WHAT THE HELL-KIND OF CLOSED QUESTION IS THAT? And what the hell-kind of producer permits any kind of on camera interview to be conducted in which its audience is denied the right of knowing full details of what is being discussed?
My last post disparaged infantile speculation about establishment paedophilia on the internet; but here is a national broadcast organisation, on live TV, associating itself with pixelated gossip and downright lies.
Schofield did not present the PM with an open question, inviting him to comment upon internet speculation. He presented his list of public suspects as if they were all guilty and demanded to know if Cameron would be ‘talking to them.’
Had Cameron answered ‘yes,’ then the inference would have been that all on the list had questions to answer. And, had he answered ‘no,’ viewers would have interpreted his reply as his distancing himself from what Schofield was presenting as fact, or giving all names a clean bill of health.
But that is not the worst of it, what on earth could Cameron have contributed, as a third party, to events that allegedly took place when he had just entered his teens? And just what kind of interview was Schofield pursuing anyway?
Schofield’s actions are entirely consistent with the type of amateurish, irresponsible behaviour exhibited by the internet bloggers whose actions undermine the hard work of investigative journalists and strengthen the ability of the corrupt to file libel writs, and force injunctions, to ensure the truth is never told.
Schofield should have used what little intelligence he had, along with his purported ability to quickly interrogate the internet, to discover just who those bloggers actually are and from where their misinformation originates.
Perhaps then he would have been up to speed, and less likely to reveal himself as the blundering incompetent he has shown himself to be…