News3 mins ago
Newsnight
31 Answers
So much for the hype all day ....... a "senior politician" will be named in a sex abuse situation from the 1970s in tonights Newsnight programme. He wasn't!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ann. 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.
Lol. They didn't "promise us" :-)
However, I am also disappointed. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to know the name of this person, either. It's about time these sicko's were named and shamed, and brought to justice. I think it was Elvis (the ABer, not The King) that said "money talks", and he's right. The lawyers would have been flat out today, making sure that name wasn't named.
However, I am also disappointed. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to know the name of this person, either. It's about time these sicko's were named and shamed, and brought to justice. I think it was Elvis (the ABer, not The King) that said "money talks", and he's right. The lawyers would have been flat out today, making sure that name wasn't named.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
You'd think that a chap subjected to innuendo and gossip, suggesting that he's a paederast, would jump at the chance to have his name cleared in the courts.
One curious thing mentioned on the Newsnight story seems to have gone unnoticed. The narrow 'terms of reference' of the enquiry looking into abuse in childrens homes in Wales during the 70s and 80s seem to have been framed to hide the truth rather than show it.
One curious thing mentioned on the Newsnight story seems to have gone unnoticed. The narrow 'terms of reference' of the enquiry looking into abuse in childrens homes in Wales during the 70s and 80s seem to have been framed to hide the truth rather than show it.
Agree with sandy as to the terms of reference masking things - surprised that they didn't go and push the boundaries as that's what happens in business if there is a "surprise" in findings....
As to Naomi's one, it's difficult isn't it; on one hand you have the target and whether he/she is guilty or not and then you have the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge.....the issue being whether they should hand the dossier over to the police earlier but, in return, have a right to the scoop, or do they publish and be damned - then hand the file over. As the law stands at the moment, then they should have named and faced the consequences if they were wrong....
As to Naomi's one, it's difficult isn't it; on one hand you have the target and whether he/she is guilty or not and then you have the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge.....the issue being whether they should hand the dossier over to the police earlier but, in return, have a right to the scoop, or do they publish and be damned - then hand the file over. As the law stands at the moment, then they should have named and faced the consequences if they were wrong....
Perhaps Newsnight shouldn't have aired and promoted the programme if they weren't going to name names. I bet those whose names are in the arena and who are innocent are wishing Newsnight had spilt the beans.
I just hope the police are listening to Steven now.
And naomi, I get where you're coming from, but didn't Savile threaten to sue? Interesting how different people react. Freddie Starr comes out fighting, welcoming the police investigation, while the un-named one threatens to sue. Who is to say if both, or either, are guilty or innocent.
I just hope the police are listening to Steven now.
And naomi, I get where you're coming from, but didn't Savile threaten to sue? Interesting how different people react. Freddie Starr comes out fighting, welcoming the police investigation, while the un-named one threatens to sue. Who is to say if both, or either, are guilty or innocent.
