Well, apparently someone did!!!
www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66159357
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 10 Jul 23 at 18:27
|
If the lawyer's statement is accurate then shame on the mother and the Sun (and other media outlets).
This could ruin someone's career!
|
...the whole story has been iffy from start to this point, and I wouldn't bet against a few further twists and turns yet.
Frankly, it's yet another case of the fourth estate eating itself, and the press barons having another pop at the BBC.
(as The Sun thinks it's so important and purports to have an archive of evidence, why hasn't it engaged with the police rather repeatedly calling out the BBC?)
|
>> (as The Sun thinks it's so important and purports to have an archive of evidence,
>> why hasn't it engaged with the police rather repeatedly calling out the BBC?)
>>
I forgot for a moment that The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch who's company was sued for a lot of money in the States recently.
I'm sure that Rupert doesn't have any vested interests in denigrating the BBC.
|
|
As pointed out elsewhere is this the same Sun newspaper that paid a 16yo girls to leave school and show us her breasts?
|
|
And more importantly, what is Murdoch &Co wanting to take attention away from by running this story?
|
|
I would imagine that they would argue that such photos were not indecent.
|
|
They'd probably say it was 30 years ago and legal at the time and they weren't on crack cocaine. Thus its whataboutery.
|
I see Nicky Campbell is going to sue everyone on Twitter who named him as the suspect.
I suspect most are "straw men", but some with assets may have to start worrying.
|
The lawyer is from a major firm. We have to assume that they do have the young person’s authority to act and speak on their behalf.
The problem is that they don’t seem to be saying that nothing happened but that nothing illegal happened. Unfortunately this looks unlikely to end well for anyone involved.
|
The BBC have now published a timeline from the May complaint to date:
www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-statement
|
I wonder if the press complaints commission will become involved.
Surely not !
|
|
Its the Sun, of course you can make it up.
|
Wall to wall news coverage of what is, thus far, a complete non-story.
We don't know who the complainant was, who the presenter was, who the "child" was, what evidence the Sun had, whether there is any substance to the complaint.
Never mind - not much else going on in the world - cluster bombs, climate change strikes, Wimbledon, test matches, NATO ............
All quite trivial compared to a presenter who may or may not have have paid for online exposure of a child or young adult.
Is the issue that he was a TV presenter (apparently), or that he paid (if he did) said "child". If those sort of thrills excite him (or possibly her) they are available for free (so I am told) or for not very much online.
|
|
How many lives do they have to ruin, just to sell a few more newspapers.
|
Never knew "hue and cry" had this particular meaning (from Wikipedia)
"By the Statute of Winchester of 1285, 13 Edw. I statute 2. capitulum 4, it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff."
|
Its interesting that the Sun does not consider itself on ground firm enough to name the individual. And why they choose to filter out and ignore all the other stuff, like the police initially declining to intervene and the "victim" denying anything happened, instead doubling down on the allegations.
There is an possible ulterior motive here, one may think beyond the desire to sell news.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Jul 23 at 09:52
|
Murdoch hates the BBC. The Sun considers it is its responsibility to shame the BBC at every opportunity, giving it's client the Conservative party (which demonises the BBC because it can't control it) the opportunity to demand the removal of the licence fee (which 30p Lee and co. already have).
This has quickly become about the BBC, not the alleged behaviours themselves. If they have slipped up, it is in not sending the complainant straight to the police and reporting the matter themselves. That lies at the door of the manger(s) involved and is IMO irrelevant to the licence fee matter.
We must all know by now where speculation has settled. I can't in all conscience say the name, since (a) he might not be the subject of the complaint, and (b) it's not even clear that anything illegal has occurred.
|
>>We must all know by now where speculation has settled
Nope and don't care.
Someone pointed out to me that the teenager was likely aged 18 or 19 otherwise they would have said illegal underaged etc.
|
>> >>We must all know by now where speculation has settled
>>
>> Nope and don't care.
A name was mentioned in another forum, probably based on when they ceased to be on the BBC. I don't know whether it's right or not.
If it's simply a case of a man with gay leanings, in or out of the closet, buying porn pictures legally then who cares?
And some folk do should their prurience be satisfied?
|
>> If it's simply a case of a man with gay leanings, in or out of
>> the closet, buying porn pictures legally then who cares?
>>
>>
There's nothing to suggest it's a male who received the money.
|
>>There's nothing to suggest it's a male who received the money.
Not sure I understand that.
|
>> There's nothing to suggest it's a male who received the money.
>>
I'll quote it all.
I'm saying it may well be a male presenter and a teenage girl.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Jul 23 at 20:50
|
>> I'll quote it all.
>>
>> I'm saying it may well be a male presenter and a teenage girl.
I thought the one thing clear in the reports is that the vendor of the pictures was male?
The Mail for example refers to a 'Youth' which although, maybe, neutral in itself is always used to refer to males.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jul 23 at 13:21
|
'The Mail for example refers to a 'Youth' which although, maybe, neutral in itself is always used to refer to males.'
I'm just going to mention 'trans'. Diversity and all that...
|
>> The Mail for example refers to a 'Youth' which although, maybe, neutral in itself is
>> always used to refer to males.
Whats the female (or non specific gender) equivalent of "Youth"?
|
>> Whats the female (or non specific gender) equivalent of "Youth"?
I agree that in normal UK English it's pretty much, at least in the singular, exclusively used for males. My dictionary, Collins, says 'usually' male.
|
It seems quite an odd situation that practically every journalist in the UK is aware of the name. Yet they are dancing on pinheads avoiding dropping a hint.
JV looked particularly annoyed that the individual hasn't made a statement.
|
>>If they have slipped up, it is in not sending the complainant straight to the police and reporting >>the matter themselves.
Thing is, it's all here-say. Without pictures as evidence there is nothing to report to the police and of course, having the evidence would be illegal in itself - remember the senior London police woman who was found guilty of possession of illegal images sent to her (not requested by her).
I do wonder if the transaction was via one of those adult sites like "Only Fans"? If it was, and the person is over 18 then there is probably nothing illegal in what has been done. Sleazy, probably, illegal, no. Again, lets not forget the Sun published topless and nude photos of young ladies for years.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 12 Jul 23 at 12:45
|
>>the Sun published topless and nude photos of young ladies for years.
Including 16 year olds, whom they presumably paid. Even doing countdowns to their 16th birthdays, I read earlier.
|
>>
>>
>> Including 16 year olds, whom they presumably paid. Even doing countdowns to their 16th birthdays, I read earlier.
>>
I think that was the Star.
|
>> I think that was the Star.
I suspect both. One model, Sam Fox?, left school at 16 to be paid as a page 3 model for the Sun.
The countdown, perhaps in The Star, I think was that relating to Charlotte Church.
The subtext, without doubt, was about her being able to legally consent to sexual intercourse.
Along with many other men of my age, at the time I'd have thought it risque and perhaps mildly distasteful but ultimately harmless.
My thoughts on such thing changed a bit after an item on the Facebook page for ex pupils of the Grammar School I attended from 11-18.
One former pupil, female and a few years behind me was doing an O level in some form of engineering drawing. The teacher of that subject was well known in the school for telling pretty filthy jokes to his, previously all male classes. I don't think he moderated it much for the presence of the girl.
On the day of her sixteenth birthday he treated the class to the couplet; when a rose is in bud it's ready to pluck, when a girl is 16 she's ready to f--k.
The youngster concerned wrote of her mortification, she'd never had a boyfriend or any kind of experience, and wanted the floor to swallow her up as the 14 lads in the class disoolved into laughter and worse...
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jul 23 at 15:30
|
>> treated the class to the couplet
I’m not sure that you’d still have a job after that nowadays!
|
|
At least Philip Schofield will be happy now the pressure’s off him and his shenanigans lol.
|
Revealed. Police not interested, no criminal case to answer
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469
|
>> Revealed. Police not interested, no criminal case to answer
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469
Statement issue by his wife on his behalf as he's "is now receiving in-patient hospital care where he'll stay for the foreseeable future." She refers to his long history of depression.
HAving seen the depths people can experience with depression he has my sympathy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jul 23 at 18:12
|
So that's all over, nothing to see now, move along to the next story... :-)
Actually word was out ever so early on who it was. My daughter told us sometime Saturday night, and she was probably behind the curve, though I'll admit was sceptical at the time.
I guess quick exposure (ha!) on the internet was inevitable as so many people must have been in the know.
|
|
I'll add him to my long list of 'stars' I've never heard of before.
|
'Huw never heard of him?'
I do watch a bit of BBC thanks to a reliable VPN, huwever I get all my news kicks from SKY (Sarah-Jane Mee, Jacquie Beltrao, Beth Rigby and the delicious Kay Burley, obviously).
|
So man gets suspended from work for doing nothing illegal and probably something quite common, because the Sun hates the BBC.
I would love to have a Voodoo doll of the Sun's editor, I know where I would be sticking the pins.
And surprise, surprise, Huw is found out to be a flawed human. I suspect most of us are in some way or another.
I wish him a speedy recovery from hospital.
|
>> I wish him a speedy recovery from hospital.
>>
I'll agree with that, but I can't comprehend why a well known public figure would send comments across the internet to total strangers that were certain to finish his or her career should they get into the public domain.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Jul 23 at 20:50
|
>>but I can't comprehend why a well known public figure would
>>send comments across the internet to total strangers that were certain to finish his or
>>her career should they get into the public domain.
>>
It's a well known condition: Horny man, uses wrong organ to do his thinking.
I suspect many of us have been there.
|
'I suspect many of us have been there.'
Many times. But in pubs and clubs, not on social media.
|
>> Woul Hugh believe it.
>>
huw cant trust anyone these days.
|
|
I wonder if the Sun paid anyone for this story?
|
>> I wonder if the Sun paid anyone for this story?
They say no payment was sought.
That's not the same as saying one was not offered and made.
|
Some questions, the answers to which might illuminate this.
What did the complainant want from the BBC? (Possibly 'compo'?)
Why didn't they go to the police? (See above.)
Why didn't the BBC simply say "give us the alleged facts and we will refer it to HR as a possible disciplinary matter, if you think the law has been broken you should go to the police"? (Because instinctively they didn't want the 'scandal' to get out?).
Nobody has come out of this well, and far too much airtime has been devoted to practically nothing except scurrilous speculation.
|
Going by what I've heard from many of the 'older' females at work the story in their eyes is that this a married man asking for saucy snaps of another male (even though they are over age)... apparently this will bring shame on him and his family!
I suspect this wouldn't have been the case if they were snaps of an over-age young woman...
Even on LBC this morning NF kept trying to bring the story up even though the majority of callers said it was a non-story.... apparently his 'red-top' past meant he just couldn't leave it alone.
|
|
I'm not going to go ferreting too far for info but the Beeb are still saying "young person". Has it been confirmed which sex yet, or are your workmates making assumptions?
|
>> I'm not going to go ferreting too far for info but the Beeb are still
>> saying "young person". Has it been confirmed which sex yet, or are your workmates making
>> assumptions?
>>
They're in enough trouble without upsetting the Trans community ;-)
|
>> I'm not going to go ferreting too far for info but the Beeb are still
>> saying "young person". Has it been confirmed which sex yet, or are your workmates making
>> assumptions?
Does it really matter? The ole bill is happy nothing serious happened, so gender speculation means nothing. No-one comes out of this well. The BBC, The Sun, The parents or the two persons involved. What a shoddy mess.
|
The Newsagents podcast covers this well over the last few episodes.
Sun hate the BBC. Sun have won out of this even though everything is a bit grey and murky on facts.
BBC have fed the Sun by keeping it going but, the alternative view which was mentioned, after Saville the BBC could not be seen to be anything but open and transparent and investigative themselves.
Jeremy Vine doesn’t come out it well. Poor me springs to mind.
|
I don't think I've ever seen or listened to Jeremy Vine but what did he do wrong? I thought he just pushed for the perp to be named, to take the heat off the other presenters. That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.
The Sun hasn't won anything in my view but then I didn't see it as a fight between them and the Beeb. I thought the BBC written reporting was very good, and remained impartial (open and transparent, as you say) as though it were independent of the Beeb. What else should they have done?
It really is consuming way too much time. And people seem to be making up things which suit their arguments where it doesn't exist.
|
Exactly. JV would have known who it was. Would have known that his colleague must be going through absolute hell with his family etc.
But all he cared about was that folk thought it was him even though he came out and denied it.
|
'But all he cared about was that folk thought it was him even though he came out and denied it.'
So would I. imagine how I'd feel if you guys thought I was exchanging saucy photos with a woman who hadn't had at least two children who were already at Uni?
|
...your wife has already posted on the subject....
Enjoy the rehab. ;-)
|
>> But all he cared about was that folk thought it was him even though he
>> came out and denied it.
If the rumour mill says it was me and I was not, or the facts were scrambled some other way, I'd not want to be in the firing line on t***ter etc; it's not a bundle of laffs.
If I was not the focus but my friends were then they'd deserve my support.
|
You couldn't make it up.... - zippy
