[satnav]

I'm not really sure what investigations at The Sun and Mail On-line are likely to throw up. If The Sun find evidence of wrong doing it will simply support claims that the paper covered up his wrong doing. At the Mail I can't really see anyone giving evidence against him while he is still working at the paper. Perhaps if the paper suspended him people would be more likely to come forward and give evidence against him.

[Youngian]

Dark forces

[davidjay]

And there couldn't be a show without Punch:

[Youngian]

Differing perspectives from those who know Wooton. Is there anyone who doesn’t share Wooton’s politics lining up to defend him? It wasn’t a problem for Ralph Miliband for example when his reputation was attacked by the Mail

[Abernathy]

Hmm. Dark forces conspiring to bring down GBeebies because it is a direct threat to establishment vested interests, eh?

Sounds familiar . . .

Ahh yes, I remember it . . .

[safe_timber_man]

Seeing him of all people try and take the moral highground about personal attacks and Twitter pile-on's is vomit inducing. Soooo, I assume if it's all lies and smears he'll be suing, then?

[Boiler]

GBeebies were doing a vox pop in the local market today, on about cash which I think is one of their hobby horses. It was a golden opportunity to spin things - the big fruit and veg stall (which usually has a big queue) wasn't there today, and the garden plants stall was late so it looked even more deserted than normal.

Said market shrunk massively after Covid too.

[Boiler]

Anyway, it was all "an error of judgement"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66240304

[Tubby Isaacs]

"I, like all fallible human beings, have made errors of judgement in the past. But the criminal allegations being made against me are simply untrue.

"I would like nothing more than to address those spurious claims. I could actually spend the next two hours doing so, but on the advice of my lawyers I cannot comment further."

I must admit I'm not sure what law he's broken. But trying to buy dirty pictures under a pseudonym? Did he actually blackmail anyone?

But I think he's in trouble. Look at Zahawi by contrast, his lawyers told him he could say x, y, z. It was point missing stuff admittedly, but looks like Dan's lawyers have said "Don't say fucking anything, because it'll be lying"

[Andy McDandy]

It's said that when George Carman QC was representing Factory Records, his first bit of advice to the company was to point at Tony Wilson and say "Don't let him speak to anyone".

Given the lack of editorial control at GBN, I guess the fear is him forgetting what he's allowed to say, and ending up saying too much.

[Philip Marlow]

The extent to which consequences come to call may end up depending less on what Wotton's done and more on who he's done it to. Has he fucked over anyone important enough for this to turn into a major story? The gropetastic antics of Nick Cohen might finally have cost him his perch at the Observer, and attracted the attention of the NYT, but as far as the UK press is concerned the same collegial omerta which protected him for so many years is still very much in place.

[Philip Marlow]

Speak up you cowards!

[Watchman]

Mere weasel words

[Oboogie]

I must admit I'm not sure what law he's broken. But trying to buy dirty pictures under a pseudonym? Did he actually blackmail anyone?

He was allegedly in possession of a sex tape featuring a colleague which was filmed secretly without their knowledge. I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Edit: I left out the most serious bit...he allegedly paid someone £500 to make the film.

[Bones McCoy]

Brace yourselves for the "our pooves good, their pooves bad" stage of the media culture wars.

[Tubby Isaacs]

He was allegedly in possession of a sex tape featuring a colleague which was filmed secretly without their knowledge. I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Edit: I left out the most serious bit...he allegedly paid someone £500 to make the film.
[/quote]

That certainly would be illegal, but not sure that's been alleged by Byline yet. Though of course there are 2 parts still to come.

[Oboogie]

He was allegedly in possession of a sex tape featuring a colleague which was filmed secretly without their knowledge. I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Edit: I left out the most serious bit...he allegedly paid someone £500 to make the film.

That certainly would be illegal, but not sure that's been alleged by Byline yet. Though of course there are 2 parts still to come.
[/quote]
From the Byline Times story you posted:
"Mr Truby also told how, while he was flat-sitting for Wootton in 2013, who was visiting family in New Zealand, he found a padlocked holdall concealed behind Wootton’s washing machine – which he opened and found an external hard-drive inside containing a secretly-filmed video of an employee of The Sun engaged in sexual activity with their partner.

With the video, Mr Truby described finding a transcript of an MSN Messenger conversation between The Sun employee’s partner and ‘Martin Branning’.

“The MSN conversation [was] between the colleague’s partner and someone called ‘Martin Branning’ whereby an arrangement was indeed made to make the sex tape in secret, without his colleague’s knowledge in exchange for £500,” Mr Truby wrote. “I knew instantly that ‘Martin Branning’ was Dan.”

Byline Times has learned that, before ending his relationship with Wootton, Mr Truby confronted him over the contents of the holdall. Mr Truby said that Wootton made a tearful admission of guilt, acknowledging he was the creator and controller of the pseudonym Martin Branning.

Byline Times has put the content of this story in its entirety to GB News, MailOnline and the Metropolitan Police."

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/gb-n ... g-scandal/

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah apologies. That would certainly be criminal.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Fuck me. Unequivocally backing somebody and claiming a conspiracy because some stuff on social media is rubbish. The allegations aren't from "social media".

This woman was a minister.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Aaaargh!
I know she's utterly stupid but the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty!

There's a very big difference...