Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I've been trying not to, but it's handy when you are trying to psychoanalyse someone you don't know over an Internet forum.

???

Don't like the message smear the messenger. I commend the job thats been done here and am happy someone is in here doing it. Everyone I've shown this thread has appreciated it.

I don't think anyone here dislikes 'the message', do they? My only comments are that it should be balanced, and I don't think that refusing to even mention the existence of a retraction (even if he were then to explain why he thinks the retraction is a result of coercion) suggests this is not the case. His holier-than-though self righteousness towards criticism just compounds this.

 

[V_Arnold]

I do not see what needs to be balanced about this. The first post in this thread shocks me to the core, anyone NOT acting like DECK'ARD does is in HEAVY denial. Horrible.

 

[DECK'ARD]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-of-lawsuits-from-lord-mcalpine-8328959.html

The largest number of defendants in British legal history? Twitter users brace themselves for barrage of lawsuits from Lord McAlpine

Lawyers for McAlpine are thought to have identified 1,000 original tweets and 9,000 retweets - which is when a user re-posts a comment from someone else's timeline - for legal action.

Lord McAlpine is also said to be planning to sue ITV after 'This Morning' presenter Philip Schofield accidentally showed a list of alleged paedophiles on camera.
McAlpine's solicitor, Andrew Reid, said the presenter had 'embarrassed the Prime Minister and destroyed the reputation of my client'.

Mr Reid has reportedly written a 15-page letter to ITV encouraging them to settle.
The former Tory treasurer has already agreed a settlement of £185,000 with the BBC after it broadcast a now-discredited report into sexual abuse allegations at the Bryn Estyn care home in Wrexham.

McAlpine said he had tempered the claim he made against the BBC because it was publicly funded, but would be pursuing ITV for substantially more in damages.
The BBC report prompted a number of tweets, subsequently proved to be incorrect, accusing Lord McAlpine of being a child molester.
Celebrity Twitter users, including the Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow, and comedian Alan Davies, could be targeted by lawyers after they mentioned the peer in their accounts.
Alan Davies tweeted his 440,000 followers after the BBC Newsnight report asking: 'Any clues as to who this Tory paedophile is...?'

He then retweeted one of his followers who had named Lord McAlpine.
The comedian has so far refused to comment.

Sally Bercow, wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow, tweeted to her 59,000 followers on November 4: 'Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*.'
On Friday she defended her actions tweeting that: "Loving my trial by tabloid, mind. I never said Lord McAlpine paedophile - just noted he trending. Nor did I tweet about *that* Newsnight. This is totally politically motivated, I tell you. And I don't do conspiracy theories as a rule."

Around 40 of the individuals targeted by McAlpine's lawyers have reportedly already contacted the peer to apologise.

His legal team are thought to be planning to make these individuals pay a nominal sum of £5 to a children's charity, though his lawyers are expected to deal with celebrity tweeters differently.
If pursued it is thought the case could involved the largest number of defendants in British legal history.

This doesn't seem right to me at all.

The last sentence would, if you flip it on its head. It's amazing how suddenly such a rich and powerful man needs so much protection.

 

[EdwardTivrusky]

I'm not on twitter but if i'd been contacted by his lawyers i'd offer to pay £10 to an anti-child abuse charity.

I wonder if the sheer number of lawsuits could bring the public eye back fully to the child abuse scandal and have people investigate what's behind it all?

He has to defend his name of course but i wonder if the publicity generated will cause some trouble and sleepless nights for those who were involved. We can only hope.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I've always been of the opinion that if your name is good in the first place you never have anything to defend.

Be afraid of specifics, you should never be afraid of someone else's label.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Could a mod update the thread title please as it would appear some posts have been deleted so it's incorrect now?

If posts can avoid being deleted in future it will make it easier to cross-reference things.

Cheers.

Edit: The updates are now posts #900/1110, those are nicer numbers anyway

 

[DECK'ARD]

Still not ONE reply to an email, despite how interested everyone has been here.

Most strange, I hope they are just doing their research.

 

[gerg]

I've always been of the opinion that if your name is good in the first place you never have anything to defend.

I don't think this logic really holds. It's the same as arguing that you shouldn't mind being investigated or searched if you've got nothing to hide. (In regards to being searched, having nothing to hide doesn't change the fact that your right to privacy is being voided.)

What matters is that the claims made in libel and slander are false. That is why the person you mentioned upthread - I'm afraid the name escapes me at the moment - had every right to sue for libel and/or slander regarding claims of a fictitious affair, even when he was having a different affair at the time.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I don't think this logic really holds. It's the same as arguing that you shouldn't mind being investigated or searched if you've got nothing to hide. (In regards to being searched, having nothing to hide doesn't change the fact that your right to privacy is being voided.)

What matters is that the claims made in libel and slander are false. That is why the person you mentioned upthread - I'm afraid the name escapes me at the moment - had every right to sue for libel and/or slander regarding claims of a fictitious affair, even when he was having a different affair at the time.

You need the second half of the post for my point to make sense, selectively quoting someone can misconstrue their message.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-19/mp-claims-mi5-cover-up-over-cyril-smith-allegations/

 

[DECK'ARD]

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-11-19/mp-claims-mi5-cover-up-over-cyril-smith-allegations/

Good good.

I hope he read my email, still need someone from Rochdale to contact him as a constituent.

 

[gerg]

You need the second half of the post for my point to make sense, selectively quoting someone can misconstrue their message.

I don't think the second half of your post really changes the meaning of the first much. In fact, I would argue that the understanding proposed in the second half of your post ("Be afraid of specifics, you should never be afraid of someone else's label.") isn't particularly useful, because labels construe meaning via specifics.

If we understand "paedophile" to be a label, and "someone who displays a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children" to be a specific, then the meaning of the former is the latter. This is in the same way that the meaning of the label "red" is the "specific" "the colour of blood, a ruby, and strawberries".

A label is a collection of specifics, so it is quite understandable that someone would fear them.

I would also argue that even if we could construct a useful relationship between the terms "label" and "specific" this wouldn't change the (il)logic of arguing that the only reason you have to fear negative claims is if you have something to hide.

 

[phisheep]

Still not ONE reply to an email, despite how interested everyone has been here.

Most strange, I hope they are just doing their research.

I'm not in the least surprised by that Deck. Something like this you can't necessarily expect a response - people will either take note or they won't, but they may well be wary of offering up a response that might get touted around. Besides, it takes a while to absorb and check up all this stuff.

I'm still kind of reeling at how far this thing (or maybe "these things", they're not necessarily all that tightly connected) stretches.

I don't think this logic really holds. It's the same as arguing that you shouldn't mind being investigated or searched if you've got nothing to hide. (In regards to being searched, having nothing to hide doesn't change the fact that your right to privacy is being voided.)

What matters is that the claims made in libel and slander are false. That is why the person you mentioned upthread - I'm afraid the name escapes me at the moment - had every right to sue for libel and/or slander regarding claims of a fictitious affair, even when he was having a different affair at the time.

That's not quite right. What matters is that the allegation (a) diminishes the reputation of the claimant and (b) can't be proven true by the defendant.

So for example a (false) allegation of adultery against a known adulterer might still not be libellous if his reputation in that respect is about as low as it can get already so that the new allegation doesn't make it any worse.

 

[gerg]

That's not quite right. What matters is that the allegation (a) diminishes the reputation of the claimant and (b) can't be proven true by the defendant.

So for example a (false) allegation of adultery against a known adulterer might still not be libellous if his reputation in that respect is about as low as it can get already so that the new allegation doesn't make it any worse.

Fair enough. : )

 

[Dabanton]

You guys should also take a look at the thread about Savile and now the other parts of the story that have come out on the David Icke forum. They've have been doing some great work of trying to piece together the absolutely labyrinthine connections between these people and have tons of great links and suggestions for investigation. This thing is overwhelming in it's scope.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222773

 

[Oxx]

Could a mod update the thread title please as it would appear some posts have been deleted so it's incorrect now?

If posts can avoid being deleted in future it will make it easier to cross-reference things.

Cheers.

Edit: The updates are now posts #900/1110, those are nicer numbers anyway

Posts have been deleted?

 

[phisheep]

I don't think anyone here dislikes 'the message', do they?

Um, I think you may have worded that a bit unfortunately! I don't think anyone here 'likes' the message, being as it is what it is.

My only comments are that it should be balanced, and I don't think that refusing to even mention the existence of a retraction (even if he were then to explain why he thinks the retraction is a result of coercion) suggests this is not the case. His holier-than-though self righteousness towards criticism just compounds this.

I'm kind of with Deck'ard on this. Not because of it being right or wrong one way or the other or balanced or unbalanced, but because he has done all the heavy lifting on this topic and deserves a bit of leeway to do it his own way. Hasn't made a bad job of it either.

There are several legit concerns over this retraction anyway, not least of which is just what it is that is being retracted. So far as I can tell there would have been statements to between one and three police investigations, at least one print magazine, one or two inquiries and Newsnight. We've a report of only one of those, and a retraction that seems not to relate to the only allegation that we know about. "Wait and see" might be a sensible thing to do.

Besides, just because something has been retracted doesn't mean it wasn't true. For example, Timothy Evans' first and wholly improbable statement to police turned out to be the true one, while his third - which got him hanged - wasn't.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Um, I think you may have worded that a bit unfortunately! I don't think anyone here 'likes' the message, being as it is what it is.

Sorry! I meant Deck's message of "this shit's bad and needs investigating".

I'm kind of with Deck'ard on this. Not because of it being right or wrong one way or the other or balanced or unbalanced, but because he has done all the heavy lifting on this topic and deserves a bit of leeway to do it his own way. Hasn't made a bad job of it either.

I value effort as much as the next person, but I don't think it has anything to do with the validity of criticism. If you think I'm wrong that's fine, but the fact he's worked hard on his posts shouldn't alter that. It's his to do with what he likes, certainly - I'm just stating why I think he's wrong to do it that way.

There are several legit concerns over this retraction anyway, not least of which is just what it is that is being retracted. So far as I can tell there would have been statements to between one and three police investigations, at least one print magazine, one or two inquiries and Newsnight. We've a report of only one of those, and a retraction that seems not to relate to the only allegation that we know about. "Wait and see" might be a sensible thing to do.

I agree entirely with your concerns, and I also agree that 'wait and see' is a very valid approach - to forming an opinion. I don't think, however, that 'wait and see' is a valid reason to leave out the presentation of fact - and it is a fact that he retracted his allegation, even if he was coerced and, like you say, there are others that have not been. One does not, however, come to an educated opinion by blacklisting certain facts. Acknowledging the existence of something is not tantamount to agreeing with it, and I think it's hard to justify (and I have yet to see it adequately done so) leaving out this key turn of events. If a summary is to do anything, it is to inform the reader - as such, actively witholding things seems anathema to this. As I said, it's Deck's summary to with what he pleases, but I don't think my criticism of its omission is unreasonable.

Besides, just because something has been retracted doesn't mean it wasn't true. For example, Timothy Evans' first and wholly improbable statement to police turned out to be the true one, while his third - which got him hanged - wasn't.

I agree entirely. I don't think the fact that it may not be true does, however, justifies blithely airbrushing it from a summary of events like Trotsky being removed from photos of Lenin.

 

[phisheep]

I'm not necessarily saying that you are wrong cyclops, but I think you've maybe banged this particular drum enough already, and anyone reading the thread will have got the point.

 

[DECK'ARD]

http://bit.ly/WlPLpQ seems to be making its way round Twitter.

Should be interesting, even Lord McAlpine only has so much money.

 

[Novid]

Just an aside from what is going to show how bad they will try and shut this case down (but they will not succeed this time and oh boy once this whole thing goes down it will explain everything that has happend in the last several years) if you are or were a wrestling fan during the late 90's? You would have heard of Mark Madden. Well, he was the dude that broke the story of Sandusky MONTHS before the rest of the media did. Nobody gave him his credit (unless it was recent because i got banned for posting a touch of anger) so...this is only the start...

 

[DECK'ARD]

Just an aside from what is going to show how bad they will try and shut this case down (but they will not succeed this time and oh boy once this whole thing goes down it will explain everything that has happend in the last several years) if you are or were a wrestling fan during the late 90's? You would have heard of Mark Madden. Well, he was the dude that broke the story of Sandusky MONTHS before the rest of the media did. Nobody gave him his credit (unless it was recent because i got banned for posting a touch of anger) so...this is only the start...

I'll read up on that, and yes this is only the start. When one domino falls the more that follow, the bigger the domino the more it takes out. Multiple lines branching off.

 

[Dambrosi]

http://bit.ly/WlPLpQ seems to be making its way round Twitter.

Should be interesting, even Lord McAlpine only has so much money.

Just an aside from what is going to show how bad they will try and shut this case down (but they will not succeed this time and oh boy once this whole thing goes down it will explain everything that has happend in the last several years) if you are or were a wrestling fan during the late 90's? You would have heard of Mark Madden. Well, he was the dude that broke the story of Sandusky MONTHS before the rest of the media did. Nobody gave him his credit (unless it was recent because i got banned for posting a touch of anger) so...this is only the start...

Let's hope so, on both counts. Though I got no replies or likes on my Facebook, probably too depressing for that audience. Here's hoping Twitter defeats the prophets of fear and power and preserves the truth.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Let's hope so, on both counts. Though I got no replies or likes on my Facebook, probably too depressing for that audience. Here's hoping Twitter defeats the prophets of fear and power and preserves the truth.

I'll drink to that.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Thinking about it, I don't see how you could even sue over a URL?

There's no direct connection with what you are saying, or agreeing with what someone else has said. You could just claim you posted the wrong link.

 

[Wes]

Sally Bercow in new Twitter gaffe over court order
Wife of Commons Speaker reportedly named girl whose identity is protected under Children and Young Persons Act 1933

 

[SouthernDragon]

This is literally mind-boggling in scope. I read the summary and I still feel overwhelmed.

 

[DECK'ARD]

This is literally mind-boggling in scope. I read the summary and I still feel overwhelmed.

Totally normal reaction. As it sinks in then it becomes easier to not only deal with so much, and so depressing, information but also to then see how new articles fit into it.

The maginitude of it is also ironically what protected it, and why Savile and others were able to do it in plain sight with no punishment and no one questioning anything. It's all out there, it just needed bringing together.

Sally Bercow in new Twitter gaffe over court order
Wife of Commons Speaker reportedly named girl whose identity is protected under Children and Young Persons Act 1933

This is a concerted effort, by someone married to someone representing parliament, to restrict the flow of information at anyone's expense. Ironically MP's being the only ones guaranteed by law in the House Of Commons to be able to name anyone with no redress.

Twitter has overthrown Governments before, any Government would get concerned when things start getting a bit too close for comfort.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I read in Telegraph... 450 victims?

Holy fucking shit.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I read in Telegraph... 450 victims?

Holy fucking shit.

Read the OP, you are talking thousands.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Read the OP, you are talking thousands.

Hoo, apparently the stuff I read on Telegraph wasn't the latest update then..., not really paying attention.

That's just crazyland.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Hoo, apparently the stuff I read on Telegraph wasn't the latest update then..., not really paying attention.

That's just crazyland.

Indeed.

Just Savile + North Wales is over 1000, and that's only the victims that have come forward so far. Time to bring the whole rotten thing down and into the light. Guy Fawkes failed, but the Internet is much more dangerous.

 

[bishoptl]

Thread title numbers updated.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Thread title numbers updated.

Cheers Bish, you are a good man

I don't think it will be much longer till this thing blows.

 

[DECK'ARD]

The Independent is not so independent.

 

[phisheep]

The Independent is not so independent.

That's a bit gnomic even for you Deck.

 

[DECK'ARD]

That's a bit gnomic even for you Deck.

There's a game underway

 

[DECK'ARD]

The gunpowder is lit, let's get this party started!

The invite is http://bit.ly/WlPLpQ, invite as many people as you can.

 

[Chinner]

i dont mean this is in a bad way and i hope to be proven wrong, but this pretty much is a dead story at this point. maybe something big will pop up and get everyone started, but seems like most are moved on by now ;/

 

[Oxx]

I've only just started reading the latest Private Eye. How Newsnight's story came about sounds unbelievably pathetic.

 

[DECK'ARD]

i dont mean this is in a bad way and i hope to be proven wrong, but this pretty much is a dead story at this point. maybe something big will pop up and get everyone started, but seems like most are moved on by now ;/

Have faith duck, I know EXACTLY what I'm doing

 

[DECK'ARD]

Feel free to add me on Facebook by the way:

http://www.facebook.com/ibarmy

Edit: and that goes for everyone, especially fans of Worms, ibar and justice.

 

[DECK'ARD]

And if all this has got too depressing, ibar recommends this as the prescription to it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls-LYas5j8U

 

[phisheep]

i dont mean this is in a bad way and i hope to be proven wrong, but this pretty much is a dead story at this point. maybe something big will pop up and get everyone started, but seems like most are moved on by now ;/

I suspect that Yewtree and maybe three out of the nine enquiries will throw up some useful stuff, but I guess that it is going to take some time.

I rather hope that at least one of the newspapers is doing some serious background digging but, again, it is something that takes time, and evidence, and loads of legal scrutiny, to do anything with.

Must get myself a copy of the Eye tomorrow.

So far as what's in this thread is concerned, it is a stark reminder of just how big and scary this issue is. Trouble is it is one of those things where there's very little anyone can add in the way of useful comment (a bit like the Langdell thread).

So don't feel too lonely there Deck'ard just because people aren't posting all that much!

 

[Oxx]

There's very little in Private Eye 1327 aside from the Newsnight/Entwistle/Twitter fallout.

 

[JonnyBrad]

I suspect that Yewtree and maybe three out of the nine enquiries will throw up some useful stuff, but I guess that it is going to take some time.

I rather hope that at least one of the newspapers is doing some serious background digging but, again, it is something that takes time, and evidence, and loads of legal scrutiny, to do anything with.

Must get myself a copy of the Eye tomorrow.

So far as what's in this thread is concerned, it is a stark reminder of just how big and scary this issue is. Trouble is it is one of those things where there's very little anyone can add in the way of useful comment (a bit like the Langdell thread).

So don't feel too lonely there Deck'ard just because people aren't posting all that much!

After what happened to the beeb the barge polls for touching this will be a lot longer than 20ft in the mainstream press.

 

[Brera]

How long until Anonymous get involved?

This is a pretty big attack on freedom of the internets. All of them.

Or are they scared they'll get sued from England.

 

[Yen]

And if all this has got too depressing, ibar recommends this as the prescription to it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls-LYas5j8U

ahaha, your latest status is interesting!

 

[Delusibeta]

After what happened to the beeb the barge polls for touching this will be a lot longer than 20ft in the mainstream press.

Plus, Israel is doing a fine job of burying every other news article. Even the newspapers have stopped giving the Beeb a beating. I think the story is dead until at least Israel/Gaza situation clears.

 

[DECK'ARD]

ahaha, your latest status is interesting!