[Closed] Easy way to get £400k?

I'd be looking to absolutely take people to the cleaners if they'd been effectively publishing unfounded accusations as toxic as that about me.

I hope he ruins people. As they seemed happy to do the same to him. George Monbiot, Alan Davies and Sally Berscow being obvious candidates for that!

And maybe it'll have the effect of making these Morons think twice before spreading their poisonous gossip as if it were fact! George Monbiot in particular! I can just imagine what he'd have to say on the subject, in some lofty, holier-than-though editorial, if some tabloid hack had done something similar! The hypocritical self-righteous twonk!

IIRC, isn't he donating most (or all?) of it to a charity?

Children in need apparently.

If he donates it to charity once he's made his point then it's fine...

...otherwise it's turning into a witch-hunt that threatens the basis of freedom of speech IMHO.

I'd rather make 400k over a lifetime of investments than be branded a pedo by the press. TBH

Free speech? WTF!

...otherwise it's turning into a witch-hunt that threatens the basis of freedom of speech IMHO

The right to put it all over the internet, with not a shred of evidence, that someone sexually abuses children?

In what universe should anyone be defending that? Its got nowt whatsoever to do with freedom of expression, and everything to do with defamation and libel!

In the case of the people mentioned, with tens of thousands of followers, the consequences should be the same if you tweet something like that, to splashing it across the front page of a tabloid!

The current Salam Witch trial culture fuelled by self appointed judge/jury/executioners, needs to be stopped and I really hope Lord McAlpine makes people pay for what was a despicable rumour.

The current Salam Witch trial culture fuelled by self appointed judge/jury/executioners, needs to be stopped and I really hope Lord McAlpine makes people pay for what was a despicable rumour.

+1

Take it easy chaps, calm down and have a biscuit.

While I agree that it's wrong to falsely label someone without proof, we don't want to intimidate those who've suffered from abuse into silence do we?

PJM1974 - Member

Take it easy chaps, calm down and have a biscuit.

While I agree that it's wrong to falsely label someone without proof, we don't want to intimidate those who've suffered from abuse into silence do we?

WTF?
That is not what this is about - McAlpine was named, falsely, in the most abhorrant way. It has to do with people spreading malicous and damaging rumours which were totally unfounded. They should all be stiffed for major amounts IMO.

Those people on ****ter and in the media are not the Police or the CPS, leave the accusations to them. It has nothing to do with real victims staying quiet, or there plight being covered up by people in the media like say, Jimmy Savilles' actions.

That is not what this is about

It isn't?

Please explain why. Show your working.

Kona_TC + 1

Free speech does not make allowances for what is legally libelous slander (it's not "speech" it's "Recording" and "publisihing" - this is the technicality of being a dick on facebook and twitter). It's also just stupid and wrong.

Lord McAlpine has accepted £125k this morning from ITV, £185k last week form BBC and he hasn't even started on Twitter people yet #innocentface

EDIT:

...otherwise it's turning into a witch-hunt that threatens the basis of freedom of speech IMHO.

It comes back to the point raised several times before. Why did no-one:

a) Put the allegations to Lord McAlpine to give him the opportunity to answer them
b) Show the victim a photo of Lord McAlpine and ask 'Is this the man who abused you?'

You don't need to be a master journalist or legal expert to think that might be a good idea.

I think the Twitter users should pay amounts relative to the number of their followers, i.e. £10 for each follower. It would therefore be in proportion to the amount of people who would have seen the libel.

To be accused without any foundation i the way that Lord McAlpine was must be horrible.

I truly hope, for the benefit of us all in the long run, that he pursues each and every single person who made an accusation or re-tweeted one.

And, really, £100 is simply not enough to make these people think about what they have done - it needs to be thousands, each. It needs to hurt. A lot.

What he chooses to do with the money afterwards is his choice. I believe he is lucky enough to be in a position where giving it away to charity is an option to him.

Rachel

a) Put the allegations to Lord McAlpine to give him the opportunity to answer them
b) Show the victim a photo of Lord McAlpine and ask 'Is this the man who abused you?'

The fact that it's an unfounded accusation is beyond doubt.

I happen to think that McAlpine has already made his point and that pursuing people on twitter using fear as a weapon is perhaps not in the best interest...but I'd happily take the point that a donation to Children In Need is a happy outcome.

Clear enough? Good.

I truly hope he gates £100k off Sally Berscow. Bankrupting her would be a national service.

by the way you've been watching too much LA Law, there's no such thing as "freedom of speech" in the UK.

I think there is something in the much maligned human rights act?

[edit] freedom of expression?

franksinatra - Member
I think the Twitter users should pay amounts relative to the number of their followers, i.e. £10 for each follower. It would therefore be in proportion to the amount of people who would have seen the libel.

Nice! I like this. can we make an exception for Sally Bercow, though?

Tarred, feathered and dragged through the town would be a start...

Tarred, feathered and dragged through the town would be a start...

I don't see why we should go soft on her....

pretty sure i read all retweeters are on the hitlist, I don't do twitter so will no doubt be missing something but if in the brew room at work I say to my colleagues "I've read that mr X has just stated that mr Y did naughty thing Z", they all go "Oh" and maybe tell other people. That's gossip. Now if you're a major publishing house you shouldn't do tittle tattle gossiping, if you are stephen fry with an oodleplex of followers it's a grey area and I guess you should be careful. But what about the plebs with 5 followers, are they going to get sued for thousands?

I think there is something in the much maligned human rights act?

[edit] freedom of expression?

Agree with comments about Sally Bercow. Her twitter profile was showing over 20,000 tweets 😯 How does anybody have the time to tweet that much?

He latest is possible contempt of court for naming the schoolgirl who ran off to France (despite everyone knowing who she is and BBC still having the original stories up about her on its website)

I think one rotten tomato thrown at her for every twitter follower would seem in proportion. 😉

D0NK -

But what about the plebs with 5 followers, are they going to get sued for thousands?

yes, hopefully.

If hundreds of people publicly accused you of being a peadophile, what would you like to happen to them?

Fotoflaps, hence [b]"a start..."[/b]

🙂

I think one rotten tomato thrown at her for every twitter follower would seem in proportion.

Good thinking. A bit like....

[img] [/img]

only messier 😀

if you are stephen fry with an oodleplex of followers it's a grey area and I guess you should be careful. But what about the plebs with 5 followers, are they going to get sued for thousands?

Who the **** would follow Sally Bercow on twitter? 😯

Its not just twitter users that they are going after, his lawyer said they were looking at all social media sites like lets say for example discussion forums. I assume no one one here said anything about him before it was shown to be incorrect!.

George Monbiot should be at the front of the firing line.

b) Show the victim a photo of Lord McAlpine and ask 'Is this the man who abused you?'

If what i read was correct that's how the accusation started. The accuser was shown a photo and asked 'is this the man that abused you' and he said yes. The person showing the photo then said (mistakenly I assume, maybe with malicious intent) that the photo was Lord Macalpine, hence the accuser believed it was.

I could be mis-remembering the details, but I think that's the [i]opposite[/i] of what happened. i.e. the accusations were made (by the media) and then when the chap was eventually shown a photo, he said "no that's not him" and then everyone else went "oh sh1t"

I could be mis-remembering the details, but I think that's the opposite of what happened. i.e. the accusations were made (by the media) and then when the chap was eventually shown a photo, he said "no that's not him" and then everyone else went "oh sh1t"

Yep and even worse, this had all happened before and the police had eliminated Lord McAlpine using the exact same method of showing the victims his photo and they all said 'not him'.

As much as accusing someone wrongly of being a paedophile is terrible - McAlpine isn't exactly a tower of moral brilliance is he? Let's not get all cushy over the man who channeled stolen funds from abroad into the tories big fat pockets and was awarded a peer-ship by his puppeteer thatcher for doing so. He's just part of an enormous disease in bent politics that has brought this country to it's knees more than once before.

Before declaring him a saint lets wait to see if it is actually donated to charity.

i think a fine related to the number of twitter followers is an excellent idea

iirc any twitterers who did it are being asked to appologise and donate a fiver to CIN

monbiot and sally bercow on the other hand.........

McAlpine isn't exactly a tower of moral brilliance is he? Let's not get all cushy over the man who channeled stolen funds from abroad into the tories big fat pockets and was awarded a peer-ship by his puppeteer thatcher for doing so. He's just part of an enormous disease in bent politics that has brought this country to it's knees more than once before.

Wrecker, agreed in full.

As much as accusing someone wrongly of being a paedophile is terrible - McAlpine isn't exactly a tower of moral brilliance is he? Let's not get all cushy over the man who channeled stolen funds from abroad into the tories big fat pockets and was awarded a peer-ship by his puppeteer thatcher for doing so. He's just part of an enormous disease in bent politics that has brought this country to it's knees more than once before.

So? This does not in any way, shape or form excuse falsely accusing him of being a child abuser. He can do with the money whatever he pleases (although we'd all like to see it go to CIN).

Of course not. Did you not read my post at all? I expressly said "As much as accusing someone wrongly of being a paedophile is terrible" for a bloody reason. When did I ever infer state or imply this?

I like the idea of Newsnight being the bad guys for not calling him while he didn't call anyone to complain because he doesn't have a telephone. 😕
Good luck to the fella. Nice to see justice prevail.

Before declaring him a saint lets wait to see if it is actually donated to charity.

I don't think anyone's implied sainthood. I despise Thatcher, and all her little demons, as much as anyone, but no-one deserves what he's just been put through

but no-one deserves what he's just been put through

except Sally Bercow 😉

Actually the easiest way to get £400k is probably if you're a building contractor and property prospector who has the government in their pocket. Mrs. Thatcher, we would like to cut down this forest in a public park to build a housing estate. Can we mummy? Can we please? We'll pay you?

but no-one deserves what he's just been put through

except Sally Bercow

Fair point! 😀

When did I ever infer state or imply this?

I suppose it was just that you couldn't resist the opportunity for a little totally irrelevant Tory bashing which is totally away from the topic under discussion, could you?

*Edit - Ooh look, there's more of the same*

Anyway... isn't the easiest way to get £400k to become the DG of the BBC for a few weeks?

When did I ever infer state or imply this?

Who the **** would follow Sally Bercow on twitter?

More than 59,000 people unfortunately.

Your post read as an excuse for the actions of these accusers. Nobody has held McAlpine up as a shining light, but he has been severely wronged

Well I apologise as that was not my intention. Secondly I felt they were.

heres another way to get 400k

(and some random torry bashing )

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html[/url]

Anyway... isn't the easiest way to get £400k to become the DG of the BBC for a few weeks?

Another great BBC conversation:

Lord Patten - So Director General, are you going to resign?

George Entwhistle - No

Lord Patten - Why not?

George Entwhistle - Because if I resign I get nowt, if you sack me I get £450k

Lord Patten - Oh.

George Entwhistle - How about I resign anyway and you give me the £450k.

Lord Patten - Okay, bye!

Whoever negotiated that little contract clause, I wouldn't mind them sorting my wage negotiations out. Bob Crowe would blush at making that demand.

We demand that if we * up to the point where you've simply no option but to sack us, then we get a years salary!

Aye. Alright then.

Un-*ing-believable!!!

The £300k+ that McAlpine is getting does seem rather over the top compensation for an episode that lasted less than a fortnight, and I'm pretty sure has done no lasting damage to reputation.

We demand that if we **** up to the point where you've simply no option but to sack us, then we get a years salary!

The words interest rate fixing spring to mind.

I'm not defending that either! Far from it! I couldn't agree with you more. Its seems that once you're part of the boys club, and you reach that level of back-slapping self interest, then you could probably commit genocide and still end up with nothing more than a whopping great payoff.

Its obscene!

I'm pretty sure has done no lasting damage to reputation.

If hundreds of people publicly accused you of being a peadophile, what would you like to happen to them?

(i [b]don't[/b] think the internet is "not the real world" where you can say what you like anonymously but I'm having difficulty seeing it as exactly the same as, for example, a printed newspaper with huge circulation)

I could be mis-remembering the details, but I think that's the opposite of what happened. i.e. the accusations were made (by the media) and then when the chap was eventually shown a photo, he said "no that's not him" and then everyone else went "oh sh1t"

Sorry but no. I googled back to check and according to reports, he was shown a photo at the time of the accusation (back in the 90's) and told that was macalpine. He subsequently (recently) saw a picture of the real Lord Macalpine and realised that it wasn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20274116

(i don't think the internet is "not the real world" where you can say what you like anonymously but I'm having difficulty seeing it as exactly the same as, for example, a printed newspaper with huge circulation)

Sorry but no. I googled back to check and according to reports, he was shown a photo at the time of the accusation (back in the 90's) and told that was macalpine. He subsequently (recently) saw a picture of the real Lord Macalpine and realised that it wasn't.

Oh, okay, as long as you're pretty sure.

Well, do you still think he's a paedophile? If anything the apologies have been more widely publicised than the allegations (and rightly so). I don't see that his reputation has suffered any lasting damage, if anything he has got a lot of sympathy out of the episode (again, rightly so). Do you think his reputation has been damaged by it?

zilog well yeah potentially massive audience but Mr Dull's blog about his belly button fluff has the same potential,even it actually manages about a dozen hits a week. In my first post I was specifically talking about people repeating what they had heard rather than making the accusations themselves. If I post a link to a site that seems believable but turns out to be libellous do I get sued?

originally the chap was shown a pic of his accuser, not one of McAlpine.

correct - but he was told it was Macalpine, and from the 90's up until being shown another photo recently, believed it was. Just making this point because I think Mr Messham, as well as being horrifically the victim of abuse in the past, is guiltless in this incident. And i make the point because he too has apologised for the false accusation, but at least he had real cause to believe it, as opposed to others who were imho jumping on a particularly nasty bandwagon. It would hence be wrong to consider him as equally tarnished as monbiot, bercow, et al.

[b]PJM1974[/b] - Member
...otherwise it's turning into a witch-hunt that threatens the basis of freedom of speech IMHO.

The culture of salacious gossip mongoring by journalists and Tweeting / re-tweeting rumours by those with delusions of celebrity status needs to be terminated.

I hope he takes them all to the cleaners. Big time.

Do you think his reputation has been damaged by it?

Good article by Charlie Brooker on the subject...

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/18/online-highway-code-solve-internet ]here[/url]

I'm pretty sure has done no lasting damage to reputation, [b]with anyone with a brain[/b]

FTFY

Remember that, when it comes to this subject, you're talking about people who petrol bomb the houses of pediatricians

Totally agree with Lord McAlpine's action. "Freedom of Speech" is a term that has been hijacked by idiots to allow them to write anything they like all over the internet with no fear of reprisal. "It's only online, it doesn't matter". No - you couldn't be more wrong. As we have seen, it is very easy for things to become "fact" once they have been online for a while......

We saw exactly the same in the Joanna Yeates case here in Bristol - that poor fella was absolutely crucified in the press and online, only for him to turn out to be innocent.

More worrying even than the b*llshit being peddled by morons too quick to jump on a bandwagon without researching their sources is the fact that things like this can often end up acting as a distraction in the investigation to find the REAL perpetrators.

Hope all the Twitter users who posted these vicious and malicious lies get hit really hard.

This has nothing to do with free speech.
The culture of salacious gossip mongoring by journalists and Tweeting / re-tweeting rumours by those with delusions of celebrity status needs to be terminated.

I hope he takes them all to the cleaners. Big time.

^^ This. End of.

commit genocide and still end up with nothing more than a whopping great payoff.

Lord McAlpine has accepted £125k this morning from ITV, £185k last week form BBC and he hasn't even started on Twitter people yet #innocentface

Good luck to him, he deserves every penny. Will be interesting to see how much further this goes.

Must be a few nervous people around.

?

Aren't most Tories peados and perverts?I thoughts thats what they all learn at their public
/private schools.Then the sadistic scumbags take it out on the rest of us.

Hope all the Twitter users [s]who posted these vicious and malicious lies [/s]get hit really hard.

has no-one mentioned that it's 310K not 400?

With regard to Sally Bercow and her twitter account. She apparently released the name of the school girl, who ran off with her teacher to France and she could now be fined £5000 for a contempt of court!

Now I remember when it was on the news about 2 months ago and the school girl was named everyday whilst she was missing. So why the secret now? Or was the name used not her real name?

Aren't most Tories peados and perverts?I thoughts thats what they all learn at their public
/private schools.Then the sadistic scumbags take it out on the rest of us.

Got a job yet?

£20 to any mod who changes monkey's name to "Charlie Chester".
😉

I liked Charlie Chester.Not exactly a boring Bristol knob