Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 11 minutes ago, jimbaxters said: I too think this. If they have suspended him then they obviously have enough evidence. Just get him outed. Lolwut? If they had "enough evidence" they'd fire them. Suspending someone at the centre of an investigation is standard practice and does not in any way imply guilt. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkst Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 10 hours ago, Derek Patterson said: Bit more box office... Reveal hidden contents Always wondered where the term "newsflash" came from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 An old classic updated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 40 minutes ago, Empty It said: Surely the BBC protecting the interest of the beast whoever it is, is actually harming every other presenter that's being accused. You can't just name someone who has been accused of something, without any evidence of guilt. The only people harming the other presenters are the wannabe vigilantes who have taken it upon themselves to try to "solve" this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 They would not be following their duty of care as an employer and could easily be sued if the person was found to be innocent. Even when it was a non-BBC employee in Cliff Richard, they had to pay substantial compensation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, craigkillie said: You can't just name someone who has been accused of something, without any evidence of guilt. The only people harming the other presenters are the wannabe vigilantes who have taken it upon themselves to try to "solve" this. The BBC do it all the time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Empty It said: The BBC do it all the time? Do you have any examples of this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 12 minutes ago, craigkillie said: You can't just name someone who has been accused of something, without any evidence of guilt. The only people harming the other presenters are the wannabe vigilantes who have taken it upon themselves to try to "solve" this. You say vigilantes, I say sweety wifes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Do you have any examples of this? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 8 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Do you have any examples of this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, Empty It said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65989993 "He is Matthew White, who died in 2021, aged 50. The BBC has found the Met Police seriously mishandled key inquiries related to him. In response, the Met has taken the almost unprecedented step of naming White as a suspect." Three important things bolded there. 1) He is dead and therefore is unable to sue for defamation. 2) He was named by the police, not the BBC. They are simply reporting it. 3) It is described as almost unprecedented to do this. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: Sturgeon was arrested by the police. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, craigkillie said: Sturgeon was arrested by the police. For what? She was released without charge. James Cook and the rest of the yoon goons from pacific quay had her hung drawn and quartered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 10 minutes ago, craigkillie said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65989993 "He is Matthew White, who died in 2021, aged 50. The BBC has found the Met Police seriously mishandled key inquiries related to him. In response, the Met has taken the almost unprecedented step of naming White as a suspect." Three important things bolded there. 1) He is dead and therefore is unable to sue for defamation. 2) He was named by the police, not the BBC. They are simply reporting it. 3) It is described as almost unprecedented to do this. Aye, but this is about a celebrity in his pants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 18 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: For what? She was released without charge. James Cook and the rest of the yoon goons from pacific quay had her hung drawn and quartered. Yes, but it is perfectly legitimate for the news to report on people being arrested. If this celebrity is arrested then it is likely that they will be named in a similar way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, throbber said: The person in question will surely get arrested as possession of these images is illegal for someone under 18? Assuming that the complaint is genuine then i'm sure that this will be the case. At which point they will be named. Astonishing how many people want to happily ignore what is the right thing for an employer to do because they are nosey. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 53 minutes ago, craigkillie said: They would not be following their duty of care as an employer and could easily be sued if the person was found to be innocent. Even when it was a non-BBC employee in Cliff Richard, they had to pay substantial compensation. Gonna be interesting when that yin is finally 6 feet under and there isn't an army of lawyers protecting him any more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 11 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Assuming that the complaint is genuine then i'm sure that this will be the case. At which point they will be named. Astonishing how many people want to happily ignore what is the right thing for an employer to do because they are nosey. I thought the "family were disappointed the BBC didn't contact them for full interview" was interesting. Surely they'd have been better contacting the police if they wanted to give a full interview and wasn't in any way a cash making exercise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) If the employer names the person concerned and it turns out this was a fabrication, then what? A career/reputation is ruined and the chequebook is out for compensation and for failure of the business to follow its processes. Fully understand why people want the individual named, as a side result is that a whole bunch of innocent parties are currently being accussed without evidence and that isn't fair at all. It's a different problem, right enough, and one at a societal level. Probably being conducted largely by the disingenuous "be kind" bores that appear whenever a celebrity they like has done something bad. Edited July 10, 2023 by Michael W 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.