Accusations & Trial by media (Schofield & This Morning)

[BLOCK F]

Shabby cheap sensationalism by Schofield, more akin to crap Jeremy Kyle style TV than any sort of proper journalism. More about him and his programme grabbing some cheap headlines rather than showing respect for due process. It's quite simple, if you want to make serious allegations then report it to the Police. Schofield had better be squeaky clean in future.

I have to agree with this and all the other comments condemming Schofield's actions.Quite appalling and I assume this was all agreed with the programme's producer too!
I may be wrong but I am not sure Holly was too impressed. To me, her body language suggested she wanted to distance herself from the whole thing.

 

[beorhthelm]

I still think, all of the pantomime aside, the question is, why have the accused not been arrested or taken in for questioning?

coming back to this, there are many reasons. maybe there isnt sufficient grounds for an arrest, maybe identity of the accused is vague, maybe the accuser is not credible, maybe there isnt even an accuser and its names thrown out there by the media or others with a grudge. problem with this type of offence, more than any other, is that people dont treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty. already seen it on one or two comments, there is an assumption that if nothing has happened to the person its a cover up, not that they were nothing to do with it in the first place. therefore, police need to be a bit more certain of the circumstances.

 

[BBassic]

I'm not a fan of Cameron but his response was spot on. The police are there to deal with this stuff.

The whole thing has just cemented my dislike of ITV.

 

[Easy 10]

I am not sure Holly was too impressed. To me, her body language suggested she wanted to distance herself from the whole thing.

I always watch her body language extremely closely, and would have to agree.

Phil made a big booby.

 

[drew]

Probably the important question is whether the 'accidental' disclosure of the list as he passed it to CMD was in fact that, accidental, or was it engineered? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe this is the sort of thing more mainstream media should have done. It would be niaive to even contemplate that CDM is unaware of the allegations and against whom they are aimed. He was clever enough not to be seen even looking at the list. Surely the heart of the Leveson Inquiry was to establish what is actually in the public interest. Knowing which celebrity slept with another is gossip and not public interest but surely the abuse of children in a care home, presumably where they may have been taken for protection from their previous domestic arrangemetnts, by people in a privelaged position and then covered up by the establishment is precisely what is in the 'public interest'.

Why did Cameron need to say 'gay witch hunt'? Why couldn't he have said 'witch hunt' (without the reference to gay people)?

I don't know any of the names. But the Prime Minister's response has hugely narrowed down the list of possible alleged abusers.

One wonders whether the names on the list are the same ones that CMD is aware of!

 

[Camicus]

If Philip Schofield can do it why cant the big hitters like Paxman do it? IMHO it needs to be out in the open and if news programmes wont cover it then someone else should.

 

[franks brother]

Cover up yet again for the Rich and the powerfull

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If Philip Schofield can do it why cant the big hitters like Paxman do it? IMHO it needs to be out in the open and if news programmes wont cover it then someone else should.

Maybe because Paxman is a professional presenter and well versed in grilling people on subjects, but also knows that waving a list of names from the Internet really isn't the most professional way to go about your work.

 

[dingodan]

BBC News - Lord McAlpine says abuse claims false and defamatory

 

[Camicus]

Maybe because Paxman is a professional presenter and well versed in grilling people on subjects, but also knows that waving a list of names from the Internet really isn't the most professional way to go about your work.

These allegations have been about for decades and no further action has been taken ( one of those on the list was a very high up copper who was in charge of the origonal investigation) So unproffesional or not it needs to be brought out in to the open and people eaither cleared or not. Just look at the Savile case and the constant refusal to investigate that until it went public.

 

[glasfryn]

Why did Cameron need to say 'gay witch hunt'? Why couldn't he have said 'witch hunt' (without the reference to gay people)?

I don't know any of the names. But the Prime Minister's response has hugely narrowed down the list of possible alleged abusers.

on this track IMHO the first thing is especially by the Prime minister, police and anyone else involved with this very sad affair is to know the difference between a gay person(someone who is homosexual) and a paedophile(person who is sexually attracted to children) of coarse it is possible to be both but then it is also possible to be heterosexual and a paedophile.
and of coarse he knew the names on the list he(and a lot of people in power, MP's and now even the guy who is most likely to become the Arch Bishop of Canterbury no less) probably went to school with some of them.


the only way to get this out in the open is for people to question whats going on and maybe if the likes of Schofield had been around when the rumours about Jimmy Savile had been going the rounds and asked awkward questions about him he might just have been outed then rather than now when diddly squat can be done about it and as for our boys in blue they have had their chance to put this right years ago but chose to ignore the complaints.
this is one time I do feel a little sorry for Cameron as this has been dumped in his lap and I just hope for his sake they don't find it has been a problem of his own parties making it has all the makings of a government sinking affair .........the spectre of Profumo looms

 

[Questions]

Wasn't Schofield himself the subject of a 'rumour' a few years back?

No, I think that 'rumour' was only a rumour.

 

[ofco8]

Why did Cameron need to say 'gay witch hunt'? Why couldn't he have said 'witch hunt' (without the reference to gay people)?

I don't know any of the names. But the Prime Minister's response has hugely narrowed down the list of possible alleged abusers.

Because the names arose from problems 20 to 30 years ago when cretins assumed all gay people were also paedos. That is why people from that era who were gay and hid their sexual orientation are now probably known to be gay, but not paedophiles.

Fortunately, the majority of people now realise, don't they?, that gays are no more likely to be paedos than straights.

 

[beorhthelm]

the only way to get this out in the open is for people to question whats going on and maybe if the likes of Schofield had been around...

i think you've mistaken Schofield for someone else. he has just regurgitated inuendo he's found on the internet with nothing to back it up, and used his access to the PM to put it out there for a blaze of publicity. Did he forward the list to the local Chief Constable first? Cameron probably does know the names on the list and the inference is they're probably a list of something else, that has been misappropiated to this matter.

the news about McAlpine should clear up the issue raised about "a senior Tory". but the mud will stick and people will belive there is a coverup, in spite of the fact the the person making the accusations said the person was dead (and Lord McApline is very alive if that detail has been missed).

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

Names should not have been shown - but what is wrong with making Cameron face up to the fact that MPs may have abused children. He can not be in denial and would have to pass on the names to police who would have to investigate whether they are innocent or not.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

The first thing that occurred to me was that Schofield was trying to win back a bit of public support after been slagged for eating guinea pig in Peru, you know a sort of 'Look at me im not all that bad im trying catch paedos, please forgive me for eating that guinea pig'.

I also agree with the other poster about Camerons choice of words regarding gays. Just because you are gay doesnt make you a paedophile but he has now linked the two.

Not that I expect any better from him but thats another topic.

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Its obvious "This Morning" wanted to open up the story of child abuse in N Wales and to be honest thats to be applauded. Its the medias job (although I would prefer an ITV version of Panorama to do it than TM) to shine light where their is murkines. However, where Schofiled got it completely wrong was to ambush the PM. What he should have said was there are these allegations out there and we are passing them onto the Poilce for a thorough investigation.

I think Cameron did the right thing (and from someone of my political persuasion, thats a difficult admission) and said it was a matter of the Police. You cant just pluck names out of the internet and then pass them onto the PM and ask him to investigate names - esp on live TV.

 

[glasfryn]

i think you've mistaken Schofield for someone else. he has just regurgitated inuendo he's found on the internet with nothing to back it up, and used his access to the PM to put it out there for a blaze of publicity. Did he forward the list to the local Chief Constable first? Cameron probably does know the names on the list and the inference is they're probably a list of something else, that has been misappropiated to this matter.

the news about McAlpine should clear up the issue raised about "a senior Tory". but the mud will stick and people will belive there is a coverup, in spite of the fact the the person making the accusations said the person was dead (and Lord McApline is very alive if that detail has been missed).

really does not matter who is asking the questions they should be answered and by not answering them (and I don't mean immediately or particularly by the PM) it makes it more murky and the muddying of the water makes people want to get to the truth, I blame the internet for this as most people don't believe a word of what they read in the papers any longer or what they are told by politicians, the police or what they see and hear on the TV, you only have to know whats been going on in the last few years to know the only people you can trust are those who you know don't tell lies or manipulate the truth to suit their own story or to get themselves out of a hole of their own making.

I mean who would have believed that 100's of police officers would have lied about Hillsborough or the miners strike and now we have enquiries about enquiries
you me or any of us will never be able to say we know know the truth about any of this or any other thing they might have an enquiry about and that is the truth

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Because the names arose from problems 20 to 30 years ago when cretins assumed all gay people were also paedos. That is why people from that era who were gay and hid their sexual orientation are now probably known to be gay, but not paedophiles.

Fortunately, the majority of people now realise, don't they?, that gays are no more likely to be paedos than straights.

Part of the problem about society in the seventies is that there was still massive pressure on gay men, particularly those in public life, to keep their sexuality out of the eyes of others. This drove people into a world of sexual activity where secrecy had to be assured and blackmail avoided. That's a world in which power is all important. It's also a world in which relationships tend to be unbalanced and that isn't very different from how paedophilia works. Thirty or forty years on, it's hardly surprising that rumours of links between individuals will emerge from any investigations into the furtive activities of some of the closeted individuals involved. In most cases, those rumours feed tales of "guilt by association" - and I'm sure that this is putting the reputations of some leading politicians at risk, almost certainly very unfairly.

The fact that attitudes have changed over the last forty years is something to be celebrated. But we have to realise that it's only very recently that it's been possible for some men in public life to be openly gay.

 

[beorhthelm]

really does not matter who is asking the questions they should be answered

i rather think it does. a journalist, who's reputation and career are built on how they ask questions and present the answers, might well do the research to confirm what the allegations are, if they have any merit, and how to best form the question to get a useful responce. a TV presenter, who's reputation is built on looking nice for ladies of a certain age, might just trawl the internet for three minutes, write down the first couple of names he find and thrust them in front of a politican in day time TV. that certainly makes the matter more murky, not less.

the internet makes it worse of course because this tv presenter has access to speculation they wouldnt otherwise have. the internet is even less reliable than tabloid journalists, as literally anyone can say anything and someone will use that as their reference. if a bloke down the pub told you, or you over heard something on the train you'd ignore it or at least treat it as gossip. put some HTML code around it and its gospel.