Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
How do you know the alleged victim is male? The Sun has been assiduous in referring to them as “they” and “their” etc.
One might argue that to assume that an older man paying someone for nude pictures whilst vulnerable as alleged must be homosexual and so you are jumping to a conclusion that homosexuality is the more deviant strain of sexuality.
Me Too would demonstrate otherwise.
Best just not to speculate on any matter on this, the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct, the alleged victim’s lawyer might have been lied to, the BBC’s lawyers might have correctly judged initially that whilst a bit poor behaviour there was no crime or legal reason to sack presenter, the BBC lawyers might have screwed up, they might not have even seen the file as maybe management said it didn’t need to go that far, maybe the Sun were lied to, maybe, like a stopped clock the Sun has got something right after their lawyers checked the shit out of it.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
Are we sure the "child" is male? There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the "child's" gender.
Back to the 1950s? Wasn't that the ultimate aim of Brexit?
Good morning
A legal commentator on Sky has just said the Sun have studiously avoided naming the presenter or the son, specifically to ensure they do not fall on the wrong side of defamation and libel laws
I have insufficient legal knowledge, but others on here have, and it would be interesting if anyone has a different view of the Sun's legal liability
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
... you are jumping to a conclusion that homosexuality is the more deviant strain of sexuality.
Desperate stuff.
As for the "child's" gender, from the Sun: She said she was told the star requested “performances” and, heartbreakingly, her child said they would “get their bits out”.
I suppose someone sufficiently motivated might argue that it was a reference to breasts, but I don't think that would convince anyone.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
You say it's best not to 'speculate'; but you still seem to want to fill posts with this garbage. Why not just talk about something else?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
You clearly have not listened to the discussions in the media this morning and it certainly seems there is a lot more to come out before this story concludes
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
You say it's best not to 'speculate'; but you still seem to want to fill posts with this garbage. Why not just talk about something else?
No there is no speculation. There is nothing to speculate on.
The lawyer and their client closed it. Move on.
I'm sure you will soon find another media-invented carcass on which to feed.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Why is it nigh impossible that the alleged victim’s lawyer would be incorrect but the Sun’s lawyers must therefore be incorrect.
We don’t know but it seems people are making their stands based on whether they are pro BBC, anti, BBC, anti Sun when we don’t know. How many times do we get caught out believing “our side” against something we hate, don’t want to be true instead of waiting for the facts?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
If any good comes from this sorry affair it might be that the tawdry rag that is the Sun goes the way of the News of the World.
After the disgraceful scandal of Carl Beech and the police (and BBC) mishandling of complaints against VIPs including Leon Brittan (who died without knowing his name was cleared), Harvey Proctor, Lord Bramall, and of course also Cliff Richard ... it seems to me from my limited knowledge of this case that the beeb and police have acted fine.
Innocent until proven otherwise and that doesn't mean in the twittersphere or the pages of The Sun.
Indeed; but we don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other.
IMV a lot will depend on what the 'star' told the young person; if he traded off his name and influence to get what he wanted, or wanted to meet, then he's way out of order and should be sacked, at least. If he was just an 'ordinary' punter, then probably not - as long as the young person was above the age of consent for the activity. But the BBC should carefully watch his behaviour when he gets to meet members of the public in a professional capacity.
You rightly mention Beech, and people who have been wrongly accused in the past. It should be noted, however, that the BBC and the media in general has a long history of proven poor behaviour, and of covering it up for years or decades. Don't automatically trust them this time, either.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
You say it's best not to 'speculate'; but you still seem to want to fill posts with this garbage. Why not just talk about something else?
No there is no speculation. There is nothing to speculate on.
The lawyer and their client closed it. Move on.
I'm sure you will soon find another media-invented carcass on which to feed.
I have not heard anyone other than yourself declare the matter closed
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
You say it's best not to 'speculate'; but you still seem to want to fill posts with this garbage. Why not just talk about something else?
No there is no speculation. There is nothing to speculate on.
The lawyer and their client closed it. Move on.
I'm sure you will soon find another media-invented carcass on which to feed.
I have not heard anyone other than yourself declare the matter closed
It's ridiculous that there are people who will decide guilt or innocence on the basis of whether they like/dislike the Sun/BBC.
The Sun has form for muckraking. The BBC has form for employing child molesters. Neither tells us anything about the truth of these allegations.
That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.
Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.
Meanwhile, a rogue senator is sabotaging the military leadership of the US by blocking Senate approval of military promotions.
https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH/status/1678504096385449984 Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed says he had CRS look at how long it would take to confirm all 251 military promotions. (Tuberville says he's forcing votes, not blocking anyone.)
Reed says it would take 668 hours, or 84 days if the Senate spends 8 hours a day on promotions.
Does Senator Carrick need some funding for a missile launcher?
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
You clearly have not listened to the discussions in the media this morning and it certainly seems there is a lot more to come out before this story concludes
The nation is on it's knees and this salacious hearsay nonsense is the top story, oh and has Boris Johnson handed over his WhatsApps yet?
Speaking personally, I think that rising pay, and high levels of employment are good things. That does conflict with the opinions of central bankers, but this is one issue where one can say with confidence that central bankers are wrong.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
You clearly have not listened to the discussions in the media this morning and it certainly seems there is a lot more to come out before this story concludes
The nation is on it's knees and this salacious hearsay nonsense is the top story, oh and has Boris Johnson handed over his WhatsApps yet?
Not to mention MPs not declaring their or close relatives' shareholdings in industries on which they somtimes legislate.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
BBC media figures get dreadful abuse? Every day on PB. Every single day. Nothing new at all.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
You clearly have not listened to the discussions in the media this morning and it certainly seems there is a lot more to come out before this story concludes
The nation is on it's knees and this salacious hearsay nonsense is the top story, oh and has Boris Johnson handed over his WhatsApps yet?
It is astonishing how the media focus on some stories but I don't think BBC presenters would share your view
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
Whatever the ins and outs of the story one can't deny the Sun has been mischievous in its reporting.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
BBC media figures get dreadful abuse? Every day on PB. Every single day. Nothing new at all.
Nicky Campbell has taken the matter to the police apparently
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
Are we sure the "child" is male? There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the "child's" gender.
Back to the 1950s? Wasn't that the ultimate aim of Brexit?
Good morning
A legal commentator on Sky has just said the Sun have studiously avoided naming the presenter or the son, specifically to ensure they do not fall on the wrong side of defamation and libel laws
I have insufficient legal knowledge, but others on here have, and it would be interesting if anyone has a different view of the Sun's legal liability
Oh the Sun's legal liability for the way they've published the story is zilch.* A lot of people on twitter however are going to find that attaching someones name to the allegations is very expensive which is why the Sun has been so careful.
* but as I pointed out yesterday if the dossier the Sun has matches the facts the Sun have reported they have a criminal issue because there is no excuse in law for keeping the nude photos of someone aged under 18 under the act they claim was broken....
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As has just been said on Sky, this is a fast moving story and it would be wise to wait for the facts to be played out
Except I don't think there is a story, nor are there any facts to play out. That's the takeaway from the supposed victim and their lawyer.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
You clearly have not listened to the discussions in the media this morning and it certainly seems there is a lot more to come out before this story concludes
The nation is on it's knees and this salacious hearsay nonsense is the top story, oh and has Boris Johnson handed over his WhatsApps yet?
It is astonishing how the media focus on some stories but I don't think BBC presenters would share your view
As for Johnson I gave up on him a long time ago
Doesn't mean we have to share them.
Must be very hard work [edit] for PB commentators keeping up with the story while claiming how dreadful it all is.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
"Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named"
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
"Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named"
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
But just because questions exist doesn't mean that the public has the right to the answers.
If it were still the 1980s glory days of the red tops, that wouldn't have mattered. The celeb's name would have been on the front page, followed closely by a photo of a nubile teen who had forgotten to put many clothes on. There might have been some justification that The Public Deserved To Know, but we didn't really. A lot of the stories were little more than titillation, some ruined lives and a fair few were completely made up.
From what seems established, the BBC and the police both took the complaint seriously but concluded there was nothing they could do about the off air behaviour of the presenter. I can understand the parents not liking that answer, but by going to The Sun, they may well have made things worse.
Rich bloke does tawdry things in private. It's a bit "dog bites man", isn't it?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
Are we sure the "child" is male? There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the "child's" gender.
Back to the 1950s? Wasn't that the ultimate aim of Brexit?
Good morning
A legal commentator on Sky has just said the Sun have studiously avoided naming the presenter or the son, specifically to ensure they do not fall on the wrong side of defamation and libel laws
I have insufficient legal knowledge, but others on here have, and it would be interesting if anyone has a different view of the Sun's legal liability
Oh the Sun's legal liability for the way they've published the story is zilch.* A lot of people on twitter however are going to find that attaching someones name to the allegations is very expensive which is why the Sun has been so careful.
* but as I pointed out yesterday if the dossier the Sun has matches the facts the Sun have reported they have a criminal issue because there is no excuse in law for keeping the nude photos of someone aged under 18 under the act they claim was broken....
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
Whatever the ins and outs of the story one can't deny the Sun has been mischievous in its reporting.
To be honest nobody involved in this story is coming out well
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
BBC media figures get dreadful abuse? Every day on PB. Every single day. Nothing new at all.
Nicky Campbell has taken the matter to the police apparently
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
Are we sure the "child" is male? There seems to have been a deliberate attempt to conceal the "child's" gender.
Back to the 1950s? Wasn't that the ultimate aim of Brexit?
Good morning
A legal commentator on Sky has just said the Sun have studiously avoided naming the presenter or the son, specifically to ensure they do not fall on the wrong side of defamation and libel laws
I have insufficient legal knowledge, but others on here have, and it would be interesting if anyone has a different view of the Sun's legal liability
Oh the Sun's legal liability for the way they've published the story is zilch.* A lot of people on twitter however are going to find that attaching someones name to the allegations is very expensive which is why the Sun has been so careful.
* but as I pointed out yesterday if the dossier the Sun has matches the facts the Sun have reported they have a criminal issue because there is no excuse in law for keeping the nude photos of someone aged under 18 under the act they claim was broken....
I've no comment on the story itself other than that the Sun appears - either way - to have been seriously irresponsible in its reporting.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
The other day, I was talking about the essential civilisation of the U.K. with respect to the actions of parents at Rotherham - no vigilante stuff.
Notably, they tried the papers, but they wouldn’t publish. At first.
I think those who particularly hate the Sun should consider how things roll in a country where a more… basic approach is taken to personal justice.
In Peru, for example, the police and the authorities would have barely acknowledged the complaint. This would have been expected. The media wouldn’t publish anything, even if it were proven. The first thing you would have heard about this would have been the murder(s).
Uncivilised as Murdock & Co. are, there are worse things.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
The other day, I was talking about the essential civilisation of the U.K. with respect to the actions of parents at Rotherham - no vigilante stuff.
Notably, they tried the papers, but they wouldn’t publish. At first.
I think those who particularly hate the Sun should consider how things roll in a country where a more… basic approach is taken to personal justice.
In Peru, for example, the police and the authorities would have barely acknowledged the complaint. This would have been expected. The media wouldn’t publish anything, even if it were proven. The first thing you would have heard about this would have been the murder(s).
Uncivilised as Murdock & Co. are, there are worse things.
Sometimes, the tabloids perform an essential function. "A good chap is entitled to a private life" can cover up all manner of wrongdoing.
That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.
Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.
Meanwhile, a rogue senator is sabotaging the military leadership of the US by blocking Senate approval of military promotions.
https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH/status/1678504096385449984 Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed says he had CRS look at how long it would take to confirm all 251 military promotions. (Tuberville says he's forcing votes, not blocking anyone.)
Reed says it would take 668 hours, or 84 days if the Senate spends 8 hours a day on promotions.
It doesn't really sabotage the leadership because officers could and would take appointments without promotion. POTUS could also brevet them into a higher rank if it were absolutely necessary for a particular position. I agree it's not particularly helpful though.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I see the Bank of England is doubling down on its strategy of asking pretty please for people to not ask for higher wages to reduce the size of their real terms pay cut.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
"Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named"
That’s because it was probably the Ukranians. Looks like they’re following the Mossad playbook.
Apparently he was working in recruitment. And there have been a fair few attacks on recruiters and recruitment offices in Russia.
Meanwhile, a rogue senator is sabotaging the military leadership of the US by blocking Senate approval of military promotions.
https://twitter.com/connorobrienNH/status/1678504096385449984 Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed says he had CRS look at how long it would take to confirm all 251 military promotions. (Tuberville says he's forcing votes, not blocking anyone.)
Reed says it would take 668 hours, or 84 days if the Senate spends 8 hours a day on promotions.
It doesn't really sabotage the leadership because officers could and would take appointments without promotion. POTUS could also brevet them into a higher rank if it were absolutely necessary for a particular position. I agree it's not particularly helpful though.
Half of the Joint Chiefs are stepping down this year.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/10/top-marine-david-berger-retires-00105449 ...Berger, whose four-year tour as the Marines’ top officer came to an end, was supposed to hand the reins over to Gen. Eric Smith, who has been nominated for the job. Instead, Smith will run the Corps on a temporary basis while he waits for Senate confirmation, thanks to the hold. Because he’s not confirmed, Smith will have to hold off on making any making strategic decisions for the service. He will also simultaneously serve in his current position as the Marine Corps’ No. 2...
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I can think of several cases where lawyers made such statements, based on an incomplete statement of the facts from their clients.
I see the Bank of England is doubling down on its strategy of asking pretty please for people to not ask for higher wages to reduce the size of their real terms pay cut.
Bankers, on the other hand, need their bonuses, so that one can attract the best people.
As ever, it's pay restraint for thee, but not for me.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
The other day, I was talking about the essential civilisation of the U.K. with respect to the actions of parents at Rotherham - no vigilante stuff.
Notably, they tried the papers, but they wouldn’t publish. At first.
I think those who particularly hate the Sun should consider how things roll in a country where a more… basic approach is taken to personal justice.
In Peru, for example, the police and the authorities would have barely acknowledged the complaint. This would have been expected. The media wouldn’t publish anything, even if it were proven. The first thing you would have heard about this would have been the murder(s).
Uncivilised as Murdock & Co. are, there are worse things.
Sometimes, the tabloids perform an essential function. "A good chap is entitled to a private life" can cover up all manner of wrongdoing.
Actually, the law says that about both good and bad chaps.
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
I don't see why we should ever get the name. I've not followed it closely, but my understanding is that two people over the age of consent have engaged in sexual activity that most of us would consider unwise, and it's possible that one gave the other career assistance. Both of them deny that anything illegal happened and the police have decided there's nothing they wish to take further at this point.
It's something for the BBC HR department to ponder, but for the rest of us, who cares? And what business is it of ours? It would be a shameful misuse of Parliamentary privilege for an MP to name either of them.
The prurience of some posters on here is a sight to behold. Why would anyone be interested in the name of a BBC presenter who almost certainly did nothing wrong? There are loads so why not choose your own. Just remember to keep it to yourself!
To those genuinely excited by this sort of tittle tattle/detective work why not entertain yourselves by looking at the history and previous works of the 'the journalist' (Large inverted commas) who has been running the story?
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
Sound advice, although what we on here tend to forget is that there are plenty in society with no house, nor indeed anything else of any value to lose.
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
"Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named"
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
I see the Bank of England is doubling down on its strategy of asking pretty please for people to not ask for higher wages to reduce the size of their real terms pay cut.
Bankers, on the other hand, need their bonuses, so that one can attract the best people.
As ever, it's pay restraint for thee, but not for me.
Bankers contribute so much to society they deserve every penny plus trickle down economics works.
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
Sound advice, although what we on here tend to forget is that there are plenty in society with no house, nor indeed anything else of any value to lose.
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Why is it nigh impossible that the alleged victim’s lawyer would be incorrect but the Sun’s lawyers must therefore be incorrect.
We don’t know but it seems people are making their stands based on whether they are pro BBC, anti, BBC, anti Sun when we don’t know. How many times do we get caught out believing “our side” against something we hate, don’t want to be true instead of waiting for the facts?
Is there a word to describe the hurt & anger, when you tell someone their favourite piece of invective against person or group X is not true?
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
I don't see why we should ever get the name. I've not followed it closely, but my understanding is that two people over the age of consent have engaged in sexual activity that most of us would consider unwise, and it's possible that one gave the other career assistance. Both of them deny that anything illegal happened and the police have decided there's nothing they wish to take further at this point.
It's something for the BBC HR department to ponder, but for the rest of us, who cares? And what business is it of ours? It would be a shameful misuse of Parliamentary privilege for an MP to name either of them.
Why trust the BBC to get to the truth, given their long history on covering up abuse by the 'talent' ?
A more general point is whether temper is a spur to achievement for anyone - it's a bit like the view that great suffering is needed (or at least helpful) in producing great art.
I've more or less never lost my temper, which I know is odd (too dedicated to feeling I'm being rational), but I'm not sure that's done me any harm. I do see that imposing guard rails on oneself might get in the way sometimes, but maybe that's only if one's naturally hot-tempered and then it's best to let it out?
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
I don't see why we should ever get the name. I've not followed it closely, but my understanding is that two people over the age of consent have engaged in sexual activity that most of us would consider unwise, and it's possible that one gave the other career assistance. Both of them deny that anything illegal happened and the police have decided there's nothing they wish to take further at this point.
It's something for the BBC HR department to ponder, but for the rest of us, who cares? And what business is it of ours? It would be a shameful misuse of Parliamentary privilege for an MP to name either of them.
Like you I am not very interested, but I think you are over simplifying.
There are two simple approaches to the activities of those in any sort of public role or position or influence - celebs, teachers, MPs, media folk, youth workers, religious workers, social workers; millions of them in all.
Simple version one: Anyone can do anything that is not unlawful without consequence.
Simple version two: Anyone will be in trouble if they do stuff that is unlawful and if they do stuff within a universally agreed framework of socially unacceptable actions.
Neither simple version is available. You are veering towards simple version (1). This version allows, without consequence, paying for sex, sex for influence, public Koran burning, holocaust denial. I don't think this will work.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
If you want to see what happens when the press meets a real power differential, contrast the treatment of the unproven BBC allegations with the unproven allegations in The Email. There was more coverage of some harmless orange confetti.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Why is it nigh impossible that the alleged victim’s lawyer would be incorrect but the Sun’s lawyers must therefore be incorrect.
We don’t know but it seems people are making their stands based on whether they are pro BBC, anti, BBC, anti Sun when we don’t know. How many times do we get caught out believing “our side” against something we hate, don’t want to be true instead of waiting for the facts?
Is there a word to describe the hurt & anger, when you tell someone their favourite piece of invective against person or group X is not true?
I note on r5l they briefly mentioned that the mum had gone to the police but the police said there was nothing illegal going on. You also need to be 18+ to start an Onlyfans account (Which is heavily implied). So the balance of evidence currently (Police, young person, Onlyfans ID requirement) vs the mum implies said young person was 18+ when "presenter X" allegedly sent payments for stuff.
The idea that any candidate should be exempt from being tried for a crime is absurd on its face.
It is, but so many buy it it's remarkable. They outright admit even if he's guilty they don't think he should have been charged. It'd be one thing if they stuck to saying he's innocent, he conceivably could be acquitted, but he and others stress how he's a candidate as reason to not proceed. Land of equality indeed.
A week from now even the conspiracists will have accepted that when the lawyer, the person themsleves, and the police tell you it's nothing ... it's, erm, nothing.
Have a nice day.
xx
It certainly is not nothing with BBC presenters, including Nicky Campbell receiving dreadful twitter abuse and other presenters declaring it was not them
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
"Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named"
Really?? Where are you getting that idea from?
Reported on Sky this morning
So it's a rival broadcaster stirring up trouble.
In other "media eating itself" news, striking split in the coverage of the story.
Most papers going down the "Sun's claims are rubbish" route- no surprise. The Times are reporting The Sun's defence- no surprise. And The Mail are going with the awfulness of not being able to name the celebrity involved.
Nasty curtain-twitching rag. No doubt some starlet is flaunting their curves on the website.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
If you want to see what happens when the press meets a real power differential, contrast the treatment of the unproven BBC allegations with the unproven allegations in The Email. There was more coverage of some harmless orange confetti.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Why is it nigh impossible that the alleged victim’s lawyer would be incorrect but the Sun’s lawyers must therefore be incorrect.
We don’t know but it seems people are making their stands based on whether they are pro BBC, anti, BBC, anti Sun when we don’t know. How many times do we get caught out believing “our side” against something we hate, don’t want to be true instead of waiting for the facts?
Is there a word to describe the hurt & anger, when you tell someone their favourite piece of invective against person or group X is not true?
Yes, it’s “Watsoned”.
“I was totally Watsoned and dropped my popcorn when I found out the member of the right wing establishment/left wing wokerati I hate turned out not to have been a witch after all but a poor innocent duck.”
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
I'd argue you're wrong:
*) There is a massive power differential, in terms of age, wealth and influence. Where there are power differentials, there can all too easily be abuse of that differential.
*) The situation is as clear as mud.
Your argument seems to be the same one that has allowed loads of abuse to go on unremarked over the years. We don't want to go back to the 1950s in that way, either.
If you want to see what happens when the press meets a real power differential, contrast the treatment of the unproven BBC allegations with the unproven allegations in The Email. There was more coverage of some harmless orange confetti.
The 'harmless orange confetti' stunt was sick. It was someone's wedding day, ffs. It's a shame you treat having a stupid ***** potentially ruin someone's wedding day so lightly.
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
Sound advice, although what we on here tend to forget is that there are plenty in society with no house, nor indeed anything else of any value to lose.
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
PS Should we have whip-round for Leon?
Squillions not scullions! Bloody autocorrupt!
Is it set to American? We call them squillions and spring onions.
A more general point is whether temper is a spur to achievement for anyone - it's a bit like the view that great suffering is needed (or at least helpful) in producing great art.
I've more or less never lost my temper, which I know is odd (too dedicated to feeling I'm being rational), but I'm not sure that's done me any harm. I do see that imposing guard rails on oneself might get in the way sometimes, but maybe that's only if one's naturally hot-tempered and then it's best to let it out?
Similarly, I don't really feel I have a temper, cold anger is more my style if badly let down.
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
I don't see why we should ever get the name. I've not followed it closely, but my understanding is that two people over the age of consent have engaged in sexual activity that most of us would consider unwise, and it's possible that one gave the other career assistance. Both of them deny that anything illegal happened and the police have decided there's nothing they wish to take further at this point.
It's something for the BBC HR department to ponder, but for the rest of us, who cares? And what business is it of ours? It would be a shameful misuse of Parliamentary privilege for an MP to name either of them.
Like you I am not very interested, but I think you are over simplifying.
There are two simple approaches to the activities of those in any sort of public role or position or influence - celebs, teachers, MPs, media folk, youth workers, religious workers, social workers; millions of them in all.
Simple version one: Anyone can do anything that is not unlawful without consequence.
Simple version two: Anyone will be in trouble if they do stuff that is unlawful and if they do stuff within a universally agreed framework of socially unacceptable actions.
Neither simple version is available. You are veering towards simple version (1). This version allows, without consequence, paying for sex, sex for influence, public Koran burning, holocaust denial. I don't think this will work.
THird element: the framework imposed by agreeing to act within the constraints determined by your professional body, employer, etc., where 'employer' includes such things as organizations for which one volunteers.
I'd be surprised if there's anyone who is halfway interested in the story who hasn't worked it out by now. But you can't say it. Like Lord Voldemort out of Harry Potter.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
I don’t care and am sick of the relentless media obsession with this story .
I would have thought that the alleged victim could have sold his story for a lot more than the 35 grand he allegedly received from the BBC presenter so the fact his lawyer says nothing untoward happened suggests this is a mother who is lashing out because her child went off the rails .
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
Sound advice, although what we on here tend to forget is that there are plenty in society with no house, nor indeed anything else of any value to lose.
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
PS Should we have whip-round for Leon?
Squillions not scullions! Bloody autocorrupt!
Is it set to American? We call them squillions and spring onions.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
I'm sure HR will have a word with you about age discrimination.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Was anyone from HR present? You've got yourself potentially bang to rights for age discrimination.
Would you say that about women? "They might **** off back home when they get pregnant."
The idea that any candidate should be exempt from being tried for a crime is absurd on its face.
Typically of course he publicly states the case is very simple, but his lawyers state it is incredibly complicated.
And seemingly that he has so many legal issues coming there's no time for this one ahead of the election. Which is interesting, makes it seem like he's more worried by this one.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I can think of several cases where lawyers made such statements, based on an incomplete statement of the facts from their clients.
Anyone got a Sword Of Truth handy?
Aitken made the Sword of Truth speech himself, not via a lawyer, as can be seen in this video. Since prison, he has turned his collar, as well as his life, around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg3BxoTW7rI
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I don't think we have been told which firm of solicitors are involved in this letter. Solicitors are not under any obligation to accept a client, and can advise in certain ways which assist better rather than worse outcomes. A letter from Sue, Grabbit and Runne, or indeed Mr Vhoules, sole practitioner of Little Snoring, may mean differently from a letter from one of the well known human rights/media law outfits.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Was anyone from HR present? You've got yourself potentially bang to rights for age discrimination.
Would you say that about women? "They might **** off back home when they get pregnant."
In addition; you might get someone who has recharged batteries and is ready and raring to rejoin the workforce, rather than someone who has been working all hours Godsend because they desperately need money and are burnt out.
Also, you might get someone who is a little more rounded.
Comments
Carter is a good man, but he's never claimed to be a saint.
https://twitter.com/NouveauDeco/status/1677992010060296194
One might argue that to assume that an older man paying someone for nude pictures whilst vulnerable as alleged must be homosexual and so you are jumping to a conclusion that homosexuality is the more deviant strain of sexuality.
Me Too would demonstrate otherwise.
Best just not to speculate on any matter on this, the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct, the alleged victim’s lawyer might have been lied to, the BBC’s lawyers might have correctly judged initially that whilst a bit poor behaviour there was no crime or legal reason to sack presenter, the BBC lawyers might have screwed up, they might not have even seen the file as maybe management said it didn’t need to go that far, maybe the Sun were lied to, maybe, like a stopped clock the Sun has got something right after their lawyers checked the shit out of it.
We don’t have a clue though.
A legal commentator on Sky has just said the Sun have studiously avoided naming the presenter or the son, specifically to ensure they do not fall on the wrong side of defamation and libel laws
I have insufficient legal knowledge, but others on here have, and it would be interesting if anyone has a different view of the Sun's legal liability
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
As for the "child's" gender, from the Sun:
She said she was told the star requested “performances” and, heartbreakingly, her child said they would “get their bits out”.
I suppose someone sufficiently motivated might argue that it was a reference to breasts, but I don't think that would convince anyone.
There is ... nothing.
I wonder how much more media-driven rubbish we have to endure this summer?
The lawyer and their client closed it. Move on.
I'm sure you will soon find another media-invented carcass on which to feed.
We don’t know but it seems people are making their stands based on whether they are pro BBC, anti, BBC, anti Sun when we don’t know. How many times do we get caught out believing “our side” against something we hate, don’t want to be true instead of waiting for the facts?
IMV a lot will depend on what the 'star' told the young person; if he traded off his name and influence to get what he wanted, or wanted to meet, then he's way out of order and should be sacked, at least. If he was just an 'ordinary' punter, then probably not - as long as the young person was above the age of consent for the activity. But the BBC should carefully watch his behaviour when he gets to meet members of the public in a professional capacity.
You rightly mention Beech, and people who have been wrongly accused in the past. It should be noted, however, that the BBC and the media in general has a long history of proven poor behaviour, and of covering it up for years or decades. Don't automatically trust them this time, either.
Have a nice day.
xx
The Sun has form for muckraking. The BBC has form for employing child molesters. Neither tells us anything about the truth of these allegations.
Apparently there is fury in the BBC with a demand the presenter is named
You may want to close down the story, as you often do on the trans debate, but this story has many unanswered questions
UK wages have risen at a record annual pace fuelling fears that inflation will stay high for longer.
Regular pay grew by 7.3% in the March to May period from year earlier, official figures showed, equalling the highest growth rate last month.
The pace of wage rises has come under increasing focus by the Bank of England as it tries to control inflation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66156713
And as Fallows has elsewhere noted, a large dollop of luck.
Totally shocked.
https://www.sportbible.com/formula-1/max-verstappen-man-united-premier-league-f1-104068-20230708
As for Johnson I gave up on him a long time ago
* but as I pointed out yesterday if the dossier the Sun has matches the facts the Sun have reported they have a criminal issue because there is no excuse in law for keeping the nude photos of someone aged under 18 under the act they claim was broken....
Must be very hard work [edit] for PB commentators keeping up with the story while claiming how dreadful it all is.
Really?? Where are you getting that idea from?
If it were still the 1980s glory days of the red tops, that wouldn't have mattered. The celeb's name would have been on the front page, followed closely by a photo of a nubile teen who had forgotten to put many clothes on. There might have been some justification that The Public Deserved To Know, but we didn't really. A lot of the stories were little more than titillation, some ruined lives and a fair few were completely made up.
From what seems established, the BBC and the police both took the complaint seriously but concluded there was nothing they could do about the off air behaviour of the presenter. I can understand the parents not liking that answer, but by going to The Sun, they may well have made things worse.
Rich bloke does tawdry things in private. It's a bit "dog bites man", isn't it?
Pay policy, as a failed method of controlling inflation, is something I thought was confined to the 1960's and 1970's.
Wise words
Notably, they tried the papers, but they wouldn’t publish. At first.
I think those who particularly hate the Sun should consider how things roll in a country where a more… basic approach is taken to personal justice.
In Peru, for example, the police and the authorities would have barely acknowledged the complaint. This would have been expected. The media wouldn’t publish anything, even if it were proven. The first thing you would have heard about this would have been the murder(s).
Uncivilised as Murdock & Co. are, there are worse things.
Trump wants classified documents trial delayed until after 2024 election
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/11/trump-classified-documents-trial-date-2024-00105565
The idea that any candidate should be exempt from being tried for a crime is absurd on its face.
There's another R&W poll due out today that will worry the Tories if it's anything like the last one. The fortnightly R&W Red Wall poll.
Central Park Five member’s landslide City Council win represents power shift in Harlem
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/10/yusef-salaam-central-park-five-headed-to-city-hall-00105405
Now he wants to talk shit about fair trials.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/10/top-marine-david-berger-retires-00105449
...Berger, whose four-year tour as the Marines’ top officer came to an end, was supposed to hand the reins over to Gen. Eric Smith, who has been nominated for the job. Instead, Smith will run the Corps on a temporary basis while he waits for Senate confirmation, thanks to the hold. Because he’s not confirmed, Smith will have to hold off on making any making strategic decisions for the service. He will also simultaneously serve in his current position as the Marine Corps’ No. 2...
Anyone got a Sword Of Truth handy?
As ever, it's pay restraint for thee, but not for me.
It's something for the BBC HR department to ponder, but for the rest of us, who cares? And what business is it of ours? It would be a shameful misuse of Parliamentary privilege for an MP to name either of them.
To those genuinely excited by this sort of tittle tattle/detective work why not entertain yourselves by looking at the history and previous works of the 'the journalist' (Large inverted commas) who has been running the story?
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
PS Should we have whip-round for Leon?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/KW-2_1940.jpg
No, that is real…
I've more or less never lost my temper, which I know is odd (too dedicated to feeling I'm being rational), but I'm not sure that's done me any harm. I do see that imposing guard rails on oneself might get in the way sometimes, but maybe that's only if one's naturally hot-tempered and then it's best to let it out?
There are two simple approaches to the activities of those in any sort of public role or position or influence - celebs, teachers, MPs, media folk, youth workers, religious workers, social workers; millions of them in all.
Simple version one: Anyone can do anything that is not unlawful without consequence.
Simple version two: Anyone will be in trouble if they do stuff that is unlawful and if they do stuff within a universally agreed framework of socially unacceptable actions.
Neither simple version is available. You are veering towards simple version (1). This version allows, without consequence, paying for sex, sex for influence, public Koran burning, holocaust denial. I don't think this will work.
With his pet judge anything is possible too.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/
Most papers going down the "Sun's claims are rubbish" route- no surprise. The Times are reporting The Sun's defence- no surprise. And The Mail are going with the awfulness of not being able to name the celebrity involved.
Nasty curtain-twitching rag. No doubt some starlet is flaunting their curves on the website.
“I was totally Watsoned and dropped my popcorn when I found out the member of the right wing establishment/left wing wokerati I hate turned out not to have been a witch after all but a poor innocent duck.”
But then neither of us has ever been president...
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
I would have thought that the alleged victim could have sold his story for a lot more than the 35 grand he allegedly received from the BBC presenter so the fact his lawyer says nothing untoward happened suggests this is a mother who is lashing out because her child went off the rails .
In the latest 3 minute video he doesn't say the word 'Mussolini' but 'fez-wearing Italian man' because using the name gets the video demonetized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5d_MPw1nQs
We live in an era of burgeoning AI artwork in seconds, yet this idiocy still occurs.
Would you say that about women? "They might **** off back home when they get pregnant."
And seemingly that he has so many legal issues coming there's no time for this one ahead of the election. Which is interesting, makes it seem like he's more worried by this one.
Might be charged in Georgia too of course.
He'll never see a day of prison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg3BxoTW7rI
Also, you might get someone who is a little more rounded.