Jump to content

The BBC Thread

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

ecuk268

ecuk268

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Only a matter of time before GB News go for broke and just name him.

As long as all they say is "xxxx is under investigation by the BBC" I can't really see how they can be sued or stopped.

By the time there is an Ofcom investigation or whatever, it will be known that what they said was true.

Every single person reading the news knows who it is. The dam will break very quickly.

 

There was a Supreme Court judgement last year that ruled that publishing accusations against an individual before they had been charged was a breach of privacy and could result in legal action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

There was a Supreme Court judgement last year that ruled that publishing accusations against an individual before they had been charged was a breach of privacy and could result in legal action. 

Fair enough, until the 6pm news I was expecting a GB News maverick to blab it, or a John Leslie "accidental" reveal, I think that nearly happened yesterday.

Anyway, newspapers printing dubious stories and declining to print a "right of reply" denial even though they had it is pretty bloody bad as well.

No doubt all those that were full of self righteous indignation about the BBC will be absolutely furious with the Sun now. Won't they?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)

So reading between the lines with the latest rumours, it seems that the person in question spent a load of money on an only fans model whose parents are saying was 17 (but you have to be 18 to sign up on the site.) Even if he did pay all that money, I think it's going to be pretty difficult to prove illegality, particularly with the alleged victim saying that nothing illegal happened. His career is obviously over but I can't see him being prosecuted unless they have proof she was underage and he was requesting pictures. I feel very sorry for his wife and five children.

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So reading between the lines with the latest rumours, it seems that the person in question spent a load of money on an only fans model whose parents are saying was 17 (but you have to be 18 to sign up on the site.) Even if he did pay all that money, I think it's going to be pretty difficult to prove illegality, particularly with the alleged victim saying that nothing illegal happened. His career is obviously over but I can't see him being prosecuted unless they have proof she was underage and he was requesting pictures. I feel very sorry for his wife and five children.

If that is the case then why should their career be over? Don’t need to be a paragon of virtue. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and in effect looking at porn via Only Fans is no where near a career ending offence IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Just now, whelk said:

If that is the case then why should their career be over? Don’t need to be a paragon of virtue. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and in effect looking at porn via Only Fans is no where near a career ending offence IMO

I can't see a scenario where his public persona has been damaged to such an extent that he can continue in his current role. The public will have a view. Lets see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

So reading between the lines with the latest rumours, it seems that the person in question spent a load of money on an only fans model whose parents are saying was 17 (but you have to be 18 to sign up on the site.) Even if he did pay all that money, I think it's going to be pretty difficult to prove illegality, particularly with the alleged victim saying that nothing illegal happened. His career is obviously over but I can't see him being prosecuted unless they have proof she was underage and he was requesting pictures. I feel very sorry for his wife and five children.

If the person's parents are saying that the person was 17 and the person is saying nothing illegal happened, then there is no chance of proving illegality.

Immorality on the other hand - especially from a representative of the BBC - will certainly damage the presenters career, especailly if they've lied about it to try and cover it up ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If the person's parents are saying that the person was 17 and the person is saying nothing illegal happened, then there is no chance of proving illegality.

Immorality on the other hand - especially from a representative of the BBC - will certainly damage the presenters career, especailly if they've lied about it to try and cover it up ;) 

That's my point. He will lose his position of authority and trust in the eyes of the public so I can't see how he can continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Unless we never find out who it is (officially).  Then they can carry on as normal - like they have since the beginning of May ;) 

Well it will become more farcical the longer they avoid naming him whilst he doesn't show up on telly. Particularly if it's someone who is on TV regularly. 

Edited by hypochondriac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted

A twitter Political news site (that I'd never seen before) have gone all in and named the guy in question, labelling it as an "exclusive" story....

On top of that, now there's a third bloody story, they've managed to get a Covid angle.

It can't be long before he outs himself, probably with an "I've been such a fool" interview with the Daily Mail or Mirror.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, CB Fry said:

A twitter Political news site (that I'd never seen before) have gone all in and named the guy in question, labelling it as an "exclusive" story....

On top of that, now there's a third bloody story, they've managed to get a Covid angle.

It can't be long before he outs himself, probably with an "I've been such a fool" interview with the Daily Mail or Mirror.

 

 

This morning there is a 4th person who claims they were contacted when they were at school

 

Edited by AlexLaw76
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

This morning there is a 4th person who claims they were contacted when they were at school

 

You’ve taken your time. You will lose your post as Noncewatch General if you aren’t careful Batman. I’m very disappointed that you haven’t already posted the picture of HE’s arse cheeks. You’re standards are definitely slipping.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

You’ve taken your time. You will lose your post as Noncewatch General if you aren’t careful Batman. I’m very disappointed that you haven’t already posted the picture of HE’s arse cheeks. You’re standards are definitely slipping.

Is this a picture you have seen???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Add to the list anti-Semitic reporting and a failure to call Hamas "terrorists" and the Beeb will soon be going the way of many of the ghastly  paedophiles  they overpaid, with our money. What a horrible organisation they have become. Defund, now!

How do you think ITV are doing, out of interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Add to the list anti-Semitic reporting and a failure to call Hamas "terrorists" and the Beeb will soon be going the way of many of the ghastly  paedophiles  they overpaid, with our money. What a horrible organisation they have become. Defund, now!

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/17/bbc-apology-hamas-pro-palestine-demonstrations-israel-gaza-latest-19678589/

 

Seems they can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

imagine if you were forced to pay for a Daily Mail subscription every month...Im sure your view would be very different

It is great value for money, especially if paying it pisses off wankers like you.

Edited by aintforever
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

imagine if you were forced to pay for a Daily Mail subscription every month...Im sure your view would be very different

What about having to pay for the King that most don't want.

Or having to pay for GB News just because you want a football channel.

Or me having to pay for my wives pasta when I fucking hate spaghetti bolognese.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

What about having to pay for the King that most don't want.

Or having to pay for GB News just because you want a football channel.

Or me having to pay for my wives pasta when I fucking hate spaghetti bolognese.

He’s a lot cheaper than having a President.

Anyway, how do you know that ‘most don’t want’ a king?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Add to the list anti-Semitic reporting and a failure to call Hamas "terrorists" and the Beeb will soon be going the way of many of the ghastly  paedophiles  they overpaid, with our money. What a horrible organisation they have become. Defund, now!

Given that complaints about bias reporting in this conflict are running about 50/50 so far I would say that the BBC are doing a pretty good job tip toeing through the various sensibilities of the viewing public.

They have made the point several times that as an international broadcasting company they have to be seen as being impartial. Several countries (including some in Europe) do not refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Every day in the news reports I have seen by the BBC they make the point that the UK government view Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Seems reasonable to me.

Yes, the paedo stuff was pretty grim. Those of us around at the time will remember that a blind eye was turned to many things that are not acceptable today. Drink driving for one was rife back in the 70’s. You don’t have to go much further than the Benny Hill show to see that a chubby middle aged man chasing you women in their undies was prime time family entertainment. Did you boycott the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie or John Peel? Members of those bands and the latter two were open about having sex with under aged girls at the time. It wasn’t just the BBC turning a blind eye.

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

imagine if you were forced to pay for a Daily Mail subscription every month...Im sure your view would be very different

Only you would attempt to conflate the Daily Mail with the BBC 🙄. As you well know, one is owned by a very rich man who uses it to support his right wing ideology and the Tory government. The other is an independent public broadcasting service of world renown.

I can’t believe for one minute that you have never watched or listened to any output from the BBC. Even if you don’t now, as pointed out, we all pay for lots of public services that we don’t use. I don’t see you complaining about that. This country would be a lot poorer without the BBC and if you don’t use any of its content then more fool you (but thanks for your selfless annual contributions so that the rest of us can).

Edited by sadoldgit
Added text
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Add to the list anti-Semitic reporting and a failure to call Hamas "terrorists" and the Beeb will soon be going the way of many of the ghastly  paedophiles  they overpaid, with our money. What a horrible organisation they have become. Defund, now!

‘Jimmy Savile, he’s one of your own’.

Jimmy was more of a Conservative than anything else at heart. So you may have supported him twice with a Conservative Party membership and the BBC. You mug, if you did. Jimmy got a knighthood out of it too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-jimmy-savile-s-close-friendship-with-margaret-thatcher-8432351.html

PS - Hamas clearly are a terrorist organisation, and their actions absolutely appalling, but I don’t need the aid of broadcasters to spell it out in primary colours for me. Nor should the situation be used to further an already pathetic culture war imported from Trump and Bannon (yes Daily Mail, I’m looking at you).

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

 

What they want as I don't pay a license fee to them. Now, Channel 4....

Which the hard right still wanted to privatise (and failed) as too liberal and not compliant enough with a Steve Bannon-inspired culture war unlike GBeebies, Mail or Murdoch empire. 

https://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4-privatisation-plans-scrapped-in-government-u-turn

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...