His direct quote is "In doing so, I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests."

In order to defame a person you first of all have to identify that person, do you not ?

Innuendo will suffice in some circumstances.

How many 'bølløcks' were dropped by how many in the media over Chris Jefferies?

And how many subsequent resignations?

I know if I made an almighty balls-up in my work then it wouldn't be any of my directors that resigned and left me in the same job.

We still come back to divide and conquror.

The bloke at the beeb being sacked is a smokescreen, as is, his final payout.

The over-riding fact is, child abuse has gone on and is still going on, and the children in need ( of abusing?) channel is still denying it.

Just to get back to the start, allegations were made about Jimmy Saville that opened up a whole can of worms. An awful lot of celebrities have come out of the cupboard " we heard the rumours", well why did'nt you say something about? Answer, "we were scared of losing our jobs and did'nt give a toss about the kids", but we can't say that.

Said it before, go back to Jersey and Dunblane.

I BELIEVE STEVE MESSHAM WAS ORIGINALLY TELLING THE TRUTH.

No. We are not going to start spreading rumours about named individuals here. Mintball

Suffer little children.

Why did the senior coroner of Stirlingshire not do Thomas Hamilton's autopsy?
Why did some nurses reports of the tradgedy altered?
Why was a 100 year curfew put on the inquirey?

it's all related.

Anyone who believes an experienced, high-profile and well-connected TV anchor (who has [iat least[/i another twenty years at the top providing he doesn't screw up and submit to the boiling piranha pool beneath him of eager contenders that covet his position) takes it upon himself - completely out of the blue - to harangue the PRIME MINISTER on live and national TV with a list of establishment paedophiles he "pulled off the internet" (FFS!) deserves a custodial sentence for naivety.

Anne Diamond has talked many times about the damage her career took pulling a similar stunt (on a far less explosive matter).

looks like Dave Lee Travis's career is now over.

Amazing how the powers that be have managed to turn all this away from a commons paedo ring.

It now looks like any woman who, as a 14 or 15 year old, threw themselves at ANY famous celebrity, is now allowed to have their 15 minutes of fame, while at the same time, destroying the reputation of that celebrity.

This whole thing has got to be stopped - You can't tell me that all these celebs (and there are bound to be many, many more exposed by our glorious media) are all paedophiles in the sense of what most people believe a paedophile is.

In my opinion, paedophilia is an adult knowingly forcing themselves on a minor, not an adult unwittingly sleeping with a willing participant, who happens to be underage, which is what I fear most of these cases will undoubtedly be.

To the letter of the law incorrect.

But you have a valid point, to me the phrase that said it all when the headlines were all about Savile was the number of young girls who confessed to being "abused" by him on several occasions and that being taken for a ride in his Rolls Royce had "a price to pay" for which they were willing to participate, repeatedly.

And lest we forget, no-one has been tried in a court of law yet, well, apart from Paul Gadd, and those who are alive and accused have all denied the charges, it will be interesting to see just how many of those arrests turn into convictions in future months/years, and there will be more accusations, many, many more.

McAlpine gets some compo. £185k

I bet there are hundreds, and I mean hundreds, of pop stars/celebrities from the last 50 years who are bricking it at the moment.

The problem is, the media have been happy enough promoting the heart throb image of countless pop acts, from the Beatles to the Bay City Rollers, Duran Duran, Bros, even upto One Direction nowadays, an image that as often involved young girls screaming and throwing themselves at these young, often naive, blokes, who must have thought it was Christmas, with all the girls on offer.....I don't think asking a girl her age is on a young bloke's mind, when the girl is offering it to you on a plate.

It now seems very hypocritical that the same media is now happily crucifying all these celebs who they have happily built up as some sort of demi-gods over the years.....It seems the 'build them up, knock them down mantra' is even more ruthless than normal.

And at the moment its focusing on those who were alleged to have been accepting what was handed on a plate in the 1960s and 70s, is it just cynical to believe that this is because they are easy prey, having been away from stardom for several decades and unlikely to now have the means to mount a robust and expensive defence whilst at the same time now being in their 60s and 70s and fitting the "dirty old man" image.

Will the spotlight turn on those who are still independently successful and wealthy and/or much younger when they can either fund a defence and attack, or not fit the predator profile with a pretty young face ?

Thats not to defend any who are guilty, but the media are VERY selective on who they crucify at times, and its worth repeating again NO-ONE has yet been charged let alone convicted..

NO-ONE has yet been charged let alone convicted.

And we don't know how many of these hundreds were coerced into it, or how many looked older than they were and threw themselves at the pop stars.

Jeez, when I think back to when I was eighteen and frequenting various discos around Yorks/Lancs, there's a few thousand probables for a start.

Ah you trend-setting cravat wearing old smoocher you, you're the sort who would frequent Rockafellers rather than Cinderellas and take a taxi home instead of walking five miles like I had to.