legb4rsk

Fair enough.He was wronged.
But seeing as he is as rich as a very rich thing & had his fortune handed to him on a plate(hier to McAlpine building empire.Made a director at 21)would it not be nice if he gave any money he wins to a child abuse charity?

David Lock

I heard he was hoping to reach a settlement with Beeb? Has this changed?

Anyway it's our money that will be used

dl

Leslie

He deserves compensation for being so shockingly accused because of the BBC's ineptitude.

The BBC will have to answer to us as well for wasting licence payers' cash.

Les

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Absolutely! I don't think he should be lenient, thanks to the BBC he will forever be connected so some extent with paedophilia. That is just not right or fair!

The BBC need taking apart for this!

Leslie

Dead right I say!

Les

Tony Harrington

iTrader: (8)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978

Can't blame him really, in fact if you were in his position what action would you take?

Don't think many of us would lay down belly up!

Myles

iTrader: (40)

It was our money, but I cant see a problem with him suing BBC and taking some for his pain. The way I see it (and I like Top Gear so there are no hard feelings here), Top Gear have spent 20 years of my licence fee when they buy a £3k car for some test where they, truth be told, knacker it. Never talk to me about wasted licence fees, look at Strictly Come Dancing. Ann Widdecombe was paid £80k for her part. That is near on 45 years worth of my money.
I'd prefer someone who was wronged so badly, like McAlpine, to get what he deserves. He'll give it all away, in any case.

Suresh

I might be wrong but isn't TG a big export earner which brings in much more than it costs?

McAlpine is right to sue and a couple of hundred grand compo for a politically motivated accusation is likely just a token amount that he wants in order to show wrong-doing on behalf of the Beeb.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Things like this are why I think the corporation should be dismantled. It's a dinosaur that has no place in the 21st Century! As for what they have done to McAlpine I think £185K is way too little.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

You are probably right about the overseas earner. I just like to analyse it at the lowest common denominator. The viewer/licence payer is now the lowest common denominator unfortunately.

ScoobyWon't

I expect that the BBC will have to pay compensation to all those who Jimmy Saville abused too, so that's us, the licence payer, who will be picking up that bill too.

The Beeb will need to sell much more than Top Gear worldwide to cover those costs.

Leslie

I see in the news that his lawyers are combing the Net and its social programmes in a effort to track down all those who were silly enough to mention his name in connection with paedophilia. They are threatening to sue!

There will be a few who had better keep their heads down then.

Les

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Finally, the comeuppance of the keyboard warrior. Sally Bercow at the head of the list, just goes to show money doesn't necessarily mean you can buy brains.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

I was wondering whether any of the people being pursued by McAlpine's lawyer will try to sue the BBC. Would be an interesting class action for an enterprising lawyer trying to make a name for him/herself.

Tidgy

Top gear is a big earner for the bbc, 100mill a year or summit like that so i understand.

i thought the bbc gave no names on the show?

PeteBrant

At which point do you think the BBC "shockingly accused" him?

Leslie

I should have said "as good as" really. It has certainly cost them a lot of our licence fees anyway.

Les

PeteBrant

It cost the BBC £185,000. Easily covered by profit, it needn't touch the license fee at all. And it should have never been stettled out of court, and Entwhistle should never have gone. THe BBC named no one. THey shoul dhave fought it instead of being this fawning apologietic creature.
They are not to blame for Saville and they are not to blame for the McAlpine smear.

cster

Are you pissed?

scud8

iTrader: (1)

I suggest you go and read up on libel law before you get yourself in trouble. McAlpine would simply have to prove that the net effect of the BBC program was defamatory and that the allegations were untrue - naming him is not essential. The combination of the program and the tweet from the idiot journo beforehand setting off the feeding frenzy would be easily enough to prove defamation, so the BBC had no choice but to pay up.

Leslie

Try reading my post on that subject carefully so that you understand what I actually said!

Les