been overlooked by critical MPs and the rest of the media witch hunt is that the BBC made a statement early this morning that at least a part of the DG's pay off was a retainer for consultancy services over the next twelve months.

Now I don't know just how much work that will involve but if they can justify the 50% of the payoff that they needn't have given him by using him elsewhere in their organisation for a fee that is normally commensurate with that duty, then is there a problem any more - and why didn't MP's hear the same news story that I did at 8am this morning ?

The BBC, as with other public services, was instructed by government to behave like the private sector – including in matters of employment (well, at least pertaining to management).

Because, as we all know: private is always better and private knows best.

So Auntie is doing exactly that.

Those same critics should also be reminded that Entwistle has worked at the BBC since 1989, so I imagine part of his severance reflected his previous service too. I never managed a 12 month notice period but have twice negotiated a 6 month notice clause. Losing a job is never easy but it helps when you know that you'll be comfortable for a few future months.

The BBC was "encouraged" to chase ratings and become more like a commercial, rather than a public service broadcaster. That would account for some of the abject sh[ii[/ite that it's been producing in recent years and its failure to inveest in what it has always done best: news reporting, investigative journalism and commissioning new drama.

Entwistle inherited the current BBC culture from his predecessor Mark Thompson, so I fail to see how he could take sole blame for what happened at Newsnight.

And just to add, like countless private-sector media organisations, the BBC has been cutting jobs in recent years and journalists have been a major target area.

I don't suppose having been repeatedly raped as a child does the mind much good on that score.



Yes, it does. Treating a victim of crime as though he were to blame is utterly immoral.

I do worry about the future of journalism, particularly investigative journalism.

Regional newspapers have shed staff and now mostly repeat what their national paymasters are printing. National newspapers have shed staff and simply seem to repeat and twist the words of any blogger that suits or opposes their own agendas. Preferring instead to fill their pages with the words of commentators and Z-list "celebrities".

The BBC has cut back, particularly in the areas in which they previously excelled: investigative journalism - reducing Panorama to a 30 minute sundbite hardly gives it a chance to present any meaningful reports. I and many others have been particularly concerned over the BBC's near silence on NHS reforms. Channel 4 (another publicly subscribed broadcaster), now seems to be the leader in exposing wrongdoing but must still be subject to commercial influence.

So it looks like the future will rely on whistle-blowers and bloggers, some of whom will have a personal or political agenda and getting an unbiased presentation of facts will be harder. That's the real tragedy of dumbing down, I'm amazed at the number of people I know who never read a newspaper or watch or listen to news reports on other media.

The whole reporting as news something that somebody tweets is indicative of the malaise. The state of the public discourse in the UK is absolutely dire.

Incidentally, on the BBC and the NHS, Lord Patten (appointed by David Cameron in 2011) is a member of the European advisory board of a private equity company called Bridgeport, which owns (amongst other things) Care UK. Now that company has had problems with inspections at homes etc. This used to be reported by the BBC, until ... Incidentally, Care UK boss Jonathon Nash donated £21,000 to Andrew Lansley's office in 2009.

Other deals in the health sector that Bridgeport have been involved with include:

Aenova – Contract drugs manufacturer - Switzerland
Alliance Medical – Diagonostic imaging service provider - UK
Attendo – Elderly care home operator - Sweden
Clinical Solutions – Clinical decision support software provider - UK
Corin – Orthopaedic products manufacturer - UK
Diaverum – Dialysis care services group - Sweden
Finagest – Nursing home operator - France
Firstpoint – Healthcare flexible staffing agency - UK
Healthcall – Out of hours primary care and healthcare service provider - UK
Medica – Nursing home group - France
Profile Therapeutics – Inhaled drug delivery systems manufacturer - UK
Pulse Staffing (formerly Match Group) – Flexible staffing provider - UK
Robinia – Care provider for people with profound learning difficulties - UK
Rodenstock – Ophthalmic lens manufacturer - Germany
Terveystalo – Private healthcare group - Finland
Tunstall – Personal and home reassurance telecare systems provider - UK

So at least Patten would not be at all likely to benefit from the privatisation of the NHS.

It's also worth noting that Alan Milburn, secretary of state for health under Tony Blair, was chair of the Bridgeport board.

Indeed. And I'm sure the fallout from the lack of care taken with him won't have done him any good either.

And the lack of justice.

Anyway, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20311843more arrests in abuse cases.[/url Perhaps this is also the BBC's fault?

There's also a piece, [url=http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/65713/cyril_smith_cambridge_house_and_an_abuse_of_power.htmlhere[/url about Cyril Smith. Elsewhere, a comment [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/child-abuse-rochdale-mp-calls-for-the-truth-about-sir-cyril-smith-8306857.htmlhere[/url suggests that, as with the Savile case, 'everyone' knew about Smith.

According to johann Hari's Wikipedia page, he is David Rose. Johann hari being a recently suspended journalist for the Independant. Perhaps one of the resident journalists could shed a bit of light on things?

Dig a little deeper into Tom Pride's article. Although Hari has used David Rose as a pen name in the past, I simply can't imagine him hacking for the Daily Wail, nor could I ever see Dacre signing Hari's paychecks

[url=http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/75509-lord-mcalpine-speaks-of-horrendous-shock-of-bbc-child-sex-allegations-when-they-didnt-nameDavid Icke[/url has either totally lost the plot or he is a very brave man

Its a reasonable question though - why did he do nothing of the printed article which did not hold anything back in its accusations and why is he now expressing such shock when actually, he's heard it all before ?

I know what my money is on.....

[url=http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/mcalpine-breaking-wrongly-accused-peer-set-for-2-5m-damages-bonanza/There's more from McAlpine and his ambulance chasers[/url

I hope McAlpine sues everyone who was involved those who wrongly accused him directly, implied stuff or simply by retweeting. People need to think twice before slandering people, especially with the label of paedophile which can destroy reputations and careers.

From what I've read in the newspapers, he's seriously going after the well known people. A fiver is all he's aiming for from the little people. He's making a point, a point that needs making, and hopefully it will work.

Those who get sued get no sympathy from me.

Shame though that lawyers get to earn so much, and for doing so little, as ever.