Soldato
It's the eyes
The Huw Edwards situation
- Thread starter Participant
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Or the irony of The Sun slamming Brass Eye for the satirical "paedogeddon" special, opposite an article about
15 year old Charlotte Church's chest!
Edit - 15 year old!
Last edited:
Latest on Reddit from someone that apparently has a friend who works for the BBC is that it could be *********. Previously *********** was touted as the person (no I've never heard of him either) or possibly ****** but I doubt that.
Anyway whole law thing that's been mentioned is ridiculous. Either put both age of consent and pics at 18 or both at 16, not one and the other.
Anyway whole law thing that's been mentioned is ridiculous. Either put both age of consent and pics at 18 or both at 16, not one and the other.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I also read on MySpace that my friend's toaster's uncle's mother said something like that.
Well thats two independently verified sources.. must be true..
Soldato
Jeremy Vine thrown a bit of a wobbly based on some guy posting stuff about him.
Guy then deleted the tweet(s) and went with the "I was drunk bro, loads of people do that then delete the tweets" defence.
Likely to be a few solicitors getting rich over this.
Guy then deleted the tweet(s) and went with the "I was drunk bro, loads of people do that then delete the tweets" defence.
Likely to be a few solicitors getting rich over this.
Soldato
Pretty sure that was the Daily Star, not The Sun.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,001
It was.
BBC presenter: Corporation in touch with police over explicit photo allegations
The corporation says it became aware of new allegations on Thursday and is working "to establish the facts".
www.bbc.co.uk
Last edited:
Caporegime
BBC presenter: Corporation in touch with police over explicit photo allegations
The corporation says it became aware of new allegations on Thursday and is working "to establish the facts".www.bbc.co.uk
That doesn't say what you think it says. I'll repeat, do you have a source that says they paid for sexual images when the person was 17?
Soldato
Time to start phoning a few agents and wait for the reply of "Sorry, but **** ******** will not be available this year"
The article says exactly that.
I added that paragraph in my edited post.
It seems to be good enough for the bbc to approach the police but not for you?
Would there be any other reason for the BBC to 'get in touch' with the police?
Caporegime
It doesn't say that at all! It says they started paying them for images, not that the images were sexual at that point. How many times does it take for you to actually read what i've written?
Soldato
Caporegime
Absolutely, the police are going to come sniffing anyway, head it off at the pass! Don't want anyone else to be dragged under by claims they didn't cooperate or weren't forthcoming. Look at the crapfest that hit ITV.
Soldato
It's all over the hole that is Twitter. If true though, I suspect they'll not be anonymous Furlong.
Last edited:
The police would only get involved if there's any question of legality, in this instance nudey pics of someone underage tho?
I don't think the police were involved in Schofield's' incident' were they? I don't recall they were anyway, and I can't remember if folks were saying they should, then again I didn't pay a huge amount of notice to it outside of the odd grooming comment
Soldato
Every BBC presenter on annual leave about to rush back to their job immediately 
Commissario
The BBC won't generally comment on any HR matter, and this sounds very much like it's a HR matter if not a police one until there has been some sort of investigation, At most they'll generally confirm a complaint has been made and it's under investigation, they won't usually add any more information that isn't already known.
This is, I believe fairly standard practice for HR departments all over, as the company cannot do anything that is seen to be prejudicial to the HR investigation.
"the mother complained in May", that means there has been between 5 and 9 weeks since the complaint was made, that's not long for what could be a complicated complaint with lawyers and potential police involvement, especially at this time of year when there is a good chance the person being complained about may have other commitments or may not be available due to things like holidays, or other key personal may not be immediately available.
IIRC I've heard of cases of blatant gross misconduct in very simple instances where the employee of a private company has had the appointment with HR scheduled for 1-2 weeks after the event, simply because from memory the law requires the employee gets a chance to have representation and the companies have wanted to make sure they've done everything to not only the legally required standard, but best practice (so they avoid getting sued for unfair dismissal).
- Status