Don't the media go to far!

[FredPuli43]

Entwistle resigns. He makes a statement.He goes home, where the press and TV are waiting. Fair enough, he might answer questions there. He says that he is simply going home to his family, thanks the press and TV for waiting and walks home. Notwithstanding that he has said that and set off walking, he is followed by one cameraman, walking backwards, shining a light in his face to get close ups of him walking, while the press shout questions.
Now, I thought the media were supposed to have stopped harassing people after Diana Spencer, and others since, were treated like this. Is it not time for some legal retribution against those who behave in this way? It would be easy to draft a law; words such as 'words or behaviour likely, or known, to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person' come mind' perhaps coupled with 'the burden to be on the defendant to show that the behaviour was justified as being in the public interest'

[FredPuli43]

^go too far^

[douglas9401]

Diana Spencer?

Right then.

[jno]

some kids cause alarm and distress just by hanging around on street corners wearing hoodies. But I don't want them criminalised just for that, which I suspect your proposed law would do. As for harassment, aren't there laws already?

[Quizmonster]

"Harassment, alarm or distress", like bullying, are possible in situations such as the one referred to here only if the 'victim' allows it to happen, in my opinion. I did not see the incident referred to, but I would hope that he simply did what he said he would do and walked home in silence. An invitation to micturate or fornicate in an offwards direction would have been my response, I'm afraid!

[argorstran]

And meanwhile the real issue (the systematic abuse of youngsters in care at that Wrexham children's home ) is now successfully buried . If only they grilled the suspected abusers half as hard as they grilled the DG of the BBC .

[ichkeria]

"And meanwhile the real issue (the systematic abuse of youngsters in care at that Wrexham children's home ) is now successfully buried . If only they grilled the suspected abusers half as hard as they grilled the DG of the BBC . "

Quite right. Am I the only person who fees uneasy at the sudden lurch from accusations of accusations of "establishment cover-up" to persecution of the media? When if you ask me the whole thing now smells even more to me of the former. And I'm the last person in the world to hold with conspiracy theories

[jno]

it doesn't just take the heat off the politicians but off the Murdoch papers too, pending the Lveson hearing findings.

Ifa Murdoch paper ever printed a wrong story, did Murdoch resign? It took criminality on a massive scale before one of them left, and then it was only one of the kids.

[ludwig]

I do always find it strange when they throng around someone shouting questions. I mean, it's not as if they're going to get a scoop or a sudden admission of guilt or a spontaneous full length interview or anything, so you do wonder what they're trying to achieve.

[ichkeria]

The BBC 'harrassing' McAlpine? In what way? I may be in s minority of one here but I'm at a loss to see what Newsnight has done wrong. Their item wasn't even trailed on the preceding BBC News or so far as I could see anywhere. To the extent that I was surprised when they actually showed it. There was a story there which AFAIC it was entirely legitimate to run with. And now all of a sudden it's a case of 'mistaken identity' involving it would seem a conspiracy by a senior police officer to implicate a politician in serious offences.

[jno]

I am also still waiting to be convinced that Newsnight did anything illegal (the bit of their story claiming somebody high up was involved in child abuse was manifestly wrong and apparently didn't involve the most basic checks - but that's bad journalism, not criminality). But it's not really the point of FredPuli's thread.

[LazyGun]

I am of the school that still gets irritated when interviewers fail to greet their guests with a good evening - and cut them short at the end of the interview without allowing them to say a civilised goodbye :)

The sequence of events, stemming all the way back to the failure by Newsnight to air a report on SoVile, through to the allegations of abuse carried out on BBC premises, and then on to the management and checks of a partially outsourced investigation carried out by the BIJ point to some serious issues with the editorial chain of management.

As to whether or not the last investigation specifically mentioned Lord McAlpine - it didn't, although the BIJ head boasted on twitter on the 24 run up to airing the show that it was to name and shame - There were sufficient clues aired in the report that media types and others could narrow the speculation down to essentially 1 individual.

So Entwhistle, new to post, but 20 odd years at the BBC, had to handle the fallout - and unfair as it might seem, he fumbled the ball. The most curious aspect of the whole affair was his lack of curiosity.To be unaware of the content of that second broadcast Newsnight investigation is simply incompetent.

And once an organisation becomes the story, obscures the underlying investigation into child abuse, his position had become untenable.

And for those claiming some sort of cover- up, or that the original investigation is now buried? How so? All the enquiries that have been set up are still in force, and will be carried out, and will report in due course.

The tabloids and the murdoch press will no doubt relish the turmoil within the BBC, and publish pieces critical of the BBC, but most observers will recognise that and discount the obvious bias I think.

[Twenty20]

ichkeria and jno - I think what Newsnight did wrong was to imply that Lord McAlpine (although they didn't name him directly on the programme, the implication was clearly there as that's what the programme was about) was a paedophile and that he had abused children in the Welsh Care Home, which was absolutely wrong. They were wrong to take Mr Messham's accusations at face value without doing any checking or even giving the accused a right to reply.

I'm not a lawyer, but surely it must be illegal to accuse someone or imply something as serious as this without checking any facts? How would you react if someone accused you of being a paedophile when you were completely innocent?

The same goes for the Phillip Scofield stunt. Just pulling off names being bandied about on Twitter and giving a list to the PM and asking what he intends to do about them, without any evidence at all to back it up is completely out of order.

Illegal? Probably. Slander springs to mind. Again, I'd ask how you would feel if you were the wrongly accused person?

[jno]

not illegal in the sense of criminal, but it certainly opens you to a libel suit. But Newsnight specifically didn't accuse him. There's no point in a right to reply if you've got nothing to reply to.

What sort of right of reply would you want? "A senior Tory has been accused of abusing children. In reply, Lord McAlpine said 'It wasn't me'."

He was named by people on Twitter. If it had been me I would certainly be angry. But not at the BBC, because they didn't do it.

[pdq1]

According to BBC trusts which include Patten we all rise to our level of incompetence...its just that he got there quicker than most. If they all take responsibility for those below them Cameron would have gone yonks ago. It seems at the BBC the heads are expected to know everything...I think that delegation is no longer acceptable.

[anotheoldgit]

I think he made his feelings known, just by the way he 'slammed' his front door.

I cannot see why he resigned, personally I think he was sacked, why else would he be granted a years wage?

I would have rather have seen Lord Chris Patten sacked, incidentally how did he get to become Governor of Hong Kong?

[sandyRoe]

Didn't Thatcher appoint him?