Time for everyone to calm down over McAlpinegate

I am sleeping fairly well at night right now. I have never written a tweet implying Lord McAlpine was a paedophile. (Note: tweet is a common definition of a micro-blog post. Additional note: Paedophile is a term describing those attracted to children typically below the age of 13, though in Britain the word is used a little more liberally to refer to anyone who legally is not expected to pay an adult fare on public transport.)

In fact, I have never written a tweet bearing McAlpine's name, prior to his unveiling as the poor bloke BBC Newsnight meant when implying some shadowy relic of the Conservative Party was abusing children.

And despite witnessing many tweets directly claiming he was a paedophile (along with four or five regularly alleged others), I believed it was unethical to "retweet" any of them. (Note for those not familiar with micro-blogging websites: Retweet is the Twitter term for copying someone else's tweet into your own Twitter page for other Twitter members to view.)

There was one notable tweet bearing his name that I may well have retweeted, but it no longer exists, for the author (a highly respected Guardian columnist) has apologised and presumably removed it. For that reason, it is no surprise that I do not even remember if I retweeted it! However, I best apologise just in case.

The tweet in question did little more than question some of the dubious things written about McAlpine on the Internet, but I suspect in the current climate the author will be in trouble over that.

That author apologised in the form of a tweet and linked it towards a more detailed apology. I decided to retweet his apology to my followers - you know, just in case. I hope Lord McAlpine accepts it and that is the end of the matter.

Now that is clear, I add a caveat or two to the above summary of McAlpine vs Twitter. Firstly, I fear that having won the goodwill of the public in light of some rather diabolical allegations, McAlpine (and more significantly those representing his interests post-McAlpinegate) risk overplaying his hand. Secondly, even if McAlpine's response is legally tenable, it is very much in the context of laws that have not caught up with the demands of print and broadcast media, let alone the online variety. First, I shall deal with the former point.

I personally think McAlpine's response is understandable. If I had been subject to the allegations he has faced, I would be on television too, auditioning my croakiest voice and reminding the audience how devastated I am by the allegations. I would have been demanding the BBC justified its research. No question - I would have sought some compensation from the broadcaster.

Having said that, I also think McAlpine has already done very well. His settlement with the BBC must surely be some sort of precedent for dealing with libel through innuendo and cryptic messaging.

I dare say if the BBC was not so on its knees in the fallout of this and the Savile fiasco, they may have had more of a stomach for a fight. They wanted the episode over as quickly as possible and who can blame them?

So you would think that Lord McAlpine would be happy with the settlement for a mischievous report that caused a lot of harmful gossip, and a clear message sent to the world that he is not a paedophile.

No sooner had the BBC surrendered, his legal team outlined their plans to pursue up to 10,000 Twitter users over the publishing of defamatory tweets in what is described as potentially a libel action with the largest number of defendants ever. The response is hardly a surprise when the first defendant (the BBC) settled out of court despite not actually mentioning him by name, instead allowing public gossip settle that matter. I too would be trawling the cyber and the tangible trying to find my next catch.

His next catch seems to be ITV, who broadcast the segment where Phillip Schofield handed a list of paedophilic names to David Cameron. He (McAlpine, that is!) was believed to be on that list and it is rumoured a camera picked it up. (Note the deliberate use of 'believed to be' and 'rumoured' in that sentence.)

I would be absolutely fuming if I was on Schofield's camera-shot list, and understandably McAlpine must be fuming about it. However, has anyone actually seen names on the list? It may have been caught by a camera, but was that particular camera part of the broadcast feed at the time?

These are crucial questions, because as things stand, despite an apology aired on This Morning, nobody seems to have produced the offending screen caption. I would have thought with the millions of feral Twitter users, ready to shine a light on predatory paedophiles at any moment, the offending screencap would have been doing the rounds within minutes of the broadcast ending. I have not seen any image, and I practically live on Twitter at times!

We were told viewers might have seen the list. It seems nobody has seen it. Someone should tell Lord McAlpine. This time, he is in the clear!

Except nobody will, as his legal team looks towards holding anyone and everyone to account. It is an approach that risks McAlpine losing the goodwill he has earned in the aftermath. I do not have the biggest Twitter feed in the world, so it is not a representative tapestry of views, however I have noticed a change of mood among those I follow.

When BBC Newsnight originally apologised, there was a mixture of sympathy for McAlpine and irritation that a story about child abuse had been superseded by poor journalism. The sympathy towards McAlpine has fallen away on my Twitter feed, and I wonder if he should retreat from further action while he is ahead.

His reputation has ironically been enhanced, as a weak and feckless media (in part brutalised by arcahic libel laws) made huge steps to apologise to him and stress that he is not a paedophile. Many people were quick to sympathise with him.

My second point regarding the post-Newsnight fallout is that I feel that libel laws in the UK need to catch up with the reality of the Internet, or it is going to destroy what is good about websites like Twitter.

Twitter enables lay members of the population to debate, discuss, talk, have a laugh, sometimes troll, sometimes troll aggressively and sometimes troll unlawfully. It is a big room where everyone can shout at anyone, with the rather obvious drawback that whatever is shouted is rendered into cyber-memory. Those words are there forever.

I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that British law is often cast through precedent. There will be many precedents needed in light of McAlpinegate if we are to prevent an online crisis of communication.

First of all, there will need to be an acceptance that although journalists and writers publish on Twitter and other sites, so do people who are not used to their copy being checked by lawyers before they hit the send button. (Note: Journalists have their work checked, and yet they have been known to wrongly accuse – the Chris Jefferies case springs to mind.)

Any developments of law that see thousands of people with a few dozen Twitter followers going to court will be to the detriment of ordinary people, many of whom who already have enough to worry about in day-to-day life. Lord McAlpine certainly would not have the same anxieties and worries that they face.

There is going to need to be a clear post-multimedia agreement governing Internet use which does not penalise ordinary people. I cannot offer much help to those who are directly tweeting allegations about people. As I already said, I am not a legal expert, but I am now old enough to know by now that to call someone a paedophile requires a stack of irrefutable evidence.

I can offer suggestions for those who have retweeted, or wrote implied comments. By letter of the law, it would seem that those who retweet gain responsibility for taking that tweet to their followers, but how many people know this? Any retweet is clearly marked with the original author's name. Ignorance being no defence is a harsh principle to reply here. This is not as black and white as knowing that violence or sexual abuse is legally wrong.

This is important, because there may be no end to this. Courts could find themselves being a revolving door for trivial Twitter actions, with judges having to rule on who retweeted someone else's innuendo. The fact of the matter is that people could potentially be sued for retweeting a comment by a respected Guardian journalist originating from a rather dubious news report by the respected (but heaven knows why!) BBC.

That is the reality, and it seems wrong because it is wrong.

I would suggest that judges become familiar with the Twitter architecture. It is clear how the site works. If someone tweets something potentially libellous with 100,000 followers in tow, then it is obvious that it is going to be spread much wider. This puts the onus on the original author to get it right. Retweeters do so with the original source of their tweet clearly marked, and those retweeters who are clearly not media-savvy should not be punished for not knowing the rules of engagement. If some of those who are media-aware (and legally-aware) cannot get their Twitter activity right, what chance the rest of us?

One logical conclusion is that people will not just be sued for tweets and retweets, but they will also be sued for mentioning the names of high-profile people who are tweeting potentially libellous material elsewhere on the website. For example, Sally Bercow has come in for a lot of unfair criticism for also being little more than careless about who she saw "trending" on the website (McAlpine, since you ask). Assuming her tweets are deemed unlawful, what fate could befall anyone who simply tweeted the text “I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today?"

Most of the "chattering classes" know who Sally Bercow is.

To find out what Sally Bercow has been writing, she is well-known enough to be the first twitter result if anyone enters "Sally Bercow" into the search box.

If I wrote a tweet "I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today," there is the argument that I am effectively signposting people to her page containing lots of questionable tweets.

This could happen to a lot of other people too. This is why the law as it stands cannot work.

I also fear what the consequences of these issues could be for opinion. A lot is written about high-profile Members of Parliament, for example, Nadine Dorries, who has recently been a resident of a jungle somewhere on the other side of the world. Dorries has always attracted a lot of criticism from those on both the left and the right because of her unconventional approach to public office.

Nobody can expect to be sued for describing her as a ghastly, awful woman, as it is an opinion that is not necessarily damaging. However, some may feel that Dorries has gone on a TV show to boost her own profile. They may argue that she is deserting her constituents while doing that. They may believe she is not fit to be an MP on that basis.

My fear is that Dorries may consider those viewpoints to be damaging and contest them on that basis. If a portal is opened to sue people for expressing such sentiments on Twitter, then the whole principle of debate is at risk.

Admittedly, criticising someone's fitness for office is not comparable to calling someone a paedophile, but the recipient could still fight the Twitter membership on the basis they feel it is damaging to their future employment opportunities and reputation. There are stakes here that are much bigger than context of one accusatory episode where this is located. The law must reflect that.

For now, I believe everyone has to calm down a little. We must cool down with the feral accusations. I can understand why feelings are running high though. I used to think, and still do to some extent, that Brits are extremely paranoid and irrational when it comes to the issue of paedophilia.

The Sun mixes up coverage of right-wing politics, international affairs and celebrity gossip with regular titillation stories from the courts about paedophile activity. If the stories look peculiarly out of place outside of the context of a local newspaper, it is because they are. In some ways, the newspaper's obsession with the issue is borderline creepy.

It has been known for innocent people to be attacked in the street because they happen to resemble a paedophile mugshot published in the tabloid press. This is not on.

I do believe though that Britain has a bigger paedophile problem than I originally thought. In some ways, the Internet has flushed them to the surface in much the same way as rain brings out slugs. Without being rumbled by an eagle-eyed computer repair engineer, Gary Glitter would still be enjoying regular paedophile holidays to the Far East, unchecked.

Shouting out the names of presumed paedophiles on Twitter is not the answer. We need to apply pressure to get these high-profile child abuse cases re-opened and re-examined, so the offenders can be brought to justice.

It is not just ordinary citizens, many of whom are worried parents and people with good hearts, who need to cool down though. A little understanding needs to be shown by those who are trying to control what is published on the Internet.

Let us not forget the public was wound up by this story by the very classes now trying to stamp down on Twitter activity – those in the media. The wind-up process started earlier in the day of the Newsnight report into the child abuse scandal, when someone connected to the report tweeted to tell people it was likely to be screened and involved an old Tory.

The idea may not have been to cause feverish speculation, but it had that effect.

When the news report went out and (quelle surprise) nobody was named, that raised anger levels further. Bearing in mind Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards paedophila, this outcome should not have surprised anyone, apart from maybe the most moronic of TV executives.

So whereas the Twitter community needs to calm down a little now, so must also those who are the most condemning of us.

The BBC's long journey to restore trust and its purpose

Regular readers of this website will be long aware of how critical and disillusioned I am with the BBC's efforts as a public service broadcaster. I am critical of the BBC because I love it, but it is a hard beast to love at the moment. The way it handled the report into the North Wales Care Home scandal, and the testimony given by Steven Messham - a former abuse victim, and clearly someone who is a vulnerable man - was disgraceful.

The BBC is in the wrong whichever way you look at it, and I can see at least two ways of looking at it.

Firstly, assuming the truth that Messham wrongly identified Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers (and we have to learn to question everything now), then the original report into the North Wales Care Abuse on Newsnight was an appalling misjudgement.

Secondly, and conversely, if the sceptre of legal action has bullied Messham into submission, leading to the BBC to cowardly shelve their story and prepare a hasty apology, then the behaviour of those at the BBC is appalling in that sense as well.

Either way, the BBC is in the wrong. Either way, Messham has been treated badly.

The crisis has led to questions about the BBC's purpose, and the future of public service broadcasting in this country. Well, it beats having to indulge in the uncomfortable question of how we are going to get to the bottom of the problem of child abuse when the mere suggestion of legal action sends researchers and investigators on the run.

One problem in particular is trying to unravel the following question: How can we on the left be taken seriously when we cannot even get our story straight as to what the BBC actually is?

On one hand, we are fighting its corner on the grounds it is a treasured institution and provides a public service, or at least it is meant to be when it is not either (a) wrongly making indirect paedophile allegations, (b) backtracking from legitimate allegations when the kitchen gets hot, or (c) both. We justify our position on the basis that the Tories would love to dismantle the BBC. On the other hand, we complain that it has become a Tory mouthpiece, that is complicit in the protection of establishment figures, perhaps like the one mentioned above.

We bemoan that fact that Andrew Marr is like Jeremy Paxman when confronted with a Labour MP, but becomes Phillip Schofield when confronted with a Tory (at least before Phillip Schofield decided that his This Morning sofa would no longer be a cosy seat for politicians).


The truth is we are trying to save an institution that is presently not on our side. Has it ever been really? Have we been admiring of an institution that has been contemptuous of us all along? This is the broadcaster that provides employment for Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and a plethora of other people whose views are far removed from the left's ideal.

Amazingly, the funding mechanism that props up the BBC, and which many leftists are trying to preserve, is its very problem. Implicit in any relationship between BBC and government is where the broadcaster would be left if the licence fee was abolished - something the present Tory government has exploited fully. This makes it a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. And it was a state broadcaster, as opposed to a public service broadcaster, that I witnessed as the BBC provided its interminable apology during Friday's Newsnight, as Messham's testimony was safely returned to the bottle it came out of.

Abolishing the licence fee is a form of commercialisation (not the same as privatisation, as the BBC could still have its own corporate structure) and one which I feel would benefit the broadcaster and the public it is supposed to be serving. The broadcaster could be truly independent and not the publicity wing of the Conservative Party, employed to prevent Lords, MPs and other establishment figures. The public would no longer have to pay a household tax for the privilege of watching television, regardless of whether their home is flat or a castle.

Who knows? With a little self-financing, the broadcaster may be able to restore the many events it lost to Sky, ITV and Channel 4 - cricket, golf, football, horse racing and Formula 1 to name a few. If that does not earn a little goodwill, then nothing would.

Another problem with our argument on the left is we support the BBC, not because we are happy with it, but because it supposedly represents what Rupert Murdoch is not. I have never bought into this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. We cannot accuse Rupert Murdoch and his publications of hypocrisy over their criticisms of the BBC handling of the Savile and McAlpine issues if we are hypocrites ourselves.

After Murdoch's institution was found to be hacking people's phones, we were calling for the splitting Murdoch's press on the grounds that the family of publications had become too big and unmanageable. The BBC seems to be cursed with the same illness - bloated, huge and unmanageable. It allowed Savile to stalk its corridors for years, taking his prey back to dressing rooms to rape them. This is of course unless the BBC has since cowardly decided (after speaking to a lawyer or two) that Savile did none of these things after all and can now rest in peace.

Yet whenever I mention the possibility of splitting the BBC, I get quite a reaction. The idea of splitting the BBC is immediately conflated with dismantling the BBC. This is not what I am suggesting, though in the defence of my critics I have not been able to make this clear.

What I suggest, is that if the notion that running The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and (then) News of the World is too big a task for the Murdoch family, then BBC's radio, TV, local, commercial and news departments also should be split. Each can have their own management. Each still be nationalised, but funded commercially. Each operating in the public interest. Each still operating under the banner of the BBC.

As I keep saying though, there are aspects of the BBC I do love, but the news operation is now seriously dragging everything else down. Maybe the BBC should stick to what it is good at, and dispense with the current affairs.

I get through my work days thanks to Radio 2 - Britain's top radio station for good reason. Chris Evans has a cheery voice which starts the day well. Simon Mayo (my favourite of all the broadcasters) has a reassuring delivery with a wicked sense of humour, and that's not to mention Ken Bruce, Jeremy Vine and others. Radio 5 does sport extremely well, and allows the broadcasters (such as Alan Green) the creative freedom to be as critical as they wish.

Meanwhile, over on the television, some of the documentaries and research the BBC brings us is amazing. If BBC Four was ever abolished, I would probably fall out with the BBC for good!

So, I am not against the BBC. However I would be lying to say I am happy with it. Many are complaining the BBC is in disarray after a disgraceful process leading to poor Messham's discredited testimony (which has also served to knock back the cause of child protection for at least three decades). However, we are witnessing is the first steps by the BBC to repair itself, as only corporations can.

George Entwistle, who must be the shortest-lived Director General ever, has rightly resigned. In a way, I have a lot of sympathy with him. He was handed an unenviable inbox. His handling of it was appalling though. His appearance in front of MPs in light of the Savile fiasco was weak. The BBC's handling of the Messham evidence was no better.

Many employees within the BBC promptly gave a character reference about what a nice person Entwistle is - and I believe them. Sadly, I have heard it all before. They are the same parting gifts given to a football manager who loses seven of his last eight games in charge and is shown the door. "Nice fella, but we couldn't get results."

I am certainly no apologist for the previous Director General, Mark Thompson, either. I have no doubt though he would have come out fighting. We may never know if he would have sanctioned the Newsnight apology for running the story, but there must be a chance he would have stood firm. Notably, there is the unresolved question: Why is the BBC apologising for Newsnight, despite the name of the alleged abuser being circulated around the Internet, rather than the BBC? I am not certain if anyone at the BBC can answer that one either.

There are many gunning for the BBC at the moment. The newspapers, led by the Murdoch press, would love to see a weakened BBC. They are leading with hypocritical headlines about the chaos. Make no mistake, they have no right to take a moral position. Innocent people suffered when the Murdoch press published photographs of sex offenders, due to the fallibility of human judgement when faced with someone who vaguely resembles one of the Murdoch mugshots. Yet, if the BBC does not reform, people like Murdoch will win. If the BBC does not appoint a strong leader in the wake of Entwistle's resignation, again their enemies will win.

Despite Entwistle's fate, much more needs to be done at the BBC to restore lost trust in the broadcaster. A sacking is not going cure this mess. There is still a lot a lot of goodwill out there towards the BBC, as tweets from my friends on the left reassure me. This goodwill is not infinite though. I sign off with a question with words to the effect of those asked by an excellent user of the oft-maligned twitter website: "How did Savile get away with has paedophilic behaviour for so many years? Look at what has happened over the past seven days, and you will find your answer."

Why feminism must free itself from people like Louise Mensch

Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.

Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.

Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)

The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.

Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.

The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.

When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.

This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.

That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.

Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.

In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.

Savile latest: paedophilic cover-up at the BBC and the discrediting of 'Newsnight'

The disgust of many regarding the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal is difficult to quantify. Some see our anger about Savile's sick conduct a matter of great hysteria, and a mindless assault on the BBC. Others believe that we would be making a greater fuss if Savile's behaviour had been facilitated within a Murdoch institution, such as Sky TV. I believe this effectively means the public have been fair and balanced in their response to the scandal. We believe that the BBC must be held to account, while appreciating who the main perpetrator was.

Allow me to deal with the Murdoch point first. I am a big critic of the BBC. The reason for this is I believe it was a great institution, but at present it is doing itself a huge injustice, not just by the way in which it is failing to report important events (such as the government assaults on the NHS), but because of the shambolic handling of the Savile scandal. Despite my affection for the BBC, there is no question the physical abuse that occurred within the boundaries of the broadcaster is far more appalling than the phone-hacking at the News of the World. The phone-hacking, let us not forget, was itself serious enough for Murdoch to close the newspaper.

Savile (right) with friend, former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Source: (The Sunday Times)

When the phone-hacking scandal came to light, I was one of those who made a case for breaking up Murdoch's stranglehold on the British media. It would be hypocritical for me not to insist upon the same with the BBC. It is a massive institution, which as with Murdochsville was (and possibly still is) also a fertile environment for wrongdoing. This must take two parts - the abolition of the licence fee and a splitting up of BBC operations.

First of all, the licence fee needs to be abolished, and quickly. The funding model for the BBC is archaic. Every household in the country with a television set (almost everyone) pays a tax, not to watch BBC programming, but to merely be able to use the set in their household. A great chunk of the licence fee then goes on funding the behemoth. This includes paying the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to spread their political messages overtly through light-entertainment programming in a manner that makes an absolute mockery of the BBC's veneer of impartiality. Every television owner has to pay the licence fee tax, whether their home is a mansion or a flat. It is grossly unfair. I have spent the past decade or so trying to make my fellow members of the left see this.

The template for a modern BBC is that of Channel 4. They are largely funded by advertising, but still maintain an independence, resulting in brilliant documentary programming such as Dispatches, and the most balanced news programme on British television. It can be done.

Secondly, and most crucially, the BBC needs to be broken up into sections covering radio, TV and local output. Anyone who has read The Corporation by Joel Bakan will realise that the bigger corporations are, the more susceptible they are to pathological and downright criminal behaviour, that would lead to imprisonment if carried out by individuals. Bakan largely wrote about private enterprises, but his argument can be applied to the BBC - itself a huge corporation, which is clearly a breeding ground for pathological behaviour and secrecy.

I still find it difficult to comprehend how an institution is large and sophisticated as the BBC was able to create such a huge monster in Jimmy Savile, and keep it active for 40 years. In the meantime, Savile was a prolific abuser, who raped children at every possible opportunity. Other BBC staff chose not to say anything despite admitting they knew (or had strong suspicions) about Savile's individual pathologies because he had amassed a lot of power. This Savile case is a warning to broadcasters, who still to this day over-inflate the importance of their highest-profile stars by giving them as many presenting gigs as they will accept. We know who they are. They are the ones who always seem to be on the television, no matter what time you switch it on. They reach a point where they are untouchable.

However, excuses about 'untouchable' presenters do not wash. The "I was a new member of staff" excuse is symptomatic of this. Does the novice member excuse remain relevant long after those using it cease to be newcomers? Fair enough if in 1971 a newcomer felt unable to report Savile's paedophilia - but what about 1981 and 1991? Another cop-out is the old "things were different in the 1970s" excuse. Savile was someone who seeked out physically and psychologically vulnerable children to attack. That is not a bit of 1970s experimentalism; that is abuse.

The most sickening aspect of all is the secrecy and cover-ups continued to the present day. The BBC's once-flagship, but now discredited, current affairs programme Newsnight will never be the same after the stigma associated with the apparent decision by the programme's editor, Peter Rippon, to ditch an investigation into Savile scheduled for late last year. The researchers, Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean are convinced the decision was made because the BBC had some gushing tribute programmes to the paedophile already filmed. Despite none of the pressure faced by commercial broadcasters to pursue ratings, the decision was taken anyway, and the news story was suppressed for months, until it was picked up in an investigation by ITV.

At this point, I wish to explain selectivity bias. In research, to bias a project by choosing samples or examples which tell a preferred story at the expense of others is an unforgivable academic sin. In fair and balanced research, all narratives must be collected and accounted for. With issues such as the NHS, and now Jimmy Savile's perversions, Newsnight has shown to be lacking in this important academic test. Their biases are demonstrated - not by what is included in their programmes, but what is excluded. Never again would, or should, anyone trust Newsnight as a neutral and impartial news source. The best thing the BBC could probably do is develop a new news programme to take its place - one more up-to-date and respondent to emerging interactive technological trends.

The Jimmy Savile scandal has created a huge problem for the BBC, which will be faced with legal actions from Savile's victims, and rightly so. Other institutions trusted the paedophile because of the exposure he was given by the BBC. Children who thought they were safe on BBC premises were taken into dressing rooms and abused by dirty old men. This is not a problem that the BBC can now escape from, and having held their hands up and all but pleaded guilty to failing in its duty to the public (Panorama, BBC, 22/10/12), the BBC will need to take its punishment on the chin.

Seen but not heard - how victims of paedo Jim were let down

"Children should be seen and not heard." I never did care much for that expression. Even as a child, I could detect oppression a mile off, and for me that phrase was oppressive. Now, in light of the revelations that for 50 years Jimmy Savile was presenting a paedophilic lie to a public tricked into adoring him, I realise how dangerous such beliefs are.

Fast forward to 2012, and those who cannot accept they have been hoodwinked by a cunning confidence trickster for the past 50 years are now trying to say that victims are wrong for waiting until he died to come forward. Yet these children, now adults, were terrified to come forward. It was safer to be seen and not heard.

They were terrified of not being believed. They were terrified of what the consequences would be if they were believed. They were terrified of being the ones who threatened the charity work he was using as a cover for his misdeeds. The victims who did come forward to the police while he was alive found their complaints ignored.

Those who should have come forward, did not. These same people - other celebrities 'who knew', agents and assistants - are still not exactly falling over themselves to come forward now either. In some ways this is understandable, for they should be in the dock for treating his depravity like a joke. "We all knew about Uncle Jimmy" they smirked, as though he was nothing more than a slightly more paedophilic version of Benny Hill.

This is serious though. Anyone who knew Savile's behaviour was more than just a little tomfoolery, and kept his dirty little secret for him, should be put on trial.

The BBC should also be closely examined over their mishandling of the affair. For 40 years, they put Savile on television and radio, gave him children's programmes to work on and made a hero out of him - meaning that in some small way we were all victims of the decades-long stunt.

Following the emergence of the scandal, one which took an ITV documentary to reveal, the BBC response has been defensive, then inconsistent, before finally realising that an independent investigation is inevitable.

This is more evidence that the BBC is far too big an institutionalised beast, and should be broken up, with its local and national, TV and Radio divisions split, so that institutionalised power bases cannot be formed so easily. If there is a call to break up the Murdoch press over transgressions due to its size and crass bureaucracy, then a call to split up the BBC in the same manner is a perfectly acceptable one.

The BBC is not the only organisation with questions to answer. Police forces received numerous complaints about Savile's sick actions over the years. Any police or Crown Prosecution Service failings must be examined.

Then there are the "charity" visits to hospitals where nurses told child patients to pretend to be asleep. I can understand how the nurses felt. Sometimes it is easier not to act, for speaking up often opens up a vault of greater unpleasantness. Anyone who has worked in a public facing role, perhaps in a bar or a restaurant, will have experienced the situation where someone deeply unpleasant occasionally visits. The desire is to impose a permanent ban of the person from the premises, but often it is easier to tolerate the oaf, usually with the comfort of knowing they will be gone in half an hour. Life can carry on as normal until their next visit.

However, this is insufficient in this situation. If these health practitioners knew something, they should have done something. This was about someone taking children to his grubby car to abuse them.

The children who were victims of Savile were let down by everyone. The abuses were allowed to happen by those charged to look after them. Although the misery they experienced was clearly known about, they were left to suffer in silence. To put it another way, they were seen but not heard.

A missing schoolgirl, a selfish teacher and a media storm

This is without question the hardest article I have ever had to write. The case of 15 year-old ***** ******* running off with her maths teacher Jeremy Forrest has been one that has greatly preoccupied the nation for the past week. However, so much nonsense has been written, from men trying to excuse Forrest’s actions, to those already deciding to convict Forrest, I have decided to take a deep breath and write.

The first question to address is “why?” Why this case? Why *****? After all, children in the UK go missing every day – each case equally as important. The simple reason: it is the sort of story the public loves to consume. It had the lot. It was sordid. It had mystery. There were plenty of witnesses, such as classmates, neighbours and teaching staff, ready to contribute to the script.

Tabloid journalists were able to invigorate their own dull and predictable home affairs routine by writing extensively about the case. They enjoyed speculating on what the pair were getting up to. The most frightening aspects of the teacher’s lifestyle were given a full and exaggerated analysis.

Voyeuristic readers were able to consume it, and make value judgements based on what they had read, and anyone who has taken an interest in this story is equally as guilty. As we absorbed the literature, we were able to morally justify our own irrelevant interest in a European missing persons case by criticising the actions of others. Everyone from police officers to staff at the much-criticised school were blamed for allowing it to happen.

The public, for their part, have at times reacted as rationally as you would expect. The majority hoped and prayed that both alleged abductor and abductee would return safe and well. Forrest, 30, has questions to answer. He is likely to face child abduction charges, and if found guilty is likely to serve a custodial sentence.

There is no doubt that any such punishment, if convicted, would be deserved. The lack of regular updates from their daughter would have had *****’s family in pieces. Media reports of Forrest’s bizarre online interests adding to fears that the schoolgirl was not in safe hands. At the very least, Forrest’s apparent selfishness gave no consideration to anyone else. His own parents were also overcome with worry.

For one week of madness, the man has given up his career, his wife and probably his liberty. He would be considered dangerous, if not so apparently stupid.

However, there are also irrational debates playing out in the public sphere. Examples of which can be found on this fleet street fox article and this marathon debate on the digitalspy website.

There are (mainly) men trying to justify Forrest’s behaviour. In its crudest form, some have implied that because the girl in question has a womanly figure, the relationship is somehow justifiable. Another is regarding the dichotomous nature of the age of consent, with 16 being acceptable and 15 not. The girl’s keenness has also been used as a means of justification.

There are two counter-points here. Firstly, the teacher is in a position of responsibility. The law reflects this, therefore until she is 18, any intimacy is strictly prohibited between teachers and pupils. Secondly, I ask just one question to those men who use such justifications: what if it was your daughter? Cue change of tune.

Another crude justification is that “it’s alright when the roles are reversed and it’s an older woman and younger lad – look at Caroline Flack and Harry Styles”. This is actually true and is something that society needs to debate and address. Caroline Flack, 32, received a lot of, erm, flak, when dating the young 17 year-old singer from One Direction – mostly from jealous One Direction fans. Meanwhile, wider debate was merely gossipy, with even begrudging admiration for them. Flack was cast as a ‘cougar’ (the predatory nickname for women who bag a younger model), and Styles as the young lad living the dream. Reverse the roles and you get a very different narrative: the story of the vulnerable and the predator – and not predator in the tongue-in-cheek context of the cougar either.

The idealism of true love has also been offered as a means of justification. It is true that anyone can fall in love. Sometimes people fall in love with someone they should not fall in love with. At 30 years of age, regardless of feelings, it is a matter of self-discipline to ensure that the relationship is not a wholly inappropriate one. All things considered, the relationship was inappropriate and the teacher/pupil context only serves to amplify the fact.

There are some other dangerously extreme writings on the matter, some of which may well fail the tests of libel at a later stage. Some have already taken it upon themselves to assume that something sexual has taken place between the pair. However probable this may be, it goes against any confirmed facts. More worryingly, another libellous term, beginning with the letter “P” is being chucked around extremely recklessly to describe Forrest (see the fleetstreetfox article link above). Again, he has not been convicted of anything, and the “P” word is an exaggeration of whatever he did do, however appalling his actions may be to us.

This was the hardest thing I have had to write for this blog, but that also made it a challenge. Hard, because in many ways it is a risky subject to tackle, and the wrong words can lead to a perception that I am defending the indefensible. These are issues that are not easily addressed by young men. Not that this blog ever has dealt with easy topics – witness my claim that men cannot be authentic feminists from a couple of months ago. The key thing to consider is that for about thirty minutes earlier today, when listening to The Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2, I started to assume the worst had happened. ***** ******* came home safe and well. For that we can be thankful.

Will BBC's new Director General drag the broadcaster back to the centre?

This week, George Entwistle has taken up his role as the new BBC Director General. All eyes will be on him, watching with interest in anticipation of which direction he will take the broadcaster. In particular, left-of-centre observers will be keen to see it brought back to the centre, following the excessive move to the right in a bid to correct its previously assumed leftist bias.

The myth of the BBC being substantially biased to the left (with the in-built implication of the broadcaster favouring the Labour Party) remains, often floated as a concept in newspapers which are explicitly biased towards the right - so hardly a neutral jury themselves. Demonstrations of this can be found in the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and even The Sun. A Google search of "BBC bias" generates a whole plethora of websites of right-whingers claiming to feel hard done-by.

Such falsehoods become easy to promote when even the previous Director General of the BBC has claimed the broadcaster had to be seen to be compensate for a perceived leftist bias. Yet while under Thompson, the BBC may have been playing appeasement politics with its right-wing critics, the facts demonstrate that there are fewer and fewer visible leftist biases - in fact the opposite could indeed be argued.

It may have simply become in the interests of BBC reporters and researchers to take a right-wing standpoint on certain issues. While the structure of the BBC may be designed for it to be unbiased, the agents within it can speak their biases through their narratives. Furthermore, I would speculate that it is in the interest of many who are handsomely remunerated in the broadcast industry to share the interests of wealthy Tories. This is partly how the BBC is able to parade the Jeremy Clarksons of the world.

Can we really expect balance when Clarkson can go on whatever light entertainment programme he feels like, inflicting his views on anyone who will listen, all with a bit of a laugh? What about the BBC's Political Editor, Nick Robinson, who was a Young Conservative at the University of Oxford? And why is the Chairman of the BBC Trust a Tory? Why did Mark Thompson feel it necessary to steer the broadcaster, whose 'left bias' was only ever tenuous at best, to the right?

With the BBC in its current state, it is difficult to envisage voices of opposition and contention to the coalition government being sufficiently aired. An example of this malaise has been the coverage of the piecemeal privatisation of the NHS. For me, the process started with the Private Finance Initiative schemes, where public services were produced in association with private-sector providers. The benefit to the government was they got their new hospitals, schools and prisons up front, and the corporations that supplied the goods were paid back in installments over years, often decades. Now there is an expansion of this creeping privatisation.

All public spheres will inevitably have some relationship with private suppliers. Schools will not be expected to make their own calculators, for instance. However, the sale of ever greater slices of our public services has been woefully under-reported by the BBC. There is a quiet outrage on social networks about the unequal relationship between the reporting of the government's health upheaval and the breasts of the Duchess of Cambridge. This discursive media struggle is yet to play out on the main stage of debate.

This under-reporting may be because of the BBC’s own awkward position regarding the use of the private sector to provide services. A reasonable amount of its programming is produced by independent production companies, and the new Director General is keen for that to be increased.

However, on a broad level, there is still potential for BBC to reassert its role as the premier impartial public broadcast source - a status arguably lost to ITN. The following recommendations are ones which the BBC would do well to heed:-

1. The Staff: Employees in senior positions of the BBC hierarchy should neither be sourced from political parties, nor be strongly attached to one. The reason for this is it may lead the public to believe their public service broadcaster is (er...) biased! It would help if high-profile presenters were not using their light entertainment shows to sneakily transmit their political agendas.

2. Fair discussion for both sides of a debate: There should be rules for debates carried out applicable to all broadcasts. There should be a proponent, and opponent, and an agreed structure for their debate.

3. Fixing the in-built Question Time bias problem: Question Time is the BBC's leading political debate programme, but it is in serious need of a review. In the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats take turns along with the Tories to ask questions to the Prime Minister, as they are part of a coalition. On Question Time, no such compromise has been made, as both parties from the coalition government benches are given representation. This would be less of an issue if the coalition had not set a precedent for collegiality in British coalition-building. On Question Time, therefore, we end up with two people making a slightly different defence of the government position, from their slightly different party political positions. These panelists are usually supplemented by the obligatory right-wing noise supplied by the David Starkeys and Kelvin MacKenzies of the world. This is nowhere near 'balanced' enough for a public service broadcaster.

At present, there is a fertile environment to generate distrust of the BBC and their news agenda. As I hope to have demonstrated here, addressing some of the above concerns, where practical would go a long way to rebuilding the trust the left has lost in the BBC.

The left certainly not suckered in by the Olympics

'The London Olympics are the most right-wing major event in Britain’s modern history', proclaims Andrew Gilligan. In his article about the event, he correctly argues that the London Olympics provide advertising space for large corporations, that unsubstantial protests have been squashed and people have been kicked out of their homes. However, contrary to his claims, by having the audacity to actually enjoy the event, the left have not been "suckered in" by the Olympics.

The part of the event that Gilligan refers to that had us captivated (much more preferable to the phrase "suckered in") was the opening ceremony, brilliantly conceptualised by the director Danny Boyle. I enjoyed every minute of it and tweeted my delight during the latter hours of the event, therefore I missed parts of it. I will watch it again when time allows and I am looking forward to it already.

The opening ceremony was particularly outstanding because it provided an account of British history which meant something to the viewers. People I know from both the right and the left of the political spectrum loved it. There were few dissenters, despite my rather cynical network of friends.

My favourite part was the emergence of the industrial revolution, accompanied with lights, fireworks and high-energy music. Sadly, there was no Margaret Thatcher figure to smash it to pieces at the end of the episode to add to the accuracy of the proceedings.

The deliberately extended section celebrating the NHS told the world that our health service is something to be celebrated. After witnessing that, it is entirely up to the present government if they wish to smash that to pieces as well. If there is only the possibility that the show would make the coalition government think twice about dismantling the NHS, then it has contributed to the future of our nation in a small way.

The celebration of Britain's multiculturalism was sufficient to have some far-right politicians tweeting with rage, generally embarrassing themselves and playing a game of roulette with their careers in the process. And as for the appearance of Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti, I imagine that would have been the straw which broke the camel's back for many Tories.

It was the opening ceremony that had the lot. It had the lights, the pyrotechnics, tributes to my favourite bands of the past few decades, Dizzee Rascal, our finest sportspersons, Mr. Bean, animals, the Queen and James Bond.

Looking at the bigger picture, I appreciate the claims made by Gilligan. While I agree with his distaste about the influence of corporations, I warn him against selectivity. There is much to celebrate, particularly the inclusiveness encouraged. To witness Saudi Arabia shamed into including female athletes as part of their team is consistent with the Olympic spirit.

To witness countries I have never heard of bringing with them small teams, however nominal their performances turn out to be, delivers to people something that FIFA has never been able to achieve with football.

The leftists are right to celebrate this, yet we have not taken our eyes off the ball. Between appreciating the opening ceremony, there were also plenty of online updates about the plight of protesters in and around the Olympic event.

There is already an emerging anger about how corporations have swallowed up tickets for events and not used them, resulting in empty seats for events that the general public were disappointed to have missed out on. This ties in beautifully with theory (and not just among leftists) that corporations and banks are monumental wrecking machines responsible for a vast proportion of misery, economic or otherwise.

I am now looking forward to enjoying the sport, yet I remain aware of the wider issues of which the Olympics are a symptom rather than a cause. If we are to change corporate discourse, we must do so at the root of it, not at the expense of life and events operating within it, such as sporting events or even our own purchasing decisions.

Despite their presence at the Olympics, I am not about to start guzzling jugs of Coca-Cola or bags of McDonalds, but I will remain partial to the occasional indulgence. Saying the Olympics suckered in the left is akin to saying Starbucks was an inappropriate choice of coffee shop for last year's London occupiers campaigning against corporatism, despite the fact London is a ruthlessly competitive place for business, where the strongest prevail, with the result of limited purchasing options.

So where else do protesters go for an emergency coffee fix? And where else would we go to find the excitement of the Olympics?

Can men write and engage with feminism?

I was intrigued by an interesting proposition the other day, a notion that men could be feminists. Is it possible? Can men champion the female cause? In theory, it is possible. For instance, racial oppression has been defeated in the past, with help from sympathetic white people who challenged the racist structures that allowed it to flourish. However, for reasons I will explain, I do not share the same optimism with gender relations.

Though men can take the position of gender theorists, it is far more difficult for them to be specifically feminists. To make it a little bit clearer, I am attempting to explain that men can research and write feminist scholarship, but they risk being seen as disingenuous (in particular, trying to court female interest), lacking in credibility, or participating in a movement that is none of their business. In other words, while it is technically possible for men to produce feminist research, they risk rejection.

I am going to use a simple example, perhaps a little too simple, but it is the most straightforward way of explanation. Take a look at the following picture. What do you see?

Source: The Sun (who else?!!)

Visually speaking, it is a photograph of Katie Price. The photo here shows in limited clothing, in front of an audience, positioned in a highly provocative pose. Two different feminists could have a two unique opinions of this image, depending on how liberal their feminist standpoint is.

The first feminist may see the picture as Price using her sexuality to promote her wealth and fortune, and enjoying the freedom of expression afforded to the modern woman. Another feminist may see the picture as Price bringing women's liberation into disrepute, playing up to male fantasies and causing women's rights campaigners - such as Emily Davison - to spin in their graves.

Herein lies the problem. The two feminist critics could engage in this debate, with the most likely outcome a stalemate and neither compromising towards the other's position. At least both leave with their credentials intact. Men engaging in such debate would not have that luxury.

A man could take either position in the debate, but they can easily be discredited by women who take the alternative view. By biological default, the man's strength of argument is weakened by the fact he is debating a feminist point when not female. If a man and a woman discuss women's politics from differing viewpoints, whose account appears to be most credible?

I enjoy reading about feminism. For the above reasons, I choose not to produce it or contribute to the literature. Maybe I feel it is not my place to, and it is a subject more appropriately and effectively tackled by women. Ultimately, men could create feminist scholarship, but with it comes a risk of it not being fully accepted as authentic.

The social influence behind Labour's support for military academies

The Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg, has caused uproar among many grassroots Labour activists by endorsing military academies to school the most troubled pupils in society. For many activists, it is an indication that the party cannot let the militarism of the early 2000s go, nor return to its natural habitat of the centre-left politics of days gone by. I cannot say I am overly enthused about the idea either. However, it is understandable why parties are sentimental towards military solutions to societal and global problems (that is of course when the coalition government are not cutting troop numbers) - there is much public support at stake.

Over recent years, we have witnessed the popularisation of militaristic discourse in this country. You only have to look at those heavily duplicated Facebook pages, urging support for the armed forces and tough jobs they are expected to undertake.

Meanwhile, it seems as though every helping of human misery is equated to those lives lost in the battlefield. At a time when football supporters were posting messages of good will on the Internet in support of the critically ill Bolton player, Fabrice Muamba, others were critical of the attention being given Muamba when hundreds of soldiers had lost their lives. They could have pointed to the many lost lives on the roads as well, but that is somewhat less political and less in tune with current popular military discourse.

Then there are the millions of pop records sold by the wives of servicemen. There are surely many choirs up and down this land, but the success of the military wives was no fluke. It was a true measure of support for the armed forces and their families. There are also the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' branded products and their variations, which nostalgically reflect a country under siege.

I could go on, but I think the amount of examples I have recalled are sufficient enough to support my point. Indeed, even old rocker John Lydon indicated a separation from his old punk persona by stunning Question Time viewers (and a few old fans, no doubt) by declaring that "one of the most beautiful things about Britain, apart from the NHS and the free education, is the British Army."

As a consequence of these glamourisations, the military is always going to be a central plank of any targeted election campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be on a par with those two great social creations, the NHS and our education system, as being something great. It is just a shame it seems the education system can no longer be trusted to school our youth despite the fact we invented it.

I have a lot of sympathy for those Labour activists working hard to battle the Tories, who fear that the support of military academies could possibly backfire and see Labour's 9 to 12 point lead turn to dust. I admire how critical they have been. To see the dozens of Labour activists I follow on Twitter irritated by the idea demonstrates a reflexivity among us that you would never see in Tory or Lib Dem activists.

Those Lib Dem activists who still remain despite Nick Clegg, David Laws and friends painting their party orange, and eroding the relevance of the party in the process, have hardly uttered a word of dissent. Meanwhile, sticking up for bad Tory ideas seems to be a core characteristic of many Tories who are so unflinchingly tribal. In fact, you see more antagonistic debate on the Tory benches in the House of Commons, than among those Twitter Tories.

So like the idea of military academies or not, you can guarantee it will be strongly debated within Labour before it ever sees the light of day.

Being a good Internet user rather than a troll can be a learned process

Hate campaigns against individuals, some of which disturbingly includes targeting tribute pages to the deceased, have become an unwelcome by-product of the growth of Internet social networking. The pure violence behind the words and actions of these so-called "trolls" is clearly something to be addressed. Legal powers exist to convict offenders, as with the case of the student who posted racist comments about the critically ill footballer Fabrice Muamba. I also believe that people need to be educated about appropriate behaviour on the Internet.

Public figures have started to speak up about some of the language and threatening behaviour they are subjected to online. There is some excellent writing emerging on the subject. One individual used a social networking site to threaten a Member of Parliament, Louise Mensch, with killing her children - above and beyond what you would imagine the very worst trolls could be capable of.

I urge caution at this point: the Internet phrase "trolling" has a broad definition and is used expansively. Many web forum and social network users will describe others as trolls, purely because they disagree with them. Anyone who has used forums over the years will already be aware of debating against the 'tyranny of the majority', and being classed as a "troll" - itself surely an act of trolling! Some may be described as trolls for constantly repeating the same points, which in fairness may become tiresome. Others may be described as trolls for repeatedly seeking out the same person on a social network in order to hassle them, something which can be more accurately described as stalking.

Trolling is also often described as someone writing with the distinct purpose of gaining a reaction. Using that definition, it could be argued that Mensch herself is a troll. That might be stretching things a little far. At the very worst, I would argue that the time Mensch spends on Twitter could be better spent working for her constituents. Yet however offensive you find Mensch's celebrity politics, there is no excuse for some of the material she has been subjected to. The word "troll" does not begin to capture the significance of it. The poison pen letters are criminal. It is not just celebrities being subjected to it either - a Brighton resident won a court battle to order Facebook to release the names of those who waged an online hate campaign against her.

While those who write the nastiest of material should be dealt with, there is also a risk of misunderstanding the behaviour of those who are yet to realise the Internet is no different to the outside world. Perhaps the most unforgivable fact about Mensch's tormentor is his age. At 60, he should be aware of what is acceptable and what is not.

I recommend a structured plan to improve conduct on the Internet without criminalising the immature, who simply need bringing into line. There should be a simple set of rules, which are brief and are displayed when someone logs on to the Internet for the first time. One one hand, the young person currently sitting in prison over a nasty racist tweet can only reflect on the big mistake he made. On the other hand, there is no way the ranting of a 60 year old man can be dismissed as life inexperience. These are challenges we must overcome.