Q: What’s the difference between Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine?
A: Lord McAlpine is alive to defend himself.
Probably not the only difference. But had McAlpine not been alive, where would his name be now?
To recap the story as it stands today: McAlpine briefly stood accused of kiddy-fiddling, based apparently on the word of one unreliable witness (“victim”) given credence by a BBC programme. The witness has now withdrawn the accusation on the basis of mistaken identity leaving no case against him, and the BBC with some serious egg on its face and a director general fallen on his sword.
The original accusation turns out to have been worse-than-flimsy: the police interviewed the “victim”, showed him a picture which he identified as his attacker, and then told him the picture was McAlpine?!!??! How the **** did that turn into a story worth taking seriously? The late, great Arthur Miller had the answer, and so do we if we call McAlpine’s accuser “Abigail”. Though that too would be inaccurate: pointing the finger at one man is not the same as kicking off the whole witch-hunt, and that’s been happening for years (as witness the absurdity of the red tape binding any adult contact with children outside the family context).
As for Savile? I have absolutely no idea: I never saw him or his TV programmes when he was alive, and I hadn’t even heard of his charity work until the whole kiddy-fiddling story suddenly filled the “news”. Noone is defending him, and there are hundreds of accusers against him: doesn’t all that put his guilt beyond doubt? It’s even been suggested his body might be dug up: a witch-hunt has turned into an exorcism!
The sceptic should at least question whether the case against him is proven. And I can only conclude that the evidence falls short. Most if not all of it is heavily tainted by compensation: if the powers-that-be had been interested in the truth, the very first thing they needed to do was rule out this expectation of personal financial advantage to his accusers!
And as to why noone is (so far as has been reported) defending him, Miller again has an answer: who wants to share Proctor’s fate? In the thick of a witch-hunt, even the wronged McAlpine wouldn’t dare say a word against his accuser lest he be reviled as insensitive to a victim. How much less then would anyone dare question a Savile-accuser’s
compensationreward, let alone defend him?
Posted on November 11, 2012, in bbc, media, uk. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
I must confess to being sickened by the Savile affair. Even if the man was completely guilty as charged (and the only thing we know for sure, at this stage, is that during the man’s lifetime, nobody was able to assemble enough evidence to make a real case against him) – how would that justify basically erasing him from history?
And as for the BBC’s myopic orgy of self-examination – it’s just depressing to listen to, even at this remove. If they wanted to guarantee that BBC management will forever be populated entirely by soulless drones with no intelligence, initiative or imagination of their own, they could hardly have arranged it better.
Just as an aside, how do you get a job at the Beeb? It seems you work for 54 days, screw it up, resign, then get a year’s salary as a pay off which is twice what your contract requires. Nice work if you can get it.
Seriously, like vet I’m sick and tired of hearing so may overpaid luvvies and management types gazing up their collective navels. Can we have some real news please?
Ooops, “may” should say “many” in my effort above!
Pingback: Lynch Him! | niq's soapbox