McAlpine

I wonder if this is exposing McAlpine or doing his dirty work for him?   There’s a duty to OoL not to bring anything down on the guys and gal and nothing down on you, the reader.   These litigious bastards are looking for any signs of dissent whatever to drop lawsuits onto … so we can go the sane, safe way at OoL and stay absolutely shtum on the matter or we can go the Slog way and say what we really think.

Choosing the latter, below is reprinted, with no additions or deletions, what came to me via email, with no comment from OoL one way or the other.

Here is what came via email:

McAlpine’s Begging Letter in Full

And just because someone asked how it was possible to contact his Lordship if you wanted to pay him, here is the website link. RMPI. (though I think you’d be stupid to cave in to these threats and bullying.)

For those over 500 followers, I understand that he is demanding £500 plus £250 in administrative costs. (i.e. 10,000 claimed twitter retweets = £2.5 million in admin fees)

PS, his law firm are no win, no fee.

If you have a personal injury claim, RMPI believe you should be entitled to 100% of any compensation you are awarded in that claim. That’s why we operate on a no win, no fee basis. We will charge the responsible insurers for costs we incur on your behalf. Win or lose, you won’t be charged a penny.

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/mcalpines-begging-letter-in-full/

McAllaboutrakinginthemoney’s lawyers have been busy on Google as well…
see this notice at the bottom of the page on google images.

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 4 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request
at ChillingEffects.org.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lord+mcalpine&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=eiH&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=JWiuUICyIqiT0QXH-4HAAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1366&bih=638#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a& ;hs=0Nc&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=lord+mcalpine+paedo&oq=lord+mcalpine+&gs_l=img.1.0.0j0i24l9.32697.32697.0.34926.1.1.0.0.0.0.122.122.0j1.1.0.crnk_timediscountb..0.0…1c.1._Xy1armXEWQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=7df83e3e8bb33daa&bpcl=38897761&biw=1366&bih=638

………..

To our readers – though comments are open for now, please be very, very careful with this litigious bastard.   If you make any comment whatever on his innocence or not over the paedophilia, you run the risk of litigation and we at OoL must remove the comment as we’re all relative paupers and simply can’t afford justice as Lord McMoneybags can.

On the other hand, there is the principle of using lawyers to bully someone into silence and on that general principle, nothing to do with McUphimself at all, we should not bow to pressure.   We didn’t allow it in the case of Usmanov and Shillings or whatever they call themselves – Carter Fuck or whatever – and we shouldn’t allow it now.

OoL supports the principle of needing to have airtight evidence before accusing someone of something, as a general principle and quite apart from the fear of litigation.   On the other hand, OoL supports the principle of free speech on what we think on various issues as they arise.

So feel free to comment but bear in mind that some comments might have to be removed if they’re on the actual guilt or innocence of paedophilia.

23 comments for “McAlpine

  1. Greg Tingey
    November 23, 2012 at 9:08 am

    What I detect is greedy gouging.
    Especially since we appear to know that Lord McAlpine is innocent – because there was ANOTHER “McAlpine” [ NOT a lord ] who was guilty & is dead.

    • November 23, 2012 at 9:41 am

      I’m making no comment on that story which did the rounds about there being a second Lord McAlpine.

      • November 23, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        Hi James,

        I followed a link from my stats which led me here.

        I wouldn’t worry too much about the other ‘McAlpine’ (I won’t name him out of respect to this site) One was named by both the Guardian and the Telegraph on the day that Lord McAlpine came out fighting and is dead, the other is also dead.

        Kind Regards,

        gojam

  2. Dave K
    November 23, 2012 at 9:37 am

    Considering that some of this bunch get pissed up youngsters jail time by their wailings, I am not too upset about them being asked to donate to some childrens charity to avoid further legal action.

    Greg, greedy gouging? That depends on whether the costs are going to the lawyers or Lord M.

  3. November 23, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Personally I think that the libel laws can be misused (London the libel capital of the world)and they probably do need reform. However, to look on the other side of the coin, if someone called you a nonce or started other untrue rumours about your wouldn’t you want some form of redress? Even if it was just an apology?

    There may well be a bit of lawyer led gouging here but I think that Lord McAlpine is perfectly at liberty to sue those who libeled him.

    There is a world of difference between fair comment or calling someone an idiot or questioning their view and calling someone a paedophile.

    • IanPJ
      November 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm

      We do have to remember that McAlpine hasn’t actually sued anyone yet. So far its all been threat and bluster.

      So ask why he will not sue David Icke, who has both repeated the allegations that he made in his 1996 book and tweeted such. Is it because the last thing wanted is for it to go into a courtroom, where everything will be laid out before the public.

      That the BBC and ITV have rolled over and settled out of court for not naming him I find even more suspicious. Levenson report, regulation of both press and internet anyone? Problem/Reaction/Solution?

      • November 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm

        I’d have thought the reason he doesn’t bother with Icke is the same reason he doesn’t wrestle a pig – you both get filthy, but the pig likes that

        • November 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm

          Julia spot on.

          Once you start to dignify people like Icke with a response you give them some legitimacy. And getting tangled with Icke could end up with the person who brings a case against Icke getting covered in the same sort of tin foil hat shit that Icke peddles.

          Much better to let him and his followers rant away in their own virtual mad house without giving him the ‘day release’ of a day in court.

          Giving credence to a batshit tin foil hatter like Icke or Jones or any of the other similar fraggles is a fast track way to lose any credibility.

          • November 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

            Agreed – I never go near him or Alex Jones – surefire way to kill off a post.

            • November 28, 2012 at 10:53 am

              Although I disagree with you on some things at least we agree that the likes of Jones and Icke are poison and shouldn’t be quoted.

              I get mightily annoyed when I see good writing on a subject I’m interested in ruined by the use of suspect ‘tin foil hatter’ key words, like Illuminati, Masonic conspiracy, chemtrails, bilderberg etc etc. The presence of such words and phrases normally get that site or author on to my ‘banned’ list and are classified by me as ‘non quoteable sites’.

  4. November 23, 2012 at 11:37 am

    I read Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green’s
    Wikipedia page and he seems to be a very nice dear old man and compleatly innocent.

  5. November 23, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    If McAlpine stuffs Sally the Berk then he isn’t totally unreasonable. 😈

    • November 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      And even more so if he does the loathsome prig Monbiot. Indeed, anyone who gets done deserves all they get.

  6. Furor Teutonicus
    November 23, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Only one answer; “Fuck off arse hole”..Sue ME you bastard.”

  7. November 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Not being interested in Twitter – just this one question; does this affect us? I have no intention of donating anything to anyone.

    • November 23, 2012 at 6:44 pm

      Shouldn’t have thought so. I think McAlpine’s public sympathy is soon to be exhausted too.

  8. Dave_G
    November 23, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    For someone who’s innocence has been proclaimed far more widely and extensively than his alleged guilt I feel that any attempt at redress through the courts will (should) fall on deaf ears. The current efforts to ‘extort’ reparations should be resisted.

  9. November 23, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    Well, that seems that then.

  10. November 24, 2012 at 7:07 am

    “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

    No further comment.

  11. Tatty
    November 24, 2012 at 10:05 am

    The legal consequences of mentioning an alleged paedophile can now outweigh the legal consequences of actually being a paedophile.

    What the hell is wrong with this picture. 😯

    • November 24, 2012 at 12:20 pm

      From where I am that doesn’t actually look like the picture.

      • Tatty
        November 24, 2012 at 12:59 pm

        We have bloggers terrified of the legal and financial consequences of even the slightest hint of a false allegation of paedophilia appearing on their little bit of the internet….meanwhile…the courts are happily letting paedophiles out onto the streets after being convicted.

        That’s always assuming they even actually make into court with enough evidence to satisfy the CPS in the first place.

        You can’t see that…really ?

  12. GB
    November 29, 2012 at 8:16 am

    Of course Lord X is innocent of the charge Steve Messham laid with the BBC against him, because Steve Messham said so. That’s all we know, however, other than the awkward fact that the ‘photograph’ story Messham gave as his reason for retracting simply beggars belief (try any parallel in your own life involving recognition over that length of time and try to make it work for yourself) and relies on the awkward assertion that all those years ago the police lied through their teeth. So I guess we know one further thing about this business: that we haven’t been told the truth.

Comments are closed.