Pages

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Meirion's gone ... Part 2

I remember being shocked when I came across this strange story published in October 2012.
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220802/Meirion-Jones-BBC-war-astonishing-claims-reporter-aunt-saw-Savile-abuse-school.html
For a long time I wondered where this story came from. And then I got the answer from David Jordan in the Pollard report
Back to the who's who in the 'victim' 'witness' because, whoever was 'fed up' with Mei appears to have gotten a tad mixed up. Understandable in the circumstances, because the second person willing to go on camera as far as I've been able to establish is Rochelle Shepherd (R3). 
 http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/case-for-defense-day-two.html
Let's look at the wording of fed up shall we ?
Because, whoever fed up was, he/she apparently only learned of Ms 2nd 'interview' only very recently !

What was going on here ? I headed back to Pollard to see if I could make sense of this rather strange twist. Thankfully, the report contains 'witness statements' fro each of the main players. I was quite stunned when I read Jones' view of the stories.
 
 



Back to App 12
 Let's look again at these 'rough' scripts shall we ? Because, I for one want to know whether Rippon really had seen a video that contained this mysterious second interviewee. She (R3) whom the Mail have identified as Rochelle Shepherd, is certainly mentioned in Liz MacKean's evidence.
On 28th Nov 2012, she sent HER envisaged 'script' to Meirion Jones that includes what R3 will say
 
The 28th November is a Monday and that must be when they'd filmed the 'second VICTIM' according to the email Jones sent to Rippon on the 25th (Friday)
The problem for Jones being that NO SECOND 'victim' was filmed. This from Liz MacKean's evidence



Enter Stephen Mitchell deputy news editor whom Rippon was reporting to at the time.
To which Rippon replied
It's patently obvious that Mitchell has at this point no idea that the headmistress is Jones' aunt. Pollard questioned him about these emails
Mitchell was not sent any of the 'scripts' made by Jones or MacKean 
 
 And, the last one that appeared to be seen by Peter Rippon was on 29th November. It does NOT include any testimony from any second 'victim' or witness for that matter. But of course, she has NOT been interviewed on camera yet
The point is, did Rippon ever see the finished video ? Did anyone ? Where is it ? Why didn't Jones advise 'senior managers' about his unhappiness about Rippon's decision to pull transmission ?

To be continued ! BUT guys and gals, let me leave you with another gem that I picked up in my burrowing. Meirion, you really are an idiot aren't you !

I don't suppose he has a new job yet does he ? 


 







7 comments:

  1. re, that 30.4 reference...
    What other paedophile cases has he been involved in?

    He attended a school combo (St.Pauls/Clet Court), that has now been revealed as up to it's armpits in historical Pederasty but so far as I am aware Meirion knows nothing about it.

    Something is wrong with this picture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly is ! Jones has no excuse, no excuse whatsoever for not making his case before Jimmy died. David Jordan a senior manager called him out and it don't get much better than that ! That part where he squeals back at him : 'I'm going to quote you on that' What a jerk, I'm surprised they kept him on as long as they did. Of course they would have needed rock solid evidence that it WAS him who leaked. Come the cut backs, out he goes. So much for an award winning reporter ! Laugh out loud !

      Delete
    2. I haven't yet tracked down any obvious project that Meririon and MWT would have worked on together, but given that Meirion says to Pollard that they had worked together over about ten years, but not so much latterly, that ought to put it mid-late 2000s.

      Meirion did a bit of work with Greg Palast on US elections and the like. He's covered a pretty wide range of stuff, but I see no obvious TV subject that would have involved MWT.

      Anyone any ideas?

      Delete
  2. Given Jones and MWT's regard for rock-solid evidence. ahem, it occurs to me that they may have worked on one or more previous projects which didn't meet the more responsible standards of someone like Rippon and were similarly spiked by an editor or lawyer..
    One guess on a subject that they might have tried to expand upon is the Walton Hop. MWT claims to have been involved in the King affair and people, even at the time, were trying to link Savile to King and the Hop so it seems an obvious intersection of interests for the two men. It might even have been this which re-sparked Jones' interest in Savile, and re-awakened the half-forgotten Duncroft visits of his childhood.
    Incidentally, it's always surprised me that so little has been made of the Walton Hop in the recent round of witch-hunting. Maybe it's partly because there is no easy compo payout, partly because many rumours about Savile were, for years, that he was gay and that wouldn't fit the current narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This seems slightly tongue in cheek and comments indicate viewers considered it a non-story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5040226.stm
    "In December the oil trader also ended a legal dispute with BBC Newsnight over a feature published in May 2009. The programme agreed to: apologise for allegations made about waste dumping in Côte d’Ivoire on air and pay £25,000 to a charity of Trafigura’s choice, as well as legal costs."
    https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/trafigura-investigators-honoured-with-daniel-pearl-award/s2/a538421/

    ReplyDelete
  4. "says he found a handful of key copies in a routinely declassified but obscure Foreign Office counter-proliferation archive....the UK's key role seems to have been completely unknown to historians"
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/04/past.nuclear

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you search for "trafigura bbc libel" (without quotes) you will find plenty of evidence that the story was a big deal at the time.
    It wasn't at all trivial, regardless of whether it it was thought to be either poor reporting and a grievous libel or the BBC being bullied into submission.

    ReplyDelete