Absolutely stunned to see a template of a letter on the internet from McApline's solicitors demanding £10,000 go to Children in Need and £3,500 in administration costs. It seems to be genuine and I assume is to be directed at individuals who offended.

A few questions if this is so. Perhaps RMPI, Children in Need or the Solicitors Regulation Authority might like to respond to some of these questions?

1) Does Children in Need know about the demands made to pay them £10,000?
I suppose they must have been informed by RMPI Solicitors. However, have they considered the possibility that damage could be caused to their reputation by accepting money which has been demanded in this way? I certaintly would not pay money to a charity knowingly accepting donations in this way. I suspect many others would feel the same.

2) How is this compensation broken down in consideration that £310,000 has been accepted from media corporations already? Can RMPI provide a breakdown? And are these damages not punitive and well, well beyond what would be awarded in court?

3) The administrative costs seem very high. How is the figure of £3,500 reached?

4) Have the Solicitors Regulation Authority been in touch with RMPI yet? If so, have they commented on the way RMPI are going about this? Are they monitoring RMPI to ensure the conduct so far, and in the future is not in breach of the code of practice in dealing with third parties?

I am sure many readers will be interested in the answers.

The writer is a very shrewd operator indeed! or he must be one to have written such an astonishingly ill-informed and empty piece that reinforces the bias for the unjust law trade and courts system in England and Wales.
What is the "NEW STATESMAN" doing parading this "expert" "solicitor" on a matter that demands truthful, wide and ethical examination and debate?
The McAlpine Propaganda Onslaught that has been aimed "at the BBC" has in effect been the "balancing" "revenge” by all the secret admirers, backers and colluders of Rupert Murdoch and all that that rival to the idea of the BBC represents.
Jonathan Caod show no recognition of that in the piece. He also shows no awareness of the platforms that the real Right-wingers have had via the Leveson “evidence” sessions.
In none of these has there been any examination of the injustice of English legal system and the backwardness and the racism of the judiciary. No wonder that routine daily racist posts, comments are not taken into account by Jonathan Coad or indeed by anyone else that has had any persistent platform in the “mainstream” print or broadcast media outlets over the row that has given almost plausible legitimacy to Cameron and his political colluders.
Everything that has been “reported” by Fleet Street around David Cameron after he was allegedly ambushed by the ITV programme has been in the main a propaganda line for him and at the expense of the facts involved. And the libel by innuendo invention has been probably the most extraordinary aspect of the vengeance by the Margaret Thatcher Darkness Age Club members over the past fortnight! Mr Coad can calmly paint himself as a responsible lawyer whose best option as an expert commentator in the context of this subject is “to see no evidence”! He can thus be excused, as the utter majority of trading and licensed lawyers are excused daily across England and Wales the rigours to which ordinary mortals are subjected before being treated as having none of the rights or enteuee,em nts that the ECHR supposedly confers on them.
With the promotion piece for “the law” trade that he has done via the NEW STATESMAN Mr Coad can justifiably expect to go quite far in his career as a “safe” commentator!
Society, in contrast, will not gain at all as a result of his expertise as published by the NEW STATESMAN here.
It is the same Society that was reviled in that toxic Thatcher utterance and it is Society once again that is being smashed to bits by David Cameron who has adopted a posture as an alleged “soft” Rightist when in fact he is on record as having combined both extremes [as ideologically symbolic places] of Munich for his pro-racist manifesto and the Toynbee Hall [the OTT-hyped “place where saviours from the Establishment issue rescue calls to save the poor and the disenfranchised...”] in the East End of London as his dual-springboards for mounting the anti-Society Unfair Assault on the poor, the low income and the no-income and the most vulnerable in Society.
These facts denote the reality that happens “through the law”, including the fact that the absolute majority of ordinary income group people with rights, claims and entitlements that are violated and denied are barred from having any access to the due processes [flaunted as being available under the English legal system and via the English courts] when it comes to either having their full say in the court system or via the over-hyped “legally aided” “representations”!
It is only possible to be defamed in English courts and law trade system, if the subject of an alleged defamation has the requisite loads of money and it helps [as the “Mass” Misinformation media’s blanked and worshipful supplicatory coverage for the person McAlpine has shown] if they can show connections with either a sitting Premier or a former one!
1215 Hrs Thursday 22 November 2012

Apologies for the bluntness, but what utter crap!

The majority of tweets were not random allegations of paedophilia, they were accurate comments concerning the person who was subject to ALLEGATIONS on Newsnight. The tweets were largely accurate - it was the accuser and the police who were mistaken if I've understood this story correctly.

Whilst this is clearly unacceptable for Lord McAlpine if he has suffered unjustified harm, we should also consider that Jimmy Savile escaped justice because nobody dared to accuse him.

People have very short memories and it would become a paedophile's paradise if everyone was too intimidated to speak out. For the sake of the £5 in my pocket, none of this is intended as a dig at Lord M.