Remember the Lord MacAlpine debacle?
He was outed ( by a concerned citizen) on live TV as being a suspect of child abuse. He won various apologies, damages and OFCOM ruled;
' both programmes had breached the broadcasting code and had treated Lord McAlpine unfairly, causing him distress and embarrassment.'
He was found to have done nothing illegal. So why did he get apologies and damages when Brenda got thrown to the dogs? Is it because he had more money and influence than she did and she was a disposable 'no-body'?
snip
Remember the Lord MacAlpine debacle?
He was outed ( by a concerned citizen) on live TV as being a suspect of child abuse. He won various apologies, damages and OFCOM ruled;
' both programmes had breached the broadcasting code and had treated Lord McAlpine unfairly, causing him distress and embarrassment.'
He was found to have done nothing illegal. So why did he get apologies and damages when Brenda got thrown to the dogs? Is it because he had more money and influence than she did and she was a disposable 'no-body'?
Exactly great post it more or less what i was trying to point out
Brenda didn't have the money
T