Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News2 mins ago
Ouch! That was expensive
Lord McAlpine's legal team has reached a settlement of £185,000 with the BBC after he was wrongly implicated in a child sex abuse scandal.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No they didn't jno but they were hardly innocent either. I can't remember who it was said it but it was on Newsnight and I thought this person made a very valid point about them getting it so wrong re Saville that they then tried to repair all by jumping in feet first re this next story and ended up getting it wrong again.
I have every sympathy with the fella.
I have every sympathy with the fella.
oh, I sympathise with him too. But I wonder if he's got the wrong target. The real problem seems to have been Twitter and FB, where his name did start going round, and not Newsnight, where it didn't. But it's going to be very difficult pursuing everyone who retweeted something, and it may have seemed easier just to sue "old media".
Why should he Gromit? His life has been forever tainted by these allegations.
Money is the way to punish massive corporations. They don't like handing it over. Without fines they could do what they like.
If someone is wronged in such an enormously public way then I reckon they are fully entitled to punish whoever did it to them financially. Lord McAlpine is no different.
He'll have the "no smoke without fire" brigade on his back for the rest of his life because of this.
Money is the way to punish massive corporations. They don't like handing it over. Without fines they could do what they like.
If someone is wronged in such an enormously public way then I reckon they are fully entitled to punish whoever did it to them financially. Lord McAlpine is no different.
He'll have the "no smoke without fire" brigade on his back for the rest of his life because of this.
I don't disagree with that Gromit in theory. But it does feel a bit like something horrid was done to this fella for which he received financial renumeration (justly in my opinion), and now we say that actually it would be better if he gave it away. Why should he? He did nothing wrong, and the money is acknowlegment of this. If he was Jo Public then I'd not see why he should give the moment away either.
It's tricky isn't it jno. I don't actually disagree with you particularly either, I just think it's quite difficult. Ian Hislop made some great comments regarding the BBC being attacked about Saville and pointing out that a) no one seem to KNOW, (just a lot of rumours), and b) in regards of the rumours, certainly other media organisations knew about them but chose not to report, so why is just the BBC under fire?
I don't have any enlightening view on it myself at all... It is all rather grey to me. In my work there's always a lot of blame, often at other organisations, it becomes very easy to loose sight of the fact that the perpetrator (or alleged perpetrator if you prefer), is the one to blame. Child abuse is emotional and there always seems to me to be blame for the perpetrator (obviously), and then more blame for elsewhere... I suspect it's a result of anger.
I don't have any enlightening view on it myself at all... It is all rather grey to me. In my work there's always a lot of blame, often at other organisations, it becomes very easy to loose sight of the fact that the perpetrator (or alleged perpetrator if you prefer), is the one to blame. Child abuse is emotional and there always seems to me to be blame for the perpetrator (obviously), and then more blame for elsewhere... I suspect it's a result of anger.
He doesn't have to do it. But he is a very wealthy man and £185,000 is nothing to him.
If the idea is to restore his reputation, then taking a big wad of taxpayer's money is hardly going to endear him to the populous. A generous gift to a charity for abused children might do the trick.
Though it might be considered a cynical move by us embittered lefty types.
If the idea is to restore his reputation, then taking a big wad of taxpayer's money is hardly going to endear him to the populous. A generous gift to a charity for abused children might do the trick.
Though it might be considered a cynical move by us embittered lefty types.
the programme should never have been made. I thought they'd promised never to run a story based on only one source. But given that they did make it, they must have thought they were doing the right thing not naming him. So I wonder if newspapers or broadcasters are now to be held liable for the gossip that springs up on social media following one of their programmes.
This is unpredictable but I imagine we'll see a lot more of it as traditional media decline and social media become a major "news" source. Just what do you do if millions of stupid tweeters suddenly start claiming you're a paedophile?
This is unpredictable but I imagine we'll see a lot more of it as traditional media decline and social media become a major "news" source. Just what do you do if millions of stupid tweeters suddenly start claiming you're a paedophile?
Well I need my tv. At the moment it has broken down and the silence is deafening. My son-in-law will be in first thing tomorrow to mend it for me. I don't think there is anything really wrong with it. I have probably pressed the wrong button or something. In the meantime I am on here bothering everyone.
is he, craft? From what I could see he's warning that anyone who tweeted his name had better apologise, the suggestion being that they'd be sued if they didn't. I thought Bercow had done so, though in an unconvincing manner.
But it sort of bears out what I was saying before: suing shedloads of tweeters would be ludicrously fiddly and time-consuming so he might prefer just to get apologies from them, while getting money from easier targets.
But it sort of bears out what I was saying before: suing shedloads of tweeters would be ludicrously fiddly and time-consuming so he might prefer just to get apologies from them, while getting money from easier targets.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.