[microscope]

originally posted by omah

The man who named the man who can't be named was the man who was abused by the man who wasn't the man who can't be named but another man who was identified to the man who was abused as a man with the same name as the man who can't be named ..... get my drift??

That makes as much sense as Einstein's theory of relativity would to a member of 'Little Mix' lmao And also doesn't change the fact that the person named wasn't a paedophile.

originally posted by omah

As I understand it, Entwistle didn't cause anything to happen - it was his lack of curiosity and his inaction which enabled others to make disastrous decisions.

He resigned for nothing then???

And please read what I put. I said, 'someone or more'. There is plenty at fault at the BBC.

originally posted by omah

How does a golden handshake for Entwistle "give out the wrong signals as more will follow and make false allegations, whether deliberate or accidental"

Well if you are an ageing head of a corporation with a huge paypacket and the worst you are going to get is the option to resign and a year ahead's sallary when perhaps he was thinking of retirement anyway? Then it gives out the wrong signal to others in an important job that making a mistake such as this (whether be himself or others under him within that organisation) that naming someone who isn't a paedophile as being so is not going to hurt you that much finantially. I'm not just zoning in on paedophelia either, it could be anything really.

originally posted by omah

Yes, you are .....

I said 'someone or more'. The quote is above and below

originally posted by omah

It's not just the BBC and it's not just Entwistle :

I never said it was just 'Entwistle', which is why I said 'someone or more', which you fail to acknowledge?

I couldn't care less how far the scope goes in regards to blame. All I hate is people being falsely accused of something and those who make those mistakes get off so lightly, but the damage it can do to those who do get falsely accused is massive. Especially with this crime.

Hours before that evening's edition of Newsnight, the programme's former political editor Michael Crick tweets "'Senior political figure' due to be accused tonight by BBC of being paedophile denies allegations + tells me he'll issue libel writ agst BBC".

He adds that the person - now known to be Lord McAlpine - said he had not been contacted by the BBC for his response to the allegations.

The tweets by Mr Crick, who now works for Channel 4, follow an earlier one made by Iain Overton, editor of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism whose reporter Angus Stickler led the Newsnight investigation.

In a now deleted post, which has been retweeted 1,574 times, Mr Overton writes: "If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20286848

originally posted by omah
You are aware, of course, that other events have happened at the BBC and Helen Boaden, director of news and Steve Mitchell, deputy director of news and head of news programmes have "stepped aside" while enquiries are ongoing, a process which will take some weeks, at least ..... and a new DG has to be found, too .....

And...So... What difference does all this make exactly??

All I am saying is that when someone makes a mistake of this magnitude, then those who are responsable for this should get more of a punishment than a simple resignation or a small fine. And Entwistle did resign, which makes him guilty anyway to the majority gullable public. But I doubt they would really care to be honest, as it's not them it's happening to. They haven't been falsely accused.