It is interesting though, if The Sun have the facts that they claim to have, why didn't they publish his name, the bank statements etc.?
This isn't a non-story, I'm amazed anyone would believe it is. There's a major court case ongoing regarding media lies and hacking ... ... no chance the Sun would simply make this up. If they did it would be the end of the paper.
Think they’re spinning it to be they were coming from the angle of the story being about the bbc not investigating the complaint in good time, not the presenter noncing around. Bit of a climb down already.
Yeh I'm not sure the lawyer of the victim saying nothing has happened with a subject as sensitive as this, when both the parents and the newspaper have said they've seen evidence and are co-operating with police, means nothing has happened. Maybe the victim is saying its consensual now, and it may well have been and difficult to prove otherwise. doesn't make this not an issue for a public figure.
Absolutely yes, in a case like this. Legislation has changed in the last few years. "The Supreme Court established that when someone is under investigation by a law enforcement agency they have this reasonable expectation of privacy."
There is no investigation though, so that wouldn't apply. Even if it did, The Sun are hardly ones to let that get in the way of a sensationalist story, unless of course they fear a libel case.
It's illegal to divulge the name, bank account details, etc. If you think that's wrong you can easily check.
Listening to Sky, their experts said the Sun was careful to have sworn statements from the parents and to only publish what they said. It was suspect however that they did not have a statement from the victim, especially if the alleged victim got in contact to say it was all rubbish before they published. Whats the odds the dirty diggers lawyers are working overtime atm. It needs bank statements and pics, if they exist to be made public, or at least to be given to the boys in blue. The plod atm are declining to get involved.
It doesn't though, they're not obliged to do that just for public curiosity ... ... besides which, it's illegal.
Does that mean the plod cannot have them, presumably the Mother/Sun has them to pass on...otherwise the story is bollocks.
The police can ask for them but that would mean there's an investigation and the name can't be disclosed. Can I ask, you seem determined that this is all bollocks, why is that?
I wonder if they can even provide the bank statements and pictures if the parents themselves obtained them illegally from their child. The lawyer of the young person has very clearly said that it's an invasion of privacy and if the age at when this began is in doubt, then they're on dangerous ground. Surely it can't be legal for the parents to provide pictures to The Sun?
Not at all, given Jim will fix it, and Rolf...of course it is possible. My doubts such as they are...usually with old men being predators, there is a recurring pattern, nobody else (up till now) has suggested other victims are involved. Generally you do not suddenly become a dirty old man, you will have history of it. To specifically mention photos (not videos?) and cash and by the sound of it the Sun has not seen the proof , just raises questions. You may recall a few years ago a prominent Labour politician made a lot of noise about a *****phile ring in London. It was all bollocks but those accused, but were innocent, went to their grave before they were cleared. Then if course The Sun, being a Con rag, loves to attack the BBC... So if other accusations surface, or pics, cash payments I would not be surprised. But until they do...
Parents stand by their account, saying the BBC are in their child’s head. The Sun definitely doubling down.
Seems to be a subtle change to their stance, but admittedly I haven't read any of their reporting I'm just going on second hand info as being reported tonight. Looks like The Sun are saying their story was around a complaint made to the BBC that wasn't acted upon. I'm not sure they are making direct allegations of abuse (if they ever did).
