Jimmy Savile

when I am in total agreement with your posts.

What a relief that we are not so easily fooled.

But how blo*dy depressing it all is.

It is being alleged that Mr Messham has been bought off. He has been discredited and made to look confused and mistaken. Days ago he was articulate enough to navigate his way to lobbying David Cameron, bringing evidence with him, to prompt some action to re-investigate the care home abuse in North Wales, and was saying 'dont just review the investigations and subsequent restricted review, re-investigate and look at what went on outside the care homes.' Today, they're claiming he can't string a sentence together, isn't the sharpest knife in the box, and has a reputation for dissembling. Well, if he is not very bright, how did Newnight build their investigation around his evidence? The old boys network has never been so active. Where are all those brave investigative journalists who know how to cut through this corruption? Here's a chance for them to show why journalistic freedom is so important.

We had a serious problem many years ago. A family member was accused of a serious offence, and eventually found "not guilty" by the Judge, who said the case should never have gone to Court!

Our Barrister said,"it is much more difficult to prove innocence than to prove guilty."

My sympathies go out to all Innocent parties involved in the ensuing hysteria.

As others have already said, "there's bound to be innocent casualties, whose characters will be suspect after this".

Something is truly rotten but not in the state of Denmark.
Is this a case of mistaken identity or is the old boy network simply closing ranks again and protecting their own, again?

The whole thing just stinks doesn't it? Everyone gathers round and closes ranks, so who are we supposed to trust?
Those poor people who've been abused must be tearing their hair out.

I'm with you there, when. Almost too obvious, isn't it?

Questions being asked as to why the 'wrong' alleged paedophile took so long to brief his lawyer, without shifting the focus to the 'right' alleged paedophile. A near relative is now in the spotlight as a result. Stephen Messham has apologised for naming the wrong person, but it appears this is the name he was given by police when they showed him the photo of the real perpetrator a few years ago. Something rotten afoot. I hope the media cock-ups don't undermine investigations. If I was suspicious, I would wonder if misinformation was the order of the day, in order to quieten down the angry public

It amazes me that allegations are made, challenged, and the individual on this occasion exonerated, before this new investigation has even taken off! I understand why people feel a need to out paedophiles, albeit in away that does no-one any favours. All these distractions should not prevent justice being done. I, too, expect there will be some casualties.

I am beginning to feel very uneasy about the way this whole thing is going. Alistair Mcalpine may or may not be guilty of child abuse but one thing I know; it is impossible to ever prove yourself innocent of such a charge. I fear that someone will get hurt before all this is over. It could be someone innocent but even if it is someone who is guilty I don't think any of us want to see trial by media.

The terrible danger is that genuine abusers may be able to claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that the publicity would stop them getting a fair trial. This almost happened with Stephen Lawrence's murderers.
I believe the owners of social networking sites can be sued for libel.

Alistair Mcalpine (looks like we can name him now that he has gone public) has issued a statement saying he did not abuse anyone. read statement

For one thing, he is still alive, and the person referred to is dead. Another, similar name of someone dead has been suggested in place of his.

To my eyes, what they did was as bad as murder - should we not pursue murderers if a certain time has passed?

I guess so.

I know you didn't, jO5. It probably won't 'help' any of the victims of the abuse, because their lives are possibly damaged beyond repair, but 'right' has to be seen to be done.

I understand that what the children went through would have been horrific. Especially as they were children needing even more love and care than most. I do understand that.

Suppose unless one has been a victim of sexual abuse it is hard to put ourselves in their place .

Maybe though , they want someone to pay for what they put through .

Just a thought .

I didn't mean to make anyone angry.

I just don't see how it can help anyone now.

No, jO5! Why should they die quietly? Why should they not be named and shamed? Why have some of those young people more than likely ended their own lives because of the abuse they suffered? That is what can be gained - the knowledge of what these vile people have done and how many young lives have been ruined.

I know I'll most likely get flamed for this, but I wonder if it the most sensible thing to try to investigate these very old men now. Surely they will know they can't continue, if they are still active.

Isn't best to just let them die quietly now? What can be gained? I do not believe it can bring any peace to the young victims now. They will have lived their lives burying these memories. I'm not sure it would even be good for them to stir it all up.

Following the debacle about Philip Schofields "list" on the news last night, and out of sheer curiosity, I have to admit that I spent yesterday evening trawling the internet trying to find these so called names. I was staggered by what my search threw up and revelations that I came across, they almost seem too far fetched to be true, and whilst I can see that these accusations, maybe unsubstantiated, although some I came across seem to be able to corroborate their findings, they could easily be deemed as "trial by Twitter/internet" It nevertheless horrified me to think that if even a fraction of what I read is true. It makes the expenses scandal almost insignificant because that was only about money and this is a far more important issue, the abuse of vulnerable youngsters. I don't know what to believe anymore, I think the whole Jimmy Saville thing opened such a can of worms. Before the full extent of his history was revealed I, like many other viewed him as a slightly eccentric oddity, how he had everyone fooled. The fact that a lid seemed to be so tightly on his appalling practices and his name seems to be linked to so many care home/special school scandals it was as if he was acting as some glorified pimp for these shady, creepy high ranking figures to access children, it sounds almost Dickensian and horribly depraved. The sheer fact that obviously so many people knew about his shady goings on makes me wonder who we can trust and believe. It seems that some of these abuses have been going back many years and I imagine the perpetrators 30 to 40 years ago did not foresee there would be such mediums as the internet and Twitter which is very unforgiving in that there's no hiding place. I don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing and whether any sort of libel laws apply in the way they would if someone was wrongly accused in say a newspaper. If we go back to our own childhoods, particularly those of us who were brought up say Catholic we would never have believed the wholesale scale of abuse in that organisation and it's with all that in mind that makes me now question every hierarchy and institution there is given how such a mighty presence as the Catholic church manged to sweep so much under the carpet. I gather one of the main suspects has made a statement in which he seems to exonerate himself from the allegations, but I don't believe the man who spent some of his childhood in the North Wales home is making it all up, and when they did an investigation back in the 90s it seems it was all a whitewash. The Freemasons seem to be implicated in a lot of what I have read and they have always appeared to be a strange and questionable lot to me. I think the whole matter will run and run until the people who feel they have been so badly let down get some sort of justice.

I think he was only saying that we shouldn't tar all gay people with the paedophile brush.

Perhaps most of the people on that list were gay. Who knows?

I think he had a good point. One that was well worth making.

DC was right (can I really be saying this?) not to be drawn into the stunt, but I did not think the use of the word gay was particularly helpful, as it ijmplied a confusion in his mind betweem gay and paedophile. I don't think it is what he actually thinks, but it was open to misinterpretation.

Remember there are people in the audience who hounded out a paediatrician from home becuase they did not understand the langauge.

Yes. Perhaps it was a bad word to use. Perhaps I don't actually know the meaning

iPad paying tricks again. Should say 'claiming refuge under gay banner'

Sorry JO I've misunderstood you. It was your use of the word ludicrous which to me means ridiculous - laughable - absurd - funny - comical.