Mailwatch(ed) Forum

If I was of the belief that my child is being groomed and sexually exploited by a much older man/woman I'm pretty sure my first call would be to the police rather than The Sun?

satnav wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:34 pm Why did so many news organisations give so much coverage to this story given that the Sun is a very unreliable source of news?

Murdoch loathes the BBC and he knows that any story that paints the 'Biased BBC' as bunch of 'Lefty paedos' will be eagerly lapped up by the rest of the right-wing media and their readership.

It's a good ten years since I had the inside track with this bumbacla'at outlet but, once you're across it, you really do never forget the modus operandi.

Question one: why didn't they initially name the alleged miscreant? Simple answer; string it out for clicks and newsprint sales.

Once that is rolled on to Day Two, the only answer is that the C-Suite lads have been sitting with ashen-faced KCs, and JRM - the recipient of the Fox/Trump invoice - has sided with caution, safe in the knowledge that the rest of the press and the BBC itself will continue to bear down on the Corporation.

Whether there is legal culpability in what is essentially epic shit-stirring on the part of the Sun will, line-by-line, come down to the actual copy that has run since Friday night.

I hae ma doots.

On past form, "BBC star" has been used to describe anyone who ever appeared on BBC TV channels or radio.

NCTJ law students will be familiar with Banbury CID who successfully sued for libel despite no individuals being named. There was a small enough amount of people in the organisation for them all to have a cloud cast over them and pointed at as a result of a defamatory story.
So yes, the Sun and wittering amateurs at GBNews might be in for a massive sting.

I'm no expert but I could well imagine at least three BBC presenters who could well have a case for defamation, while possibly being able to land a blow on the BBC for potential duty of care into the bargain.

I objected to hearing that fat cunt Mackenzie on WATO this lunchtime.

As BBC management begins to savour the acrid aftertaste of tory Santorum, we are faced with the very real prospect of losers, all round.

That's delicious.

davidjay wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 8:56 pm I'm no expert but I could well imagine at least three BBC presenters who could well have a case for defamation, while possibly being able to land a blow on the BBC for potential duty of care into the bargain.

The duty of care is a Catch 22 for the BBC. As an employer the BBC has a legal duty to protect the privacy of their accused employee which is one of the reasons they cannot name them - the other being the changes in the law in 2018 following Cliff Richards successful suing of the BBC for naming him as a suspect.
The knock on effect of that is that every BBC presenter is a potential suspect in the court of social media with people making wild speculations based solely on their own prejudices. That was inevitable the moment the Sun published the story and it's hard to see what the BBC can do about it.

safe_timber_man wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:51 pm If I was of the belief that my child is being groomed and sexually exploited by a much older man/woman I'm pretty sure my first call would be to the police rather than The Sun?

There are shades of Karen and Shannon Matthews here.

I just hope this all ends with the rag going the same way as NOTW. I have a feeling Murdoch will create a diversion shortly though. Another "quick, look over there!", and within two weeks things will have moved on.

Former editor of The Sun Kelvin MacKenzie said the name of the presenter "may never come out" except on social media.

He told Sky News that an "honourable retirement" from the BBC may instead "be a solution that suits everybody".

Everybody apart from The Sun, Kelvin. Who we were told had a fantastic scoop that they couldn't stand up. But yeah, you read the truth on the internet, right?

Imagine if The Sun had overlooked this. This fact was, shall we say, relevant to their output.

If the young person sent any explicit pictures when they were 17 then this could count as images of child sexual abuse, a serious criminal offence. But if the explicit photos were exchanged only after the young person turned 18 then it is possible that no law was broken. The age at which individuals can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can legally have sex.

Not that it would make it OK if the rest is as reported, of course.

The name will never come out unless somebody produces some evidence that a crime has been committed, until then it's just gossip. The Sun clearly don't have any evidence, if they had, they'd have published it on Saturday.

What the Sun has reported is a highly paid male national figure working for the BBC who was taken off the air. That’s a small pool and Linekar already have the lawyers out.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:27 pm Imagine if The Sun had overlooked this. This fact was, shall we say, relevant to their output.

If the young person sent any explicit pictures when they were 17 then this could count as images of child sexual abuse, a serious criminal offence. But if the explicit photos were exchanged only after the young person turned 18 then it is possible that no law was broken. The age at which individuals can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can legally have sex.

Not that it would make it OK if the rest is as reported, of course.

The other thing to note about this is that if a 17 year old takes an explicit selfie and sends it to someone, they, not the recipient, are guilty of making and distributing child pornography. Obviously it is a defence if they can prove they were coerced by the reciepient.

The Sun considers the BBC responsible for (alleged) crimes committed by employees external to their time and tasks there.

The Sun also directly employed people to engage in criminal activity on a nod and a wink as an actual work task and then claimed they were all lone wolves who got the wrong end of the stick, terrible shame, but nothing to do with them.

I'm justifying nothing of any crime committed, but I honestly can't see any reasonable explanation of why it's in any way a duty of an employer to prevent people committing unrelated crimes in their free time

safe_timber_man wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 6:51 pm If I was of the belief that my child is being groomed and sexually exploited by a much older man/woman I'm pretty sure my first call would be to the police rather than The Sun?

This is something that's going to become a fucking massive problem in years to come. The likes of this half-assed story, the QAnon lunatics stateside, the "all trans folks are rapist perverts on the make" crowd just sling that mud around and for now, it's going to be taken seriously, and investigated. For now. It eventually reaches saturation point in the collective consciousness and enough people will decide it's all bollocks and stick to that point of view even for the true stuff. Enough will also decide it's evidence of a greater conspiracy and start taking it into their own hands. A fucking child could see it coming, so eventually you have to ask what outcome those slinging this stuff around are aiming for.

MisterMuncher wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:06 pm I'm justifying nothing of any crime committed, but I honestly can't see any reasonable explanation of why it's in any way a duty of an employer to prevent people committing unrelated crimes in their free time

It's nothing to do with the BBC. There's no suggestion that I've seen that the pair met at work or that any offences were committed on BBC premises. Why did the mother report the alleged perpetrator to the BBC in the first place? If you witness someone committing a crime you report them to the police, not their employer.

MisterMuncher wrote: ↑
This is something that's going to become a fucking massive problem in years to come.

And to a point the Murdoch USP. When he took over the Sun, he made it stand out by running "Ah, but what aren't they telling us?" pieces, when every other paper was reporting the same facts (each in their own style). Little man, not trusted by the system to know the truth, thank heavens for uncle Rupe for cutting through the crap and telling it like it is, all the stuff they don't want you to know. All part of his war on "elites".

Sam Fox was two months shy of her 17th birthday when she first appeared on Page 3 of their rag. Were the laws different then?