32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Unique is often preceded by 'totally' for some reason.
But there are degrees of uniqueness. Say I have a fourpack of tinned beer. Each tin is unique but only by virtue of being one second younger or older and 3 inches further north or south than the closest thing to it. You are different from the human being who most closely resembles you in a million more ways than a tin of beer. You are more unique.
But the human being who is most closely like me is much more like me than I am like a tin of beer.
I have had fun at discussions at my Med School on under represented groups pointing out that as a state educated white male, I represent nearly 40% of the population, yet only 10% of are med students are white state educated males...
But jesting aside, part of the problem of France is that they don't acknowledge ethnicity or religion officially, so have completely failed to tackle systemic discrimination.
I think part of the problem too in France is that immigrants and their posterity have been lower educated than indigenous French, and French labour laws disincentive taking on unskilled people. The flipside of that PB saw on productivity.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
Also, QED means diametrically the opposite of what he thinks it means.
It doesn't in fact. QED, quod erat demonstrandum. I used it because it's quite hard to dispute the lawyer representing the actual alleged victim.
Unless of course you know the person better, the law better, and are better able to represent them?
And it's she. Which if you'd been around here less than a nappy rash you'd know. Unless of course you just assume all people you debate with online are male? Either way, back off sunshine.
Grooming victims are often in denial that anything wrong has been done to them. See also Stockholm Syndrome etc for other parallels too.
Withholding judgment is the rational thing to do and let justice take its course. You seem eager to rush to judgment, which is no more rational than those rushing to say someone definitely did something wrong.
Not just the Stockholm syndrome, often life can be objectively better with the groomers, especially if you overlook that whole age of consent thing. This was one difficulty with Rotherham and elsewhere.
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Unique is often preceded by 'totally' for some reason.
But there are degrees of uniqueness. Say I have a fourpack of tinned beer. Each tin is unique but only by virtue of being one second younger or older and 3 inches further north or south than the closest thing to it. You are different from the human being who most closely resembles you in a million more ways than a tin of beer. You are more unique.
But the human being who is most closely like me is much more like me than I am like a tin of beer.
32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Unique is often preceded by 'totally' for some reason.
But there are degrees of uniqueness. Say I have a fourpack of tinned beer. Each tin is unique but only by virtue of being one second younger or older and 3 inches further north or south than the closest thing to it. You are different from the human being who most closely resembles you in a million more ways than a tin of beer. You are more unique.
But the human being who is most closely like me is much more like me than I am like a tin of beer.
So you say...
You don't know. He/she/it could have an identical twin.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
Also, QED means diametrically the opposite of what he thinks it means.
It doesn't in fact. QED, quod erat demonstrandum. I used it because it's quite hard to dispute the lawyer representing the actual alleged victim.
Unless of course you know the person better, the law better, and are better able to represent them?
And it's she. Which if you'd been around here less than a nappy rash you'd know. Unless of course you just assume all people you debate with online are male? Either way, back off sunshine.
Grooming victims are often in denial that anything wrong has been done to them. See also Stockholm Syndrome etc for other parallels too.
Withholding judgment is the rational thing to do and let justice take its course. You seem eager to rush to judgment, which is no more rational than those rushing to say someone definitely did something wrong.
often life can be objectively better with the groomers.
Sounds like a poorly chosen ad campaign for hair product and skin cream.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
The general assumption these days is guilty until proven innocent and sometimes even in spite of being proven innocent.
Why are we obliged to frame our beliefs in accordance with the arbitrary rules relating to English criminal law? They may affect what we can say here or elsewhere but why should they govern what we think? You don't understand the rules anyway. Google Gary Dobson for someone who turned out to be guilty despite being "proven innocent" and a good thing too.
We aren't so obliged. You are confusing differing categories. Our beliefs as such are entirely free and unfettered. As a belief is neither more nor less than mental assent this is self evident, and is as true in North Korea as it is here.
Different from beliefs are words uttered in public, in which there are some limitations in law, and many more limitations by the reputational damage which uttering certain beliefs might occasion. (That the earth is flat, that the holocaust didn't occur, that Trump is a good chap and so on).
Different still are the formal procedures arising from the need for justice. No-one can stop me believing that anyone called Keith must be guilty of any charge levelled at him without evidence. But it seems to me good that our procedures do their best to ensure that all Keiths are not condemned out of hand by the understandable prevalence of this belief, though in the end it can't be guaranteed.
As to the relation between belief and what is actually the case, well, knowledge is usually defined as justified true belief. How you know when you have it is a discussion making little progress since Plato first thought it up, and it remains lively. For a hilarious and bravura recent development (1963), Google 'The Gettier problem'.
Sure. I have read the Theaetetus. I can even spell it without looking it up. It just pisses me off, this Innocent until proven guilty stuff. It is bollocks as a statement of the law and bollocks on steroids when dressed up as a principle of epistemology.
It is only a principle of law in particular narrow circumstances - as when guilt involves detriment in ways which the law touches on. It is fairly unlikely that you would not want it applied as a practical principle if accused in the legal system of something you had not done.
As a principle of epistemology it doesn't get to the starting gate. The law, and most popular opinion, hates getting mixed up in epistemological complexities. Perhaps they discern it is a maze easier to enter than it is to get out of.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Turing really was a genius. The trouble with that film, apart from compressing what was really a code-breaking factory with thousands of people on site and many others around the world into half a dozen idiots squabbling in a hut, was not understanding its subject matter so that Turing's flash of inspiration at the end about how to use the bombes was in actual fact the reason he'd designed them in the beginning.
In one of the documentaries, the presenter (not that one!) asks the renowned statistician Jack Good, who'd worked at Bletchley Park, if they'd known Turing was gay. He replied it was lucky security never found out or they'd have sacked him and we might have lost the war.
That documentary was rubbish, then. The effort did not rely solely on Turing; and besides, there was lots of other vital work going on at BP aside from the Enigma stuff.
Bill Tutte probably did more to end the war quickly than Turing, with his work on the Lorenz cipher. But no-one's ever heard of him.
They were a load of geniuses all working to shorten the war. They all deserve equal credit IMO; where one had intellectual failings and gaps, others covered them.
No-one said it was just Turing. I've just said there were thousands of people there. Nonetheless, it seems to be agreed by the BP boffins that Turing was the numero uno clever clogs.
Horizon did a documentary on Bill Tutte, and recently there was a book about his contribution by Jerry Roberts who'd been a German linguist at Bletchley Park. He is not that unknown any more. Tommy Flowers' former home in Poplar has a blue plaque.
I mentioned the Roberts book on here a year or so ago. It's brilliant.
"Nonetheless, it seems to be agreed by the BP boffins that Turing was the numero uno clever clogs."
I have significant issues with that statement. Secrecy at BP was such that it is unlikely anyone aside from the *very* top bods had visibility of what everyone was working on. What you're likely seeing is post-war (and particularly post-1980s) familiarity.
Yes but that is when the people who'd worked at Bletchley Park were still alive and could be interviewed. As one of them said in another documentary, when very clever people suggest something, you often ask yourself, "why didn't I think of that?". You never thought that with Alan Turing.
Remember Turing had already established his reputation as one of the world's leading mathematicians before the war, with his work on computability and the Turing machine. He was not just another smart guy recruited by chance. It was Turing's automation of various processes that meant Bletchley Park could keep up with the flow of thousands of messages a day coming in from the Y-stations (listening posts around the world). It was this that turned the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic that meant Britain was not blockaded and starved out of the war.
If there is a problem with the Bletchley Park story, it is not the prominence of Turing, it is that by definition, it ignores and overshadows the brilliant work being done in other areas, from radar, jet engines, the rapid development of weaponry of all types. Have you read Budiansky's book Blackett's War, about what might now be called operational research and the U-boat menace and featuring several scientists who had won or would win Nobel prizes? Irritatingly, it is not available on kindle.
The war museum in Liverpool is fascinating on the U-boat war & the simulations done to work out what tactics might work to defend against the U-boats & the weapons that the Germans developed for them as the war progressed. Recommended if you’re ever in the area.
There used to be an actual U-boat at Birkenhead on the other side of the water. Alas it closed in 2020 but mighe be reopened in due course. Looks in pretty grim internal condition from the photo - presumably not as good as the Chicago one. But this one was from a shipwreck ISTR.
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
It's an attempt to wave a flag about hypocrisy (as Erdogan and his followers see it). They believe that Europe will never accept Turkey, being the Wrong Kind Of Furiners.
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
32% for Sunak still higher than most of the current Tory voteshares though
Never change, HYUFD, never change. The world would lose a unique voice.
Getting more unique by the week, if the polls are to be believed.
Things are either unique, or they are not. They cannot be somewhat unique.
#pedanticbetting.com
Could you explain that more simply, using less words?
Just like you can't be more dead, you can't be more unique.
Unique is often preceded by 'totally' for some reason.
But there are degrees of uniqueness. Say I have a fourpack of tinned beer. Each tin is unique but only by virtue of being one second younger or older and 3 inches further north or south than the closest thing to it. You are different from the human being who most closely resembles you in a million more ways than a tin of beer. You are more unique.
But the human being who is most closely like me is much more like me than I am like a tin of beer.
So you say...
You don't know. He/she/it could have an identical twin.
I thought of that. You could make the case for newborns but no later. From then on their sensory experience will be different, even if fairly similar
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
It's an attempt to wave a flag about hypocrisy (as Erdogan and his followers see it). They believe that Europe will never accept Turkey, being the Wrong Kind Of Furiners.
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
Yes, it’s game playing. He’s a canny old fox Erdogan. Like the Russians used to be before they started believing their own lies.
This comes to you from a cubicle somewhere in the depths of Lewisham Hospital where I’ve been for almost 12 hours and appear to be getting softened up to stay for a further 48 hours after multiple fractured ribs.
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
One wonders also about the actual distribution and replication of illegal images, should they even exist. In view of what Cyclefree was saying the other day.
I would just say I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the BBC affair but it seems the parents are standing by their claims
It is understandable there is a lot of speculation but it will be interesting just how the story concludes and when and I await developments with interest
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
Evidence of what, though?
Something actually illegal? Or evidence that an off-duty tellybod is sadder and tawdrier than their public persona?
If it's the first, let the police try and do their job.
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Turing really was a genius. The trouble with that film, apart from compressing what was really a code-breaking factory with thousands of people on site and many others around the world into half a dozen idiots squabbling in a hut, was not understanding its subject matter so that Turing's flash of inspiration at the end about how to use the bombes was in actual fact the reason he'd designed them in the beginning.
In one of the documentaries, the presenter (not that one!) asks the renowned statistician Jack Good, who'd worked at Bletchley Park, if they'd known Turing was gay. He replied it was lucky security never found out or they'd have sacked him and we might have lost the war.
That documentary was rubbish, then. The effort did not rely solely on Turing; and besides, there was lots of other vital work going on at BP aside from the Enigma stuff.
Bill Tutte probably did more to end the war quickly than Turing, with his work on the Lorenz cipher. But no-one's ever heard of him.
They were a load of geniuses all working to shorten the war. They all deserve equal credit IMO; where one had intellectual failings and gaps, others covered them.
No-one said it was just Turing. I've just said there were thousands of people there. Nonetheless, it seems to be agreed by the BP boffins that Turing was the numero uno clever clogs.
Horizon did a documentary on Bill Tutte, and recently there was a book about his contribution by Jerry Roberts who'd been a German linguist at Bletchley Park. He is not that unknown any more. Tommy Flowers' former home in Poplar has a blue plaque.
I mentioned the Roberts book on here a year or so ago. It's brilliant.
"Nonetheless, it seems to be agreed by the BP boffins that Turing was the numero uno clever clogs."
I have significant issues with that statement. Secrecy at BP was such that it is unlikely anyone aside from the *very* top bods had visibility of what everyone was working on. What you're likely seeing is post-war (and particularly post-1980s) familiarity.
Yes but that is when the people who'd worked at Bletchley Park were still alive and could be interviewed. As one of them said in another documentary, when very clever people suggest something, you often ask yourself, "why didn't I think of that?". You never thought that with Alan Turing.
Remember Turing had already established his reputation as one of the world's leading mathematicians before the war, with his work on computability and the Turing machine. He was not just another smart guy recruited by chance. It was Turing's automation of various processes that meant Bletchley Park could keep up with the flow of thousands of messages a day coming in from the Y-stations (listening posts around the world). It was this that turned the tide in the Battle of the Atlantic that meant Britain was not blockaded and starved out of the war.
If there is a problem with the Bletchley Park story, it is not the prominence of Turing, it is that by definition, it ignores and overshadows the brilliant work being done in other areas, from radar, jet engines, the rapid development of weaponry of all types. Have you read Budiansky's book Blackett's War, about what might now be called operational research and the U-boat menace and featuring several scientists who had won or would win Nobel prizes? Irritatingly, it is not available on kindle.
The war museum in Liverpool is fascinating on the U-boat war & the simulations done to work out what tactics might work to defend against the U-boats & the weapons that the Germans developed for them as the war progressed. Recommended if you’re ever in the area.
There used to be an actual U-boat at Birkenhead on the other side of the water. Alas it closed in 2020 but mighe be reopened in due course. Looks in pretty grim internal condition from the photo - presumably not as good as the Chicago one. But this one was from a shipwreck ISTR.
Certainly a shame neither the RN nor HMG ever got round to preserving a wartime escort from the convoy battles, above all in the Mersey. There was a hope with HMS Whimbrel (Black Swan class sloop) but a private/independent projest stalled and I'm not sure what the status of a more museum based proposal is.
I would just say I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the BBC affair but it seems the parents are standing by their claims
It is understandable there is a lot of speculation but it will be interesting just how the story concludes and when and I await developments with interest
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I was also told some absolutely horrendous smears about a senior politician about 2 decades ago by another sitting MP. The sort of thing that, if true, would be career ending and would make the target the subject of hatred for the rest of his life. The fact it was clearly being said to me in the hope I would repeat it and also as a result of a personal vendetta against the target made it very easy to ignore but it is easy to see how vindictive individuals can potential ruin someones life through a few words in the right ear.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I am inclined to think that these allegations about Mountbatten could easily be true
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
If the accusers own lawyer admitted that his clients story was a pile of horseshit I can't see what 'silly' assumptions Heathener's making?
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I was also told some absolutely horendous smears about a senior politician about 2 decades ago by another sitting MP. The sort of thing that, if true, would be career ending and would make the target the subject of hatred for the rest of his life. The fact it was clearly being said to me in the hope I would repeat it and also as a result of a personal vendetta against the target made it very easy to ignore but it is easy to see how vindictive individuals can potential ruin someones life through a few words in the right ear.
There were rumours at my school about Gary Glitter way back in the Seventies. On the other hand, I too heard rumours about a Tory cabinet minister back in the Eighties that were later shown to be false. Rumours are just rumours.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I never alleged the DJ did anything illegal, I said they had a terrible reputation. His live shows at student unions were incredibly misogynistic, encouraged students to behave inappropriately with members of the opposite sex live on stage (today would be definitely be sexual assault) and would commonly go to after-parties with 18 years olds despite being in their mid 40s.
Now of course he is under criminal investigation, but a BBC independent review found the corporation missed many chances to explore repeated concerns raised about his general behaviour out in the community over the course of 20 years.
He was a massive star, they turned a blind eye to how he acted and how he encouraged others to act. If his actions were criminal, that is what is now being investigated.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
If the accusers own lawyer admitted that his clients story was a pile of horseshit I can't see what 'silly' assumptions Heathener's making?
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
It's an attempt to wave a flag about hypocrisy (as Erdogan and his followers see it). They believe that Europe will never accept Turkey, being the Wrong Kind Of Furiners.
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
Yes, it’s game playing. He’s a canny old fox Erdogan. Like the Russians used to be before they started believing their own lies.
This comes to you from a cubicle somewhere in the depths of Lewisham Hospital where I’ve been for almost 12 hours and appear to be getting softened up to stay for a further 48 hours after multiple fractured ribs.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
If the accusers own lawyer admitted that his clients story was a pile of horseshit I can't see what 'silly' assumptions Heathener's making?
Get a grip. The accuser is the mother, the son's lawyer is saying the story is bollocks
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Probably. But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
I read - and enjoyed - the book very much. But if you want to go beyond Oppenheimer's role, then I would highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Rhodes. Which also won the Pullitzer.
Leo Szilard is a particularly interesting character - for instance, he spent years working with Einstein on a refrigerator. He also penned the Einstein–Szilárd letter, which directly led to the Manhattan project.
Like Bletchley Park, it's really hard to single out one genius in the Manhattan Project over all the others. Doing so tends to debase the others; without whom the projects would not have succeeded.
It feels like I'm breaking some awful convention to say that Turing was just one noteworthy genius of many at BP; but it's true, and that should not take anything away from his achievements. And from what I've read about him, I'd suggest he'd agree with me. He might even disapprove of all the attention given him.
Oppenheimer is a fascinating character, though. He was an incredible polymath who could understand all the work being done by people more specialist than him, and a fabulous organizer and manager. There aren't many people who could have stepped in and managed the project as well as he did.
Groves might both agree and disagree with you on that.
General Groves is also a much overlooked character: but he relied utterly on Oppenheimer on the science side of things. Szilard and Teller didn't approach him and say "do you think this might work?"
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
The suggestion on BBC news was that financial records would be a clincher, if they exist.
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
They never claim they have nudes of a minor in their dossier (or that they even exist). Their claims are very careful. It states contact was first made when 17 with sleazy messages, which doesn't mean nudes.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Does it matter all that much whether or not the parents are nice people, or acting out of the purest of motives? They're not running a major national broadcaster, so their character is something of a second order question.
The reason the BBC is coming in for a lot of flak is that (and I don't think the BBC are denying this) allegations of a very serious nature were made to them and weeks passed without a robust and prompt assessment of credibility including bringing the celeb in and saying "look, we need chapter and verse right now about how you know this young person, if you do, and exactly what happened - and if a single aspect of your story doesn't check out, you're finished". The potentially criminal aspects should also have been escalated to the Police - lots of organisations have run into trouble treating alleged offences (particularly of a sexual nature) as an employment rather than criminal matter.
Now even if it turns out that the allegation is flat out untrue (it seems unlikely the young person was a stranger to the celeb, but maybe the story wasn't as the parents describe) there are serious questions over BBC handling of it - that isn't a functional system for dealing with serious allegations about top people.
Maybe. But the BBC failing to "investigate" a false and potentially libelous claim against one of its staff members isn't much of an accusation.
If that's what it turns out to be. Noteworthy the Sun doesn't tonight stand by any of the allegations the mother made, and which the newspaper repeated.
If it's false then someone presumably committed libel. How on earth are the BBC supposed to form an opinion on how likely it is to be true or not unless they investigate it?
The BBC assessed the case correctly, as it seems to have turned out. Whether the assertion is true or false is all important. Leon and others didn't get themselves banned on here because of the BBC's HR processes, however inadequate they might be. The story wasn't about that.
The BBC received the allegations, didn't do much about them, and then when they read something in the Sun a few days later they suspended the guy. Now it turns out that the youngster denies anything inappropriate or unlawful took place. The BBC presumably only heard about that denial today.
So much rubbish has clearly been spouted on this case that I don't think we should add to it by acting as prosecution, jury, and judge over the BBC.
You don't have the facts of this. Not many people do. But the lawyer acting for the young person has represented that person by saying it's all a load of rubbish.
QED, I'd have thought.
But a massive learning lesson for the kind of people who chase every single piece of online tittle-tattle they can snort up.
Yours is an intensely silly post. You're already acting as judge, jury, and prosecution to declare an acquittal.
If the accusers own lawyer admitted that his clients story was a pile of horseshit I can't see what 'silly' assumptions Heathener's making?
Haven't checked the news for a couple of hours. What on earth's going on with the BBC story?
The parents have complained to the BBC about a presenter giving money to their 17yr old son/daughter for drugs and rude pictures The son/daughter has lawyered up and says the accusations are rubbish If the parents/newspaper does not have solid evidence of their accusation they will be subject to the tender mercy of British libel law. So squeaky bum time.
Europe is being swallowed up by the right. Only Brexit Britain stands alone against the tide."
They're right.
No they aren't. In the EU: Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia, Germany, Estonia, and Austria are all equally or more free than the UK. In Europe but outside the EU: Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Iceland, and Andorra.
I would just say I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the BBC affair but it seems the parents are standing by their claims
It is understandable there is a lot of speculation but it will be interesting just how the story concludes and when and I await developments with interest
As I understand it, the son is currently 20 years' old.
So much of the story could be 'true', while also completely legal and a private matter between adults.
If the evidence doesn't cover a period when the young man was 17, it's a non-story. The Sun's statements don't give the impression of iron clad evidence on that front.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Haven't checked the news for a couple of hours. What on earth's going on with the BBC story?
The parents have complained to the BBC about a presenter giving money to their 17yr old son/daughter for drugs and rude pictures The son/daughter has lawyered up and says the accusations are rubbish If the parents/newspaper does not have solid evidence of their accusation they will be subject to the tender mercy of British libel law. So squeaky bum time.
The parents / Sun handed a dossier of evidence to BBC management. The police were called, they decided no need to open an investigation (at this time).
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
There are people who make crazy money on OnlyFans for exactly that. My understanding is the real money is in doing "requests" and some people pay silly money for these. Its the para-social relationship. Also, its sounds from the reports that was more personal e.g. the presenter / individual phoned one another, including the presenter twice since the story broke.
By similar logic, some people pay $1000s to twitch streamer because...well...to get their name mentioned etc.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
The amount of money alleged for pics and webcam seemed mad to me too
My fear for 'Oppenheimer' is that it puts the accomplishments of many geniuses onto the shoulders of one man; in the same way the hideous 'Imitation Game' did with Turing.
IMV it'd be more interesting to tell the story of Teller (again, after Dr Strangelove), or Leo Szilard. Or the whole group of foreigners who escaped fascism to create nuclear physics, reactors and bombs as we know them. And to chuck in some Tube Alloys for blighty as well...
Or the competition between German and US scientists, and all that entailed (though it turned out the Germans had pretty much given up on their nuke efforts).
Probably. But Oppenheimer’s story is nonetheless a very interesting one.
I read - and enjoyed - the book very much. But if you want to go beyond Oppenheimer's role, then I would highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Rhodes. Which also won the Pullitzer.
Leo Szilard is a particularly interesting character - for instance, he spent years working with Einstein on a refrigerator. He also penned the Einstein–Szilárd letter, which directly led to the Manhattan project.
Like Bletchley Park, it's really hard to single out one genius in the Manhattan Project over all the others. Doing so tends to debase the others; without whom the projects would not have succeeded.
It feels like I'm breaking some awful convention to say that Turing was just one noteworthy genius of many at BP; but it's true, and that should not take anything away from his achievements. And from what I've read about him, I'd suggest he'd agree with me. He might even disapprove of all the attention given him.
Oppenheimer is a fascinating character, though. He was an incredible polymath who could understand all the work being done by people more specialist than him, and a fabulous organizer and manager. There aren't many people who could have stepped in and managed the project as well as he did.
Groves might both agree and disagree with you on that.
General Groves is also a much overlooked character: but he relied utterly on Oppenheimer on the science side of things. Szilard and Teller didn't approach him and say "do you think this might work?"
Groves actually (partially) suggested using one enrichment process to feed another to massively increase the rate of enriching uranium.
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
It's an attempt to wave a flag about hypocrisy (as Erdogan and his followers see it). They believe that Europe will never accept Turkey, being the Wrong Kind Of Furiners.
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
Yes, it’s game playing. He’s a canny old fox Erdogan. Like the Russians used to be before they started believing their own lies.
This comes to you from a cubicle somewhere in the depths of Lewisham Hospital where I’ve been for almost 12 hours and appear to be getting softened up to stay for a further 48 hours after multiple fractured ribs.
Haven't checked the news for a couple of hours. What on earth's going on with the BBC story?
The parents have complained to the BBC about a presenter giving money to their 17yr old son/daughter for drugs and rude pictures The son/daughter has lawyered up and says the accusations are rubbish If the parents/newspaper does not have solid evidence of their accusation they will be subject to the tender mercy of British libel law. So squeaky bum time.
IANAL but I don't think there's such a thing as British libel law. Libel in Scotland is different in some ways to England & Wales. I don't know whether this makes difference, but just thought it was worth mentioning.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I was also told some absolutely horendous smears about a senior politician about 2 decades ago by another sitting MP. The sort of thing that, if true, would be career ending and would make the target the subject of hatred for the rest of his life. The fact it was clearly being said to me in the hope I would repeat it and also as a result of a personal vendetta against the target made it very easy to ignore but it is easy to see how vindictive individuals can potential ruin someones life through a few words in the right ear.
I was also an avid reader of Private Eye, so I was aware of the Kincora Boys Home and the Ivy Guest House.
I have a view, maybe incorrectly, that Carl Beech and by association Tom Watson and the Metropolitan Police ended up exonerating some now dead people that perhaps didn't need to be exonerated. Carl Beech was a liar and a fantasist, but I suspect he based his lies on stories he had heard elsewhere, like the one I heard. We shall never know the actualitaire I suspect.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC have messed up. Either they didn’t take the case seriously enough to begin with or they e unfairly suspended a member of staff because of a story in The Sun.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
The amount of money alleged for pics and webcam seemed mad to me too
Do we know yet that it's a todger?
Seeing as how we - that is, the public - knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the latest caper, the amount of un-informed pseudo-speculation on PB is (to coin a phrase) "eye-watering".
And we do NOT even have "Leon" around to fan the flames of righteous ignorance.
Changing subject - i read something on Twitter saying that Boris has not handed over his Whatsapp phone by todays deadline. Has anyone else seen this or can confirm or otherwise??
Defying a High Court order could have 'interesting' consequences....
I thought it was Sunak who didn't want the messages coming out? And that Boris was dropping them to set off a timebomb?
Number 10 had been given a deadline to hand over Boris's messages, but could not do so until Boris gave them his phone, which so far he has not done. Boris must regard this whole BBC mess as a serendipitous dead cat.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
OMG. I have just seen Rishi and Biden in the No 10 garden. Rishi has a bigger, taller matching chair to Biden. Rishi looks tall, Biden looks small. Big win for big boy Rishi.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Yeah, doesn't quite ring true to me either.
On the other hand, this was in the covid years, so physical depravity may have been more difficult.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
The amount of money alleged for pics and webcam seemed mad to me too
Do we know yet that it's a todger?
There's plenty rapist murderers who thought one orgasm was worth the risk of a life sentence. So this is not a cogent argument.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
A fair question, in an earlier version of the story from mere hours ago
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now? After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
It's an attempt to wave a flag about hypocrisy (as Erdogan and his followers see it). They believe that Europe will never accept Turkey, being the Wrong Kind Of Furiners.
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
Yes, it’s game playing. He’s a canny old fox Erdogan. Like the Russians used to be before they started believing their own lies.
This comes to you from a cubicle somewhere in the depths of Lewisham Hospital where I’ve been for almost 12 hours and appear to be getting softened up to stay for a further 48 hours after multiple fractured ribs.
I am sorry to hear that. I do hope you're on the mend and on something nice and strong.
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I was also told some absolutely horendous smears about a senior politician about 2 decades ago by another sitting MP. The sort of thing that, if true, would be career ending and would make the target the subject of hatred for the rest of his life. The fact it was clearly being said to me in the hope I would repeat it and also as a result of a personal vendetta against the target made it very easy to ignore but it is easy to see how vindictive individuals can potential ruin someones life through a few words in the right ear.
I was also an avid reader of Private Eye, so I was aware of the Kincora Boys Home and the Ivy Guest House.
I have a view, maybe incorrectly, that Carl Beech and by association Tom Watson and the Metropolitan Police ended up exonerating some now dead people that perhaps didn't need to be exonerated. Carl Beech was a liar and a fantasist, but I suspect he based his lies on stories he had heard elsewhere, like the one I heard. We shall never know the actualitaire I suspect.
Excepting that no one came forward with a version of the allegations that had the benefit of, say, matching physical* reality.
*Carl Beech’s allegations included details that were, on multiple points, inconsistent with provable physical reality.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
The amount of money alleged for pics and webcam seemed mad to me too
Do we know yet that it's a todger?
Seeing as how we - that is, the public - knows NEXT TO NOTHING about the latest caper, the amount of un-informed pseudo-speculation on PB is (to coin a phrase) "eye-watering".
And we do NOT even have "Leon" around to fan the flames of righteous ignorance.
I can only add that, closer to home, we know there are people who hand out five- or even six-figure sums every year to gambling companies. So the figures are hardly worth speculating about; they're in the realm of plausibility for online activity with no tangible return.
On topic, I mentioned a few weeks back to start looking for Democrat nominees other than Biden. While his age gets mentioned, nothing has really changed on that front - he is still making the same level of slips as he did before. What has changed is that the Democrat caucus is increasingly getting worried about two things, namely (1) Trump's resilience in the polls and the signs that the court cases are not really impacting him and (2) that there is another near 18 months of more news-flow to come out about whether old Joe was taking backhanders, which is a serious question based on some of the evidence. As much as many of PB.com's finest do not want to hear it, (2) is becoming an increasing factor.
If you want good outside bets for the Dem nomination - and there are some people here who are interested in bets rather than virtue signalling - two stand out. Michigan Gov Whitmer is 80/1 at Ladbrokes. Politico had a piece on her which interestingly mentioned the Congressional Black Caucus wants her to run, which would seem to be a rather public signal that it recognises Harris would get her ass kicked. Whitmer has denied she is running but she wouldn't say anything else now. If Biden 'retires', all things change.
The second is Gov Roy Cooper of North Carolina. I doubt the Democrats are willing to elect another white guy as the nominee especially given it would mean overriding Harris but he has a good reputation, is a Democrat who won in a Republican state and opens up NC in 2024, and he is 200/1 at Ladbrokes which looks a very good bet.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
Sounds quite electable compared to Liz Truss. When was this?
OMG. I have just seen Rishi and Biden in the No 10 garden. Rishi has a bigger, taller matching chair to Biden. Rishi looks tall, Biden looks small. Big win for big boy Rishi.
They put Rishi in a high chair? Did he have a little tray and a no-spill beaker for his milk?
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
Worse than that. A Crash Test Dummy would have done way less harm than Bozza.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC have messed up. Either they didn’t take the case seriously enough to begin with or they e unfairly suspended a member of staff because of a story in The Sun.
I am not a big fan of the BBC. But this seems a really tough one.
The initial allegation might have been nothing more than presenter X is a member of my kids OnlyFans...they are using that money for drugs, tell them to stop. Is your kid of legal age...Yes...I am not sure what the BBC are supposed to do about that.
Now the new story is alleging a more personal relationship with initial contact at 17. And then into the mix the young person is a crack addict, but says nothing inappropriate happened. But estranged from their parents, who clearly very upset at the state of their kid, say it did.
Who do you believe....was anything actually illegal rather than immoral....and you are faced with outing one of your big name presenters.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
Sounds quite electable compared to Liz Truss. When was this?
Can't quite remember but I was all over very quickly. There's one slow-motion film of her going through the windscreen as the engine crumpled.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC have messed up. Either they didn’t take the case seriously enough to begin with or they e unfairly suspended a member of staff because of a story in The Sun.
Isn't that a little unfair? IIUC the parents complained, the BBC investigated, the parents escalated, BBC called in the cops and suspended the presenter pro tem
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
Worse than that. A Crash Test Dummy would have done way less harm than Bozza.
Ah, not Boris. That would have been a blond wig. I said a blonde wig.
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Yeah, doesn't quite ring true to me either.
On the other hand, this was in the covid years, so physical depravity may have been more difficult.
Kerry Katona became a multi-millionaire out of Only Fans....do I need to say more....
Today I learned that the goddamn atheist Libs on PB are almost all "virtue signalling". Whereas ramping Trump, and smearing and concocting negative stories about the two most likely Dem candidates, is presumably "vice signalling".
Just caught up with BBC story. All seems rather far fetched to me. Would a highly successful broadcaster in the public eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
Consider the list of proven things that politicians have done recently - ranging from the criminal to sordid via bizarre.
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
It's not just politicians. I'm old enough to remember the Conservative membership electing a crash test dummy in blonde wig to be the PM.
Worse than that. A Crash Test Dummy would have done way less harm than Bozza.
Ah, not Boris. That would have been a blond wig. I said a blonde wig.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC have messed up. Either they didn’t take the case seriously enough to begin with or they e unfairly suspended a member of staff because of a story in The Sun.
Another Tory who never got over their government not bringing back the Ducking Stool
What is the legal status of this mother in the case? The person involved is an adult now.
Seekers after truth seldom find their way to the Sun.
How about mother finds son with a stash of coke and son comes out with a cock and bull story?
Hopefully Carter Ruck hasn't forgotten how to charge and the Sun goes the way of it's stablemate the NOTW.
Exactly what I thought, Roger.
As a concerned parent, would you really want to deal with the issue by going to any newspaper, never mind the currant bun.
The story is they did go direct to the BBC 7 weeks ago and it was decided no further action was required.
Now the Sun could have been taken for a ride. But without being funny, lets say you aren't that bright or connected, your kid has gone off the rails, for whatever reason you believe this presenter has done wrong and you make an unclear rambling report to somebody at the BBC, and they "file" it.
You or I would more than likely know the right sort of people, who know people, who know people, to take this to task. It isn't exactly unheard of that less worldlywise people have in the past have phoned the tip lines at newspapers out of desperation that somebody listens about a wrong been done.
For instance, nobody listened to the victims of Rotherham grooming gangs for ages, I believe they ended telling unsavoury people from which it got to Nick Griffin shouting about it. Not exactly the person you want fighting your cause. It was the one bloke in the Times who finally followed up on it and he was smeared as racist after the first article.
If you were concerned about your son's abuse don't you think the police might have been a more appropriate first port of call? I don't think anyone however stupid sees the Sun as a place to get justice.
A cash machine perhaps....
Easy to said than done. Why didn't all the victims from Rotherham do that. Or the Harvy Weinstein victims. Or the Epstein etc. Most of it came out via the newspapers. And countless other stories.
Also, this particular story, there is a difference between illegality and immortality. There is one claim in the Sun report that mucky pictures were sent when 17, now I don't think a lot of people know that's illegal, as you can actually legally have sex with them.....also again its a bit of a grey area if your kid has set up an OnlyFans and doing it that way (when again supposed to be over 18).
The central claim by the mother seems to be more about the presenters money being an enabler for their kids drug habit. Its far from clear from the reports if that was direct, as in they knew this was the case, or if I said previously the BBC presenter joined their OnlyFans and was paying for uniques and the mother is angry that all that money is allowing their kid to get smacked off their tits every day.
One other factor which played at least a part in some cases (and in some rape and domestic abuse cases) is the "victim" withdraws charges or does not cooperate in the first place.
What tickles me is the way so many people have been assuming the claims in the Sun were gospel truth, against the weight of so much precedent.
Sun often wrong BBC stars often bad eggs
Hard for the uninformed to know what to believe.
Well both do have a tad of form. I mean only last year, the BBC had to admit they managed to be totally unaware of the alleged behaviour another DJ of 20 year BBC career, who anybody at university in the late 90s / early 2000s knew had a terrible reputation when they visited.
Nearly forty years ago I heard an allegation about a senior politician. I heard it at two separate events in London (one was the Camden Labour Party so it might have been biased) and at a third location at a University function in Cardiff. The character was exonerated after Carl Beech. Make of that what you will.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
I was also told some absolutely horendous smears about a senior politician about 2 decades ago by another sitting MP. The sort of thing that, if true, would be career ending and would make the target the subject of hatred for the rest of his life. The fact it was clearly being said to me in the hope I would repeat it and also as a result of a personal vendetta against the target made it very easy to ignore but it is easy to see how vindictive individuals can potential ruin someones life through a few words in the right ear.
I was also an avid reader of Private Eye, so I was aware of the Kincora Boys Home and the Ivy Guest House.
I have a view, maybe incorrectly, that Carl Beech and by association Tom Watson and the Metropolitan Police ended up exonerating some now dead people that perhaps didn't need to be exonerated. Carl Beech was a liar and a fantasist, but I suspect he based his lies on stories he had heard elsewhere, like the one I heard. We shall never know the actualitaire I suspect.
Excepting that no one came forward with a version of the allegations that had the benefit of, say, matching physical* reality.
*Carl Beech’s allegations included details that were, on multiple points, inconsistent with provable physical reality.
I have accepted Carl Beech never met any of those he made allegations about.
There were stories on a number of his "victims" previously doing the rounds and I suspect he turned existing innuendo into his absolute and unmitigated fiction. I am not suggesting he demonstrated anyone's guilt, quite the reverse, he exonerated ALL his "victims". I am questioning whether that was, in some cases of now dead politicians, appropriate or not.
That is my opinion only and I may be wholly wrong.
Two unrelated side notes on the development of the atomic bomb:
Recently, I read that developing the B-29 bomber cost more, and took longer, than developing the atomic bomb. (Wikipedia agrees, but I would like to see more details, before I am entirely certain about those conclusions.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress )
Years ago, I read that the USSR detonated the first H-bomb. (The first US explosion was a "device", that would not have been practical to carry on a bomber.)
Had a lovely day shopping in Surrey. I do miss it up here. Devon is all very tranquil but I've missed the pizzazz.
Anyway, I gather this story is a load of cock-and-bull?
Jeez I despair at the bloody stupid state of this world. The lives ruined by hate-filled rubbish on social media.
p.s. Any chance everyone working at The Sun might be sent to jail? We can but hope. I wonder if @Cyclefree can do an article on this without mentioning the word 'trans'.
The juxtaposition of your final paragraph and your ps....
I just think it would be lovely to have the benefit of @Cyclefree's excellent legal mind without it slipping and sliding inexorably into something about trans, like all paths to Old Man Willow.
I have written 244 headers since March 2016. How many do you think have related to trans issues?
I have written far more articles about the police, child abuse, Boris's attacks on democracy, free speech etc than on this issue.
I make absolutely no apologies about writing about violence against women and children. It is a fundamentally important issue to me and ought to be to anyone with a shred of decency. That you think that it is about trans issues says quite a lot about you and, indeed, about the nature of the debate and how TRAs have made it into an issue against women rather than an issue about how to help those with dysphoria. That is their failing and their problem.
Comments
But jesting aside, part of the problem of France is that they don't acknowledge ethnicity or religion officially, so have completely failed to tackle systemic discrimination.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1677309192921653249?t=OOuz0KzBtqVKiS2TCBfhdg&s=19
I think part of the problem too in France is that immigrants and their posterity have been lower educated than indigenous French, and French labour laws disincentive taking on unskilled people. The flipside of that PB saw on productivity.
What is Turkey's leader Erdogan up to now?
After months of holding up Sweden's bid for membership of Nato, arguing that Stockholm is guilty of harbouring Kurdish militants, Mr Erdogan suddenly pivots to an entirely unrelated issue: Turkey's longstanding bid to join the European Union (EU).
If Turkey can't join the EU, he seems to be saying, then nor can Sweden join the Nato military alliance.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66156583
The breaking story says 'he appeared to suggest' he wanted the EU to reopen frozen membership talks, and however it came up it feels weird, since surely he doesn't care about such a thing?
As a principle of epistemology it doesn't get to the starting gate. The law, and most popular opinion, hates getting mixed up in epistemological complexities. Perhaps they discern it is a maze easier to enter than it is to get out of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-995
They of course, don't want to be Europeans. But it is about showing up the opposition, in Turkey, who are often pro-European integration as idiots for sucking up to foreigners who despise them.
This comes to you from a cubicle somewhere in the depths of Lewisham Hospital where I’ve been for almost 12 hours and appear to be getting softened up to stay for a further 48 hours after multiple fractured ribs.
Opens up the question who at the Sun doesn't grasp that possession of nude photos of someone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence and there are no get out clauses.
And what other evidence could be in that dossier that is actual evidence?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/10/women-voters-derail-tory-party-conservative-election/ (£££)
The Telegraph identifies three groups of women drifting away: the National Trusters; the Women's Instituters; the Surrey shifters.
Perhaps hoping someone is guilty of a vile offence clouds our judgement. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.
It is understandable there is a lot of speculation but it will be interesting just how the story concludes and when and I await developments with interest
Something actually illegal?
Or evidence that an off-duty tellybod is sadder and tawdrier than their public persona?
If it's the first, let the police try and do their job.
If it's the second, it's hardly news, is it?
https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/23339249.chance-see-plans-new-u-boat-attraction-woodside/
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/abused-lordmountbatten-claims-former-boys-28269972
And I also think the chances of Beech being a Spy who came in from the Cold operation are slim, but not zero.
Now of course he is under criminal investigation, but a BBC independent review found the corporation missed many chances to explore repeated concerns raised about his general behaviour out in the community over the course of 20 years.
He was a massive star, they turned a blind eye to how he acted and how he encouraged others to act. If his actions were criminal, that is what is now being investigated.
https://twitter.com/jensstoltenberg/status/1678484703060324359?s=46
Curiouser and curiouser
The son/daughter has lawyered up and says the accusations are rubbish
If the parents/newspaper does not have solid evidence of their accusation they will be subject to the tender mercy of British libel law.
So squeaky bum time.
In the EU: Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia, Germany, Estonia, and Austria are all equally or more free than the UK.
In Europe but outside the EU: Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Iceland, and Andorra.
source: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=desc&order=Total Score and Status
So much of the story could be 'true', while also completely legal and a private matter between adults.
If the evidence doesn't cover a period when the young man was 17, it's a non-story. The Sun's statements don't give the impression of iron clad evidence on that front.
Libel lawyers will be kept busy in any case.
eye really pay tens of thousands of pounds to a crack user just to see his todger? If you're into depravity, you'd surely want a better return from that kind of dough.
The police were called, they decided no need to open an investigation (at this time).
By similar logic, some people pay $1000s to twitch streamer because...well...to get their name mentioned etc.
Do we know yet that it's a todger?
I have a view, maybe incorrectly, that Carl Beech and by association Tom Watson and the Metropolitan Police ended up exonerating some now dead people that perhaps didn't need to be exonerated. Carl Beech was a liar and a fantasist, but I suspect he based his lies on stories he had heard elsewhere, like the one I heard. We shall never know the actualitaire I suspect.
And we do NOT even have "Leon" around to fan the flames of righteous ignorance.
Boris Johnson fails to hand over mobile with crucial Covid WhatsApps before inquiry deadline
Device containing Covid-era messages up until May 2021 remains in former PM’s possession
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-covid-inquiry-whatsapps-b2372638.html
How many of those do you read and go “WTF? WTAF? why?? In what universe did that sound like a good idea?”
On the other hand, this was in the covid years, so physical depravity may have been more difficult.
*Carl Beech’s allegations included details that were, on multiple points, inconsistent with provable physical reality.
If you want good outside bets for the Dem nomination - and there are some people here who are interested in bets rather than virtue signalling - two stand out. Michigan Gov Whitmer is 80/1 at Ladbrokes. Politico had a piece on her which interestingly mentioned the Congressional Black Caucus wants her to run, which would seem to be a rather public signal that it recognises Harris would get her ass kicked. Whitmer has denied she is running but she wouldn't say anything else now. If Biden 'retires', all things change.
The second is Gov Roy Cooper of North Carolina. I doubt the Democrats are willing to elect another white guy as the nominee especially given it would mean overriding Harris but he has a good reputation, is a Democrat who won in a Republican state and opens up NC in 2024, and he is 200/1 at Ladbrokes which looks a very good bet.
DYOR.
Did he have a little tray and a no-spill beaker for his milk?
The initial allegation might have been nothing more than presenter X is a member of my kids OnlyFans...they are using that money for drugs, tell them to stop. Is your kid of legal age...Yes...I am not sure what the BBC are supposed to do about that.
Now the new story is alleging a more personal relationship with initial contact at 17. And then into the mix the young person is a crack addict, but says nothing inappropriate happened. But estranged from their parents, who clearly very upset at the state of their kid, say it did.
Who do you believe....was anything actually illegal rather than immoral....and you are faced with outing one of your big name presenters.
And now you've reminded me, you fiend...
...
Matthew Prince, CEO of Cloudflare, shared a screenshot to Twitter Sunday showing that traffic on the platform was “tanking.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/10/twitter-traffic-is-nosediving-as-metas-threads-hits-100-million-users.html
New Thread
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/10/starlink_satellites_leaking_astronomydisturbing_em/
There were stories on a number of his "victims" previously doing the rounds and I suspect he turned existing innuendo into his absolute and unmitigated fiction. I am not suggesting he demonstrated anyone's guilt, quite the reverse, he exonerated ALL his "victims". I am questioning whether that was, in some cases of now dead politicians, appropriate or not.
That is my opinion only and I may be wholly wrong.
Recently, I read that developing the B-29 bomber cost more, and took longer, than developing the atomic bomb. (Wikipedia agrees, but I would like to see more details, before I am entirely certain about those conclusions.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress )
Years ago, I read that the USSR detonated the first H-bomb. (The first US explosion was a "device", that would not have been practical to carry on a bomber.)
Go on, guess.
One.
This on the GRR Bill on 21 December 2022 - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/12/21/holyroods-shame/. It is the only one on the substance of the issue.
I have written 2 on the legal cases relating to the challenge to the GRR Bill and the Haldane judgment, using my "excellent legal mind" as you put it - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/04/23/the-scottish-question/ and https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/11/20/whos-fooling-whom/
I have written about violence and misogyny towards women quite a lot - yesterday's header and this one in January - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/23/why-are-misogynistic-cultures-so-hard-to-root-out/ - as well as after the Everard murder here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/.
Oh and about the violence against women in Iran and Afghanistan - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/10/03/the-arc-of-history/.
I have written far more articles about the police, child abuse, Boris's attacks on democracy, free speech etc than on this issue.
I make absolutely no apologies about writing about violence against women and children. It is a fundamentally important issue to me and ought to be to anyone with a shred of decency. That you think that it is about trans issues says quite a lot about you and, indeed, about the nature of the debate and how TRAs have made it into an issue against women rather than an issue about how to help those with dysphoria. That is their failing and their problem.