The usual suspects will have shit thrown at them in order to create a smokescreen and deflect the finger pointing.
But don't be too surprised if the majority of guilty turn out to be 'respectable' family men and women.
A hard truth to swallow and not one that will sit easy in the sitting rooms up and down the UK
The way to stop the mud slinging is to take a member of Joe Public to court and put them through the libel wringer.
A few £20,000 fines for damages will soon stop the vicious sniping.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Anyone know?
(46 posts) (18 voices)
-
Gerontius
offlineMemberPosted 6 months ago # -
Gerontius
offlineMemberwell that didn't take long to go tits up.
the first person to be accused in the media witch-hunt is found to be very innocent
lots of humble pie, back-pedalling and law suits to follow.
looks like all this dumbing down on TV applies to the editors, producers and reporters tooPosted 6 months ago # -
Tripod
offlineMemberI just listened to to Today on Radio 4. Very surreal... as John Humphreys gave the BBC's DG, George Entwistle, a merciless grilling, plus a list of his many apparent shortcomings as DG. Entwhistle sounded like a man out of his depth. Unlucky, I suppose, to have taken the job at the exact moment that a cartload of shit hit a very big fan...
Posted 6 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMember@Tripe. Do you think JH was getting his knife in prior to having to be on the staff payroll?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Tripod
offlineMemberDo you think JH was getting his knife in prior to having to be on the staff payroll?
It just sounded weird. How many people get the opportunity to stick the knife into the boss, with 7,000,000 listeners tuning in? And, having been given the opportunity, how many presenters would have taken it with quite such gleeful malice? He didn't pull his punches...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberTechnically, I wonder who is liable for Lord McAlpine's slander case...is it the police for mis-identifying the abuser's photo that they showed the victim, is it the very unfortunate victim who therefore ended up naming the wrong gentleman, or is it the media who published the allegation.
I have no doubt it will be those with the deepest pockets who get sued, but technically is the ultimate responsibility not on the person making the allegation to verify their facts (or does the information provider, here the police, not have a higher obligation to ensure that the images and information they provide is accurate?).
Posted 6 months ago # -
Tripod
offlineMemberWhen I was a magazine staffer we’d get annual reminders about the laws of libel (and other likely legal pitfalls). One thing that’s stayed with me is about trying to avoid libel problems by not naming an individual. If you write instead about ‘a prominent Tory politician of the Thatcher era’ you may attract libel writs from everyone who fits that description! Potentially an expensive mistake...
Posted 6 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberDid cross my mind ID that the police were to blame.
Poor guy say's "that's the chap". Police say "Ah, thats Lord MacAlpine you know". Chap shits himself. Years later he says it was MacAlpine, sees a picture and says "hang on, that's not the chap". For Flying FS! This is either a massively complicated cover up or an example of absolute bungling baffoonery, or a bit of both. So now the main witness/victim is discredited. Bloody clever ploy by plod if it was intentional, head-slapping f*ing stupidity if not.Posted 6 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberEdit <withdrawn through a cowardy fear of legal action>
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.