dirty dingus Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 minute ago, itzdrk said: That would be quite the breach of powers for the police to go through someone's bank accounts for someone who says that they are not a victim nor have they reported anything to them. We haven't reached that level of dystopia just yet. They will if they believe blackmails involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Just now, itzdrk said: That would be quite the breach of powers for the police to go through someone's bank accounts for someone who says that they are not a victim nor have they reported anything to them. We haven't reached that level of dystopia just yet. Not so sure. She’s made some serious allegations, possibly criminal if false. It seems the first thing the polis do these days is go through phones/laptops to see what their suspect has been up to. £35k there? Someone has some explaining to do. No £35k? Someone has some explaining to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMoore Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Not necessarily. There might have been pictures exchanged but not when underage and not involving huge sums of money to feed drug habits. We don't know, and we're probably not going to. I expect the news cycle to move on now, midst relief that nobody was named. 26 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said: So a side from everything else, has there been any context for the picture of Huw Edward's arse trending? I was also referring to Huw's arse pics btw. Edited July 10, 2023 by RuMoore 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 3 minutes ago, RuMoore said: I was also referring to Huw's arse pics btw. Not sure why you've quoted my post. It wasn't in response to anything you'd said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Not so sure. She’s made some serious allegations, possibly criminal if false. It seems the first thing the polis do these days is go through phones/laptops to see what their suspect has been up to. £35k there? Someone has some explaining to do. No £35k? Someone has some explaining to do. Could almost guarantee if somehow there's another twist and this is a vulnerable person who has received £35k once they've got their unnamed presenter blood they'll circle back for the TAX AVOIDER. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Not so sure. She’s made some serious allegations, possibly criminal if false. It seems the first thing the polis do these days is go through phones/laptops to see what their suspect has been up to. £35k there? Someone has some explaining to do. No £35k? Someone has some explaining to do. The police actually need to have reasonable suspicion before they can get a warrant. The mother already put herself in a bad spot by going to the papers before the police. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 18 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: They will if they believe blackmails involved. 19 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: They will if they believe blackmails involved. Racist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, Brother Blades said: Racist BBC's involved. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 The mother has not contacted the police, therefore has not committed a crime. The mother has also not named the person, so is not guilty of slander and can't be taken to court and sued. Neither have the Sun, so can't be sued either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Blades Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said: The mother has not contacted the police, therefore has not committed a crime. The mother has also not named the person, so is not guilty of slander and can't be taken to court and sued. Neither have the Sun, so can't be sued either. So, the mother just said to the Sun (scum) that there was a BBC employee (male) earning upwards of £100k a year from the corporation, on that evidence, the sun published a story, as a result of that story, an employee was suspended, so nobody mentioned a name in all this? Of course the mother named an individual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Brother Blades said: So, the mother just said to the Sun (scum) that there was a BBC employee (male) earning upwards of £100k a year from the corporation, on that evidence, the sun published a story, as a result of that story, an employee was suspended, so nobody mentioned a name in all this? Of course the mother named an individual. Not publically, however, which is key. There is no way for an unnamed presenter to prove that their reputation has been damaged and that they have suffered loss as a result. Edited July 10, 2023 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 22 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: The mother has not contacted the police, therefore has not committed a crime. The mother has also not named the person, so is not guilty of slander and can't be taken to court and sued. Neither have the Sun, so can't be sued either. Not necessarily, there aren't that many prominent BBC presenters known by millions. Quote The risks don't end there, thanks to a 1986 case that leaves bona fide trained journalists with the shivers. Back then, a newspaper reported an allegation that a detective in Banbury's CID unit had raped a woman. It did not name the detective. But the unit only comprised 12 officers. Members of that group successfully sued, saying enough people knew who they were to assume that they might be the guilty party. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleMoo Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 I'll be honest here. I don't know what the f**k is going on! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Billy Jean King Posted July 10, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, MuckleMoo said: I'll be honest here. I don't know what the f**k is going on! It hasn't stopped anyone else on the thread so wire in. 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMoore Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said: Not sure why you've quoted my post. It wasn't in response to anything you'd said. The quote of your post was you directly responding to someone responding to me about big Huw's arse pics... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Not necessarily, there aren't that many prominent BBC presenters known by millions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66148321 They'd still need to prove reputational damage was caused to them by these claims, which, currently anyway, would be impossible for anyone to prove. Something being categorically untrue isn't in itself enough to be slander or defamation. Slander / Defamation cases are civil matters, and are brought against whoever publishes the statement(s). That's clearly why the Sun won't be naming anyone and perhaps feel that there are too many possibles for the example given in that article to be applied. The mother, though, hasn't published anything at all and, assuming she doesn't go on to do so, isn't liable. People posting stuff on Twitter, Facebook, Pie & Bovril etc, however could be, though again the presenter(s) named would have to show that they had suffered damages as a result of a particular post, which is extremely unlikely to be the case in most instances. Edited July 10, 2023 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 3 minutes ago, RuMoore said: The quote of your post was you directly responding to someone responding to me about big Huw's arse pics... I see. My post had nothing to do with Huw though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 So now the mother and step-father of the young person say that they are sticking by their story. This will all end with the kid suing their own mother or something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, AyrshireTon said: So now the mother and step-father of the young person say that they are sticking by their story. This will all end with the kid suing their own mother or something. Unlikely, tbh, for the reasons given above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 2 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.