Lord Mcalpine is NOT a Paedophile

[Seth]

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.

Sounds remarkably like those alleged "victims" of Catholic priests, who never bothered to come forward and make a claim for 50 years till the Catholic church started doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. Greedy people hoping for a payout indeed.

Looks like Brits are just as disgustingly pedophillic as everyone else, they're just better at covering it up than the Catholics are, and are still in denial. Next I suspect a wave of complaints of schoolchildren being raped by the millions in the UK every year, starting with Richard Dawkins himself, who admits he was buggered in school by a religiously-affiliated adult.

Pot, kettle, black

[ronmcd]

Well, let's be careful here. Sure there are many people who have suddenly come out of the woodwork over this whole Jimmy Saville abuse thing, and the ones I'm disgusted by are those who said they knew (and weren't kids at the time) and did fuck all about it. But this guy who accused McCalpine? He was a kid, we know he WAS abused by someone as he was one of the kids in a care home who made a complaint at the time, and was involved in giving evidence during the original investigation. He isnt making something up now he is an adult. He was consistent since he was abused as a child.

Just to be clear.

[mistermack]

If McAlpine had been dead by now, does anybody think that that worm would have withdrawn his allegation, or admitted it was wrong?

It appears from some reports that he DID believe he was dead. He must have got a nasty shock when he found out he was still alive, and could prove he wasn't in Wales at the date it was alleged.
What could he possibly say to that?
This cock and bull mistaken identity story. Nothing else gets him off the hook.

Has anybody got any kind of theory, how the police could show him a photo of someone else, and tell him it was Lord McAlpine? Where did they get that name from? Why would they do it? Did they just pluck it out of the air? Or see him on the telly? It's pathetic.

[ronmcd]

If McAlpine had been dead by now, does anybody think that that worm would have withdrawn his allegation, or admitted it was wrong?

It appears from some reports that he DID believe he was dead. He must have got a nasty shock when he found out he was still alive, and could prove he wasn't in Wales at the date it was alleged.
What could he possibly say to that?
This cock and bull mistaken identity story. Nothing else gets him off the hook.

Has anybody got any kind of theory, how the police could show him a photo of someone else, and tell him it was Lord McAlpine? Where did they get that name from? Why would they do it? Did they just pluck it out of the air? Or see him on the telly? It's pathetic.

There appear to be all manner of possible scenarios which would lead to the situation we have today. But calling someone who we know WAS abused as a child a "worm" ... you really do impress me more and more every time you post mistermack. Class in a glass.

[klr]

If McAlpine had been dead by now, does anybody think that that worm would have withdrawn his allegation, or admitted it was wrong?

It appears from some reports that he DID believe he was dead. He must have got a nasty shock when he found out he was still alive, and could prove he wasn't in Wales at the date it was alleged.
What could he possibly say to that?
This cock and bull mistaken identity story. Nothing else gets him off the hook.

Has anybody got any kind of theory, how the police could show him a photo of someone else, and tell him it was Lord McAlpine? Where did they get that name from? Why would they do it? Did they just pluck it out of the air? Or see him on the telly? It's pathetic.

There appear to be all manner of possible scenarios which would lead to the situation we have today. But calling someone who we know WAS abused as a child a "worm" ... you really do impress me more and more every time you post mistermack. Class in a glass.

Yup, the guy was abused and shown a wrongly identified photo. Not his fault at all.

[mistermack]

There appear to be all manner of possible scenarios which would lead to the situation we have today. But calling someone who we know WAS abused as a child a "worm" ... you really do impress me more and more every time you post mistermack. Class in a glass.

Oh right. How do you know that? Were you there, by any chance?
Fill me in, and I'll know it too, won't I ?

Or is this more of your invented bollocks?

[ronmcd]

There appear to be all manner of possible scenarios which would lead to the situation we have today. But calling someone who we know WAS abused as a child a "worm" ... you really do impress me more and more every time you post mistermack. Class in a glass.

Oh right. How do you know that? Were you there, by any chance?
Fill me in, and I'll know it too, won't I ?

Or is this more of your invented bollocks?

You are so right, I was not there at the time of his alleged abuse. Or any other alleged crime I have no reason to question. However, he appears to be one of the children involved in the North Wales inquiry. I'm confused why you don't believe he was abused, I've never heard any suggestion he wasn't.

One of the tv channels, BBC I think (maybe newsnight?), interviewed one of the councilors involved in the original investigation, someone who I think they said is now a MP. They talked about this guy being one of the victims of the abuse at the home in Wales.

Are you David Mellor? He likes to call abuse victims names too.

Prompted by your callous and apparently dismissive attitude, I went and checked the David Mellor story from the Daily Mail (not a publication Itrust admittedly), and although the CPS and lawyers think the guy is unreliable and possibly disturbed, they DO believe he was abused in North Wales.

Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service.

During the inquiry he even named someone called "MCalpine". So he is not suddenly making this all up as you seem to be suggesting, is he?

(I'm not sure why I'm bothering feeding the troll)

[mistermack]

During the inquiry he even named someone called "MCalpine". So he is not suddenly making this all up as you seem to be suggesting, is he?

See, you didn't "know" he was abused, nor did "we all". So why say it? Just because it popped into your head?
Your post above adds more info supporting my original claim that he's unreliable.
I don't suggest he's suddenly making anything up. He's been unreliable for years, as far as I can see.

You keep calling him a "victim".
Why?

[Warren Dew]

The weirdest thing about all this is how you Brits have news organizations that actually apologize when they get something wrong. You'd never see that on this side of the pond.

[ronmcd]

During the inquiry he even named someone called "MCalpine". So he is not suddenly making this all up as you seem to be suggesting, is he?

See, you didn't "know" he was abused, nor did "we all". So why say it? Just because it popped into your head?

The investigation into the Welsh abuse cases believed he was abused. Not sure what else you want ...

If I were to adopt your attitude I also don't know that my friend was abused and raped. I wasnt there. Christ, why on earth did I believe her? I should have asked for documentary evidence, or something.

I don't suggest he's suddenly making anything up. He's been unreliable for years, as far as I can see.

You did suggest he was making something up, you called him a "worm", and said "The whole thing is bollocks and lies, just like the majority of the Savile stuff. Greedy people hoping for a payout."

You keep calling him a "victim".
Why?

Because he was a victim, and is being reported as such?

It's pretty desperate stuff this. The evidence we have, from the experts, is he was a victim of abuse. He named someone called "McCalpine" long before any of this recent controversy. But YOU assume he is a "worm", lied about McCalpine now for some unknown reason, and then decided to apologise even though you think he never believed it WAS McCalpine.

What the fuck.

[ronmcd]

The weirdest thing about all this is how you Brits have news organizations that actually apologize when they get something wrong. You'd never see that on this side of the pond.

Yes, I'm not uncritical of the BBC myself, but it's something we really need to protect. And much of the rest of the UK media - and some politicians - are going to milk this for everything it's worth. The story behind this controversy is what we should be concentrating on, the covering up of abuse and victims not being listened to even when they came forward. Thar's being forgotten about now, because BBC made some editorial mistakes.

[mistermack]

Ronmcd, your own quote :

Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Now another plank of his "evidence" appears to be "mistaken".
It appears that whenever there's documentation, his stories fall apart. ie, proven as untrue. And yet you and Waterhouse assume that the remainder can be believed. How fucking gullible can you get? Even though he's an "unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service".
For fuck's sake, worm is too good for the guy.

Maybe someone abused him. Maybe a freind of his was abused, and he stole his story. Maybe he invented the lot. Who can possibly tell? People who lie take their inspiration from whatever they hear.

He's not a victim. He's an alleged victim. And the person doing the alleging is "an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury ".

If you can put your faith in this shit, it's hardly surprising you've fallen for that Alex Salmond spiel.
You gobble up lies like Salmond gobbles up pies.

[ronmcd]

Ronmcd, your own quote :

Documents proved some of Messham’s evidence to the inquiry to be false. Although Sir Ronald Waterhouse concluded that Messham had experienced abuse, he described him as ‘an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Now another plank of his "evidence" appears to be "mistaken".
It appears that whenever there's documentation, his stories fall apart. ie, proven as untrue. And yet you and Waterhouse assume that the remainder can be believed.

I and Waterhouse? I certainly believe Waterhouse has a hell of a lot more experience and information than you, or me. So yes, I have no reason to think the guy was lying about being abused if the experts think he was abused. Why would I?

How fucking gullible can you get? Even though he's an "unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury – a conclusion also reached by the Crown Prosecution Service".
For fuck's sake, worm is too good for the guy.

Wow. Your empathy for abuse victims knows no bounds.

Maybe someone abused him. Maybe a freind of his was abused, and he stole his story. Maybe he invented the lot. Who can possibly tell? People who lie take their inspiration from whatever they hear.

He's not a victim. He's an alleged victim. And the person doing the alleging is "an unreliable witness’ who was unlikely to be trusted by any jury ".

Question mistermack ... what if you are wrong? Me, I'm not going to insult someone who genuinely appears to be a victim, just cos I like to sound tough on a forum. It's pathetic. And yes of course he is an "alleged" victim until someone was charged and found guilty.

If you can put your faith in this shit, it's hardly surprising you've fallen for that Alex Salmond spiel.
You gobble up lies like Salmond gobbles up pies.

lol someone is obsessed with wee eck. And it isn't me.

[Arse]

I think we need to know alot more about the circumstances surrounding these original allegations of child abuse at this particular home in Wales. Its not good enough to slide sloppily into the poor victim/believe the children mode, and its not good enough to dismiss him as a fraud or a "worm" either.

What were this young man's circumstances that put him into a children's home in the first place? What happened after he got there? Was he sent to one of these dodgy therapists which abounded in the 80s and 90s, who specialised in "recovered memories" of sexual abuse? There are a few in that dodgy mode who held, and still hold, surprisingly influential positions within the psychiatric community. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd been let loose on children in the care of social services.

[mistermack]

Wtf, McD?

What are these "experts" ?
Do you know of a qualification in telling when someone is lying, or telling the truth?
Because I don't. You could do a ten year University course, and be no better than you are today.

History is riddled with clever people being taken in by the most unsophisticated liars. As far as I'm concerned, the best guide is their track record, and this guy has been proved a liar from a long time back.
For me, that means I would need proof for ANYTHING that he claimed.

I can't tell if he's lying from listening to him talking. I can't tell if he's not. All I DO get from listening to him, is that he's enjoying the limelight, enjoying being somebody important. And that doesn't clash with him inventing stuff. That's actually the reason why many people do lie and lie.

It's not about being "tough", it's about being sceptical. The opposite of which is gullible.