Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yeah, they changed about 2003, though I think The Sun had changed policy earlier.

From the BBC website:

We've now got a response from The Sun to the latest developments. The newspaper declined an interview and did not answer several specific questions from the BBC, including:

• What evidence has The Sun seen to back up its allegations against the presenter?
• How does The Sun explain the different ways it has reported the initial contact between the family and the BBC?
• Did The Sun ignore a Whatsapp message to its reporter on Friday evening from the young person disputing the story?

Instead The Sun reiterated its statement that "this has always been about a story about concerned parents trying to stop payments to their vulnerable child which was funding a life-risking drug habit".

In response to the BBC timeline, it said: "It seems to us that the family is being attacked by the BBC for not fully understanding their complaints system.

"It remains to be understood why the allegations weren't escalated and the presenter was not spoken to at the time."

Yeah, as Jon Sopel says, "the parents stick by their story" isn't evidence the story is true.

They might be pacing their revelations, of course, but they might not.

"We're representing the little people in this, won't somebody think of the children, not their fault they don't understand something complex, you're all big bullies, until things are explained to our satisfaction, we will carry on".

The Mail have the words "The parents of the drug addict teenager..."

Drug addict? Says who? The S*n? Or the mum, who is quite possibly this decade's Karen Matthews? Is there evidence of drug addiction other than from her say so?

From the BBC website:
We've now got a response from The Sun to the latest developments. The newspaper declined an interview and did not answer several specific questions from the BBC, including:

What evidence has The Sun seen to back up its allegations against the presenter?
How does The Sun explain the different ways it has reported the initial contact between the family and the BBC?
Did The Sun ignore a Whatsapp message to its reporter on Friday evening from the young person disputing the story?

The Sun says: ‘Metropolitan elite at it again looking down on our readers with their clever dick questions.’

Couple of points here from the BBC story.

The step-father is quoted in the article as saying allegations were put to the BBC "for an hour", appearing to contradict a previous statement in Monday's edition which stated: "The family say no-one from the corporation rang them for a proper interview after the initial complaint."

The article also reports that the step-father went to the police about the matter but was told "they couldn't do anything as they said it wasn't illegal."

It's possible they got an overworked desk sergeant who didn't know the law, but it's also possible that The Sun added "started at 17".

People tell me there are some well-known sites where people sell, er, pictures, directly to punters. Is that's what happened here initially, I wonder?

Looks worse for the BBC presenter now.

A second young person has revealed they felt threatened by the BBC presenter at the centre of a row over payment for sexually explicit images.

The individual in their early 20s, was contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, with the TV star sending abusive, expletive-filled messages when the person hinted they might name him online.


BBC News confirmed they had seen a number of “threatening messages” and confirmed it came from a phone number belonging to the presenter.

The suspended broadcaster is also accused of paying £35,000 for images over three years which began when another individual, now aged 20, was 17.

If that's true it's really stupid he did so from his own phone.

Anyway that rag are still cunts even if they emerge triumphant. A foul stench of a backdrop to late 20th Century/early 21st Century UK life that just won't go away.

The individual in their early 20s, was contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, with the TV star sending abusive, expletive-filled messages when the person hinted they might name him online.

Not sure what the crime is here apart from potential blackmail. In which case the snivelling grass got off lightly with a few choice words.

Thursday
Why didn’t the former DPP speak out? Starmer has questions to answer.
Friday
Shamed BBC presenter interviewed Megan Markle.

The Clapham omnibus approaching and Jeremy has his palm on a colleague’s back.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2023 8:48 am The Clapham omnibus approaching and Jeremy has his palm on a colleague’s back.

He was quick enough to go legal when his name got dragged into it.

Vine really is a little shit. Something about the surname.

As a child he would have been teacher's pet, telling tales about the other kids, naming names when the teacher asked the class which one committed some misdemeanor. As an adult in the workplace he'll be a brownose, arselicking management.

Despite the tabloids baying for blood and holding this presenter up as public enemy number 1, I'm still kind of expecting a column from Sarah Vine defending him!

Just noticed the Mail has done an article about the alleged presenter and his high salary.

Vine said on the programme that he knows the presenter concerned but had not spoken to him.

"I am very worried about his state of mind," he said.

Probably a good job Jeremy doesn't work on the Samaritans switchboard, if this is what he's like when he is "worried" about someone's state of mind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66164548

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 8:40 pm

The individual in their early 20s, was contacted anonymously by the male presenter on a dating app, with the TV star sending abusive, expletive-filled messages when the person hinted they might name him online.

Not sure what the crime is here apart from potential blackmail. In which case the snivelling grass got off lightly with a few choice words.

I've noticed "young person" has been doing a lot of work. The Police seem to have been sceptical of crimes too.