Lord Mcalpine is NOT a Paedophile

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

FACT


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20278885

And the further good news is that all the UK Paedos are now apparently dead or never existed..........at least those who were also not in a Paedo ring that did not include senior members of the Tory Party, the Police, the Judiciary, the Royal Family, the C of E and the Catholic Church. and furthermore Jimmy Savile died alone with no freinds.

Case closed

[mistermack]

I knew no McAlpine would ever fiddle with kiddies.
But, he is a Lord. So anything's possible I s'pose.

This is a ludicrous story, it absolutely stinks of invention and lies.
Apparently, the police showed him a photo, of someone else, and told him it was Lord McAlpine?
What absolute bollocks are we being fed here? I would give that about 0.1% chance of being true.

Out of every 1000 photos shown to witnesses, how many have the wrong name? I would say about 1, on a bad day.
And what are the chances of the wrong name being of a totally unconnected tory peer? It's ludicrous.

This guy has had 20 years, why hasn't he ever seen a photo of his alleged abuser, someone who has been regularly in the news, regularly on tv? And how come Newsnight never showed him a photo of McAlpine, before airing that programme?

The whole thing is bollocks and lies, just like the majority of the Savile stuff. Greedy people hoping for a payout.

[ronmcd]

I knew no McAlpine would ever fiddle with kiddies.
But, he is a Lord. So anything's possible I s'pose.

This is a ludicrous story, it absolutely stinks of invention and lies.
Apparently, the police showed him a photo, of someone else, and told him it was Lord McAlpine?
What absolute bollocks are we being fed here? I would give that about 0.1% chance of being true.

Out of every 1000 photos shown to witnesses, how many have the wrong name? I would say about 1, on a bad day.
And what are the chances of the wrong name being of a totally unconnected tory peer? It's ludicrous.

This guy has had 20 years, why hasn't he ever seen a photo of his alleged abuser, someone who has been regularly in the news, regularly on tv? And how come Newsnight never showed him a photo of McAlpine, before airing that programme?

The whole thing is bollocks and lies, just like the majority of the Savile stuff. Greedy people hoping for a payout.

Wait, you are accusing the victim of abuse of lying about his abuse? Or deliberately lying about it being McCalpine? I'm not sure why he would do that, it would obviously come out that the person he preiously identified wasn't McCalpine. Surely the simplest explanation is the correct one here ... he is telling the truth and made a mistake.

I feel sorry for the guy, he appears to have been very brave in coming forward repeatedly from his childhood when he was ignored, during the original investigation when he was ignored, and then again recently. And to add another layer of hurt and horror to the others that have no doubt blighted his whole life, he now has the added turmoil of having been responsible for naming the wrong man. Which he has completely and honourable apologised for, it seems to me.

This bitterness towards a child abuse victim makes me genuinely sad. I feel sorry for McCalpine, but his problems pale by comparison.

[cronus]

Never smoke is my motto....Tory is a key indicator of something amiss in my books, before going onto lesser offences.

[mistermack]

Wait, you are accusing the victim of abuse of lying about his abuse? Or deliberately lying about it being McCalpine? I'm not sure why he would do that, it would obviously come out that the person he preiously identified wasn't McCalpine. Surely the simplest explanation is the correct one here ... he is telling the truth and made a mistake.

I feel sorry for the guy, he appears to have been very brave in coming forward repeatedly from his childhood when he was ignored, during the original investigation when he was ignored, and then again recently. And to add another layer of hurt and horror to the others that have no doubt blighted his whole life, he now has the added turmoil of having been responsible for naming the wrong man. Which he has completely and honourable apologised for, it seems to me.

This bitterness towards a child abuse victim makes me genuinely sad. I feel sorry for McCalpine, but his problems pale by comparison.

So you find it a credible story then?
Firstly, that the police showed him a picture of someone else, and told him it was Lord McAlpine?
Secondly, knowing that, and having been abused, he's never since seen McAlpine's picture on the TV, or in the other news media?
I have, lots of times. And I was never abused by him. And the reason that I know I have is just that I happen to have the same surname. That was enough to make me look.

I can confidently tell you that if he had ever abused ME, I would know EVERYTHING that there is to know about him.

What has this guy been doing, when McAlpine's name came on the tv? Closing his eyes?

[ronmcd]

Wait, you are accusing the victim of abuse of lying about his abuse? Or deliberately lying about it being McCalpine? I'm not sure why he would do that, it would obviously come out that the person he preiously identified wasn't McCalpine. Surely the simplest explanation is the correct one here ... he is telling the truth and made a mistake.

I feel sorry for the guy, he appears to have been very brave in coming forward repeatedly from his childhood when he was ignored, during the original investigation when he was ignored, and then again recently. And to add another layer of hurt and horror to the others that have no doubt blighted his whole life, he now has the added turmoil of having been responsible for naming the wrong man. Which he has completely and honourable apologised for, it seems to me.

This bitterness towards a child abuse victim makes me genuinely sad. I feel sorry for McCalpine, but his problems pale by comparison.

So you find it a credible story then?
Firstly, that the police showed him a picture of someone else, and told him it was Lord McAlpine?
Secondly, knowing that, and having been abused, he's never since seen McAlpine's picture on the TV, or in the other news media?
I have, lots of times. And I was never abused by him. And the reason that I know I have is just that I happen to have the same surname. That was enough to make me look.

I can confidently tell you that if he had ever abused ME, I would know EVERYTHING that there is to know about him.

What has this guy been doing, when McAlpine's name came on the tv? Closing his eyes?

I have no idea if Steve Messham was telling the truth, mistaken, or maliciously attacking McCalpine. But if he was being malicious, why would he now admit it wasn't McCalpine? Sounds like a genuine mistake. Was Messham abused? Apparently so, those involved in the original case and report into the investigation seem to think he was genuine. I can't imagine Messham is exactly enjoying any of this, or making money from it.

My point is simple: I am not aware of any claims or suspicions that Messham isn't the victim here.

Oh, and I have no idea what a traumatised victim of abuse might do in the years after being abused by someone he was told was in a position of power in a political party, and who it appeared was utterly untouchable. Seek him out? Retreat into obscurity? I don't think you know either.

[mistermack]

Oh, and I have no idea what a traumatised victim of abuse might do in the years after being abused by someone he was told was in a position of power in a political party, and who it appeared was utterly untouchable. Seek him out? Retreat into obscurity? I don't think you know either.

I know what I would do. I never said I knew what happened with him.
I said the whole thing was highly unlikely. You have unlikely event, piled on unlikely event.

When you have one long shot after another, it's called an accumulator, in horse racing, and the odds go astronomical.

You have the first long shot. Police showing him a picture with the wrong name attached.
Be generous, say 100 to 1. Then it turns out to be a Lord. Be generous again, another 100 to 1.
( that's ludicrously generous ).
Then the odds on someone who was abused by a famous peer, who was regularly in the news, not being interested enough to look at his photo. Generously, say ten to one. ( although for me it's inconceiveable ).

Then he's involved in the newsnight program, but still doesn't "refresh his memory".
Another 10 to 1 at least.

I make that a million to one against. Very conservatively. (ha ha)
That's why I have my doubts.

Edit to add: As far as the BBC goes, I'm highly skeptical about them saying that they didn't intend to reveal McAlpine's identity. They must have known perfectly well that if they said "prominent Conservative politician" the name would be public within days.

[ronmcd]

Edit to add: As far as the BBC goes, I'm highly skeptical about them saying that they didn't intend to reveal McAlpine's identity. They must have known perfectly well that if they said "prominent Conservative politician" the name would be public within days.

Absolutely, it's a BBC 'omnishambles'. Although the attention on the BBC does seem to detract somewhat from the actual real abuse (Messham aside) which happened and no doubt still happens all over the country. Theres a danger it's a massive distraction, and some people will be very happy about it.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Lots of messenger shooting going on.........

[Azathoth]

I have always wonders how paedophiles form groups. It isn't something that you can casually slip into conversation in the pub until you meet someone likeminded

[Audley Strange]

I have always wonders how paedophiles form groups. It isn't something that you can casually slip into conversation in the pub until you meet someone likeminded

Good question. Here is another. Why are we taking everyone at their word, all the time. I'm surely not the only person that knows people enjoy lying. When Jack the Ripper slashed those poor women to shreds the papers received hundreds of letters from people claiming they were Jack the Ripper. So should we assume automatically that they all were or that any of them were?

So in this whole thing what do we actually have claims for and what is there evidence of? Why should we say believe someone claiming they were abused by Savile? When people talk about the "sheer volume" of complaints are they not indulging in agumentum ad populum? McCalpine, why do we believe him when he denies it? Who's telling the truth? Who's lying? Forget the motivations or ideas of gain, think of all those people writing the Ripper Letters, of those who were abducted by aliens or were visited by Christ and you might see that it is not always best to give people the benefit of the doubt, but to simultaneously accept they could be lying for reasons and motivations that may never be clear to you. Also consider that they may also be mingling lies and truth and that when you multiply that by the number of people involved what we have left is so chaotic that it is little more than interference.

Our culture loves a child abuse story. Its not difficult to take a righteous position on because there is no ambiguity. Makes us feel good about ourselves knowing we could never be that vile and we get to wave our morals about like chimps shaking their pricks at each other across the branches.

This may all turn out to be another manifestation of the "Satanic Child Abuse" panics. It may not, but the whole thing seems too elaborate and Icke-like to be left unquestioned and unanalysed.

[cronus]

I'm thinking this Mclapine chap would have changed in twenty odd years and they should show the victim a earlier picture when he was less podgy(may even have had more hair?)? A easily overlooked fact by some is that time changes people. They should not imagine because the guy says it was mistaken identity that it was?

[mistermack]

I'm thinking this Mclapine chap would have changed in twenty odd years and they should show the victim a earlier picture when he was less podgy(may even have had more hair?)? A easily overlooked fact by some is that time changes people. They should not imagine because the guy says it was mistaken identity that it was?

You would think, in light of the fact that he's apparently accused an innocent man, that they would get hold of photos from the Thatcher era for him to see. After all, there are more of those available than current ones in the public domain. And bearing in mind that McAlpine's probably going to sue, they would hardly take the chance of saying it wasn't him, if there was the slightest chance that it was.

Maybe there is another Lord McAlpine, who'd picture he saw? Even so, you would think that Newsnight lawyers or reporters would have found that out by now, so that's highly unlikely too.

Or it could be a pack of lies. People lie all the time, for very obscure reasons.

[Arse]

I think its clear that this was a case of mistaken identity with McAlpine. Not just because he says so, but because the witness gave places and dates to the original public enquiry and Lord McAlpine was apparently able to establish that he was in London on those dates while the young man says he was being abused in Wales. Not to mention that he said his abuser was dead, and Lord McAlpine is demonstrably still alive and living in Italy.

[laklak]

Living in Italy? Well, that proves it then. Not sure what it proves but it proves something, no smoke no fire and all, and he is a Tory and we all know they fuck kids just before they eat them. I say put him to the question. A few hours with pincers and the rack should get to the truth.