Ouch! That was expensive

[sir.prize]

Lord McAlpine's legal team has reached a settlement of £185,000 with the BBC after he was wrongly implicated in a child sex abuse scandal.

[China Doll]

No they didn't jno but they were hardly innocent either. I can't remember who it was said it but it was on Newsnight and I thought this person made a very valid point about them getting it so wrong re Saville that they then tried to repair all by jumping in feet first re this next story and ended up getting it wrong again.

I have every sympathy with the fella.

[237SJ]

Jno - I can understand that he thinks the only way he can hit the BBC is in their pocket but if he was really offended, surely an apology would suffice? I can`t see how a monetary gain will make any difference (unless he need the money, of course).

[askyourgran]

Correct factor30 the licence fee is frozen until 2016. So it will be a another round of repeats for the next 4 years, and make your own news programmes.

[Gromit]

We had all forgotten Lord McAlpine.

His reputation may have been damaged, but it could be Hugely restore by donating the £185,000 to ChildLine.

[jno]

oh, I sympathise with him too. But I wonder if he's got the wrong target. The real problem seems to have been Twitter and FB, where his name did start going round, and not Newsnight, where it didn't. But it's going to be very difficult pursuing everyone who retweeted something, and it may have seemed easier just to sue "old media".

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Why should he Gromit? His life has been forever tainted by these allegations.
Money is the way to punish massive corporations. They don't like handing it over. Without fines they could do what they like.
If someone is wronged in such an enormously public way then I reckon they are fully entitled to punish whoever did it to them financially. Lord McAlpine is no different.
He'll have the "no smoke without fire" brigade on his back for the rest of his life because of this.

[China Doll]

I don't disagree with that Gromit in theory. But it does feel a bit like something horrid was done to this fella for which he received financial renumeration (justly in my opinion), and now we say that actually it would be better if he gave it away. Why should he? He did nothing wrong, and the money is acknowlegment of this. If he was Jo Public then I'd not see why he should give the moment away either.

[China Doll]

It's tricky isn't it jno. I don't actually disagree with you particularly either, I just think it's quite difficult. Ian Hislop made some great comments regarding the BBC being attacked about Saville and pointing out that a) no one seem to KNOW, (just a lot of rumours), and b) in regards of the rumours, certainly other media organisations knew about them but chose not to report, so why is just the BBC under fire?

I don't have any enlightening view on it myself at all... It is all rather grey to me. In my work there's always a lot of blame, often at other organisations, it becomes very easy to loose sight of the fact that the perpetrator (or alleged perpetrator if you prefer), is the one to blame. Child abuse is emotional and there always seems to me to be blame for the perpetrator (obviously), and then more blame for elsewhere... I suspect it's a result of anger.

[Gromit]

He doesn't have to do it. But he is a very wealthy man and £185,000 is nothing to him.

If the idea is to restore his reputation, then taking a big wad of taxpayer's money is hardly going to endear him to the populous. A generous gift to a charity for abused children might do the trick.

Though it might be considered a cynical move by us embittered lefty types.

[China Doll]

'It might be considered a cynical move by us embittered lefty types. '

I think this embittered lefty type might see their point alas ;o)

[jno]

the programme should never have been made. I thought they'd promised never to run a story based on only one source. But given that they did make it, they must have thought they were doing the right thing not naming him. So I wonder if newspapers or broadcasters are now to be held liable for the gossip that springs up on social media following one of their programmes.

This is unpredictable but I imagine we'll see a lot more of it as traditional media decline and social media become a major "news" source. Just what do you do if millions of stupid tweeters suddenly start claiming you're a paedophile?

[craft1948]

I see he's know sueing Sally Bercow for her Twitter post..............couldn't happen to a nicer lady.

[Prudie]

He shouldn't have to be in the situation of restoring his reputation - not for this anyway. The amount seems piddling to me.

[DTCwordfan]

Wait until they go after Ed and some of the remarks on AB.

[starone]

Well I need my tv. At the moment it has broken down and the silence is deafening. My son-in-law will be in first thing tomorrow to mend it for me. I don't think there is anything really wrong with it. I have probably pressed the wrong button or something. In the meantime I am on here bothering everyone.

[jno]

is he, craft? From what I could see he's warning that anyone who tweeted his name had better apologise, the suggestion being that they'd be sued if they didn't. I thought Bercow had done so, though in an unconvincing manner.

But it sort of bears out what I was saying before: suing shedloads of tweeters would be ludicrously fiddly and time-consuming so he might prefer just to get apologies from them, while getting money from easier targets.

[Gromit]

Starbuckone

You can watch uk telly on your computer here...

http://www.tvcatchup.com/

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I don't get this whole thing about him restoring his reputation.
What does he have to restore? He did nothing wrong.
The very fact that you suggest that makes me think he's entitled to every penny and actually, the BBC got off lightly.

[Gromit]

Sally Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending (popular subject) at the moment?"

She did not connect him to Newsnight directly or name him as a paedophile. She was dumb but tweeted cleverly. Can't see McAlpine winning that one.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

I doubt he'll go after that one Gromit. You're taking it to the extreme.
If I were to say a certain celebrity was paedo scum on Twitter, I'm fair game. If I were to point people in the direction of the news, I'd be less so.