I certainly don’t profess to know the ins and outs of this case, and just blaming the BBC for not taking action after police had stated that no known offence had taken place at the time seems a bit strange. This is a complex case that has been discussed thoroughly by the BBC and is now back in the hands of the police largely due to BBC own investigation. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
That isn't what happened. The BBC sat on its hands until the parents went to the Sun, doing nothing for several weeks other than sending one email and making one telephone call to the parents. They admit they did not even speak to the presenter until that time, the DG saying yesterday that he had STILL not spoken to him. The police are involved, not because of the BBC investigation, but because the police themselves want to "scope it out", in other words look into it themselves as the BBC were not doing so adequately. It's not the first time. Nor the second third or any sensible number. It will not be the last.
There is a lot of backtracking going on from the initial "breaking news". Not sure if anything illegal happened or not but the bloke in question has kissed goodbye to his career. Excuse the pun
Depending on how you want to portray things it's equally true to say the police were contacted in April and having found no evidence of criminal behaviour didn't pursue the allegation. The BBC were then contacted in May and tried to get in touch with the complainant by email and telephone but received no response. Too much smoke and mirrors, I'll wait until a factual account is published.
I might have to eat huge portions of humble pie here but I'm saying the Sun has played a blinder ... .... discussed on the main TV channels 24 hours a day, for a week, questions to MPs, endless front pages. They've not had to provide a scrap of proof or be possibly guilty of slander. They could drag it out for weeks tbh.
I'm not sure what to believe Smug. there was something on Twitter about the Sun reigning back and saying what happened may not be illegal. There was also something I heard on one of the news programmes that sending photographs to a person above the age of consent may not be illegal (I think it was Robert Peston in his spot at the end of News at 10) It just appears to me that people or news outlets who, if they are not backtracking are positioning themselves on the right side of the law. I suppose it will all come out in the wash, but in my opinion, whatever the outcome, his career is shot now.
Imo,all of this is media nonsense. The Police have received a report of an alleged crime(s) which they will investigate. When they have established the facts,and whether any laws have been broken, they will decide what action needs to be taken. It's a bit like our situation with AJ and Maggie....we all felt as though she should have acted sooner...as with the BBC now....but,in the end none of it will count for anything. It doesn't matter what the BBC thought,could have done,did do,didn't do..it's not their job to investigate criminal behaviour.
On the other hand,if they've ruined the career of a perfectly innocent person,they need to go the way of their Sunday Sister and get shut down.
It's not necessarily a question of criminality, that's the thing. If a BBC presenter set up a website of photos, already in the public domain, of Laura Kuenssberg, Naga Munchetty and Carol Kirkland it wouldn't be illegal. But it would be totally inappropriate and you'd expect the perpetrator to be dismissed. If I did it there's nothing anyone can do ... ... PM if you want the link, I've some nice ones of Fiona Bruce
No,don't misunderstand me. I'm not defending the BBC in any way....in fact I've said for many years that they are not fit for purpose and I have a deal of sympathy with those who want to stop their licence fee and make them earn their money commercially. All I'm saying here is that there are two strands to this.....the criminal and the employer. If we allow the criminal aspect to take its' course,then the employer behaviour will be made clear.If the Police determine there has been no criminal activity,then attention will focus on what the BBC expects from its' employees and whether or not it's able to deal with situations which may arise....in fact,it's whole governance....which,in most people's view is piss poor and has been for a long time.
Well I'm just going off what the BBC have said. They concede that they did not even speak to the presenter until the Sun broke the story. Several weeks after the initial complaint. That alone is staggering neglect
If the Welsh windbag or whoever takes early retirement I would like to see Martine Croxall back. Love Martine me.
It may well be, and I've no doubt their actions will be scrutinised to death. I just want to see it all in context though, and we just don't have that level of information yet. One thing David Yelland said which I found interesting was that the big media companies like BBC and ITV receive hundreds of mischievous complaints each month about their stars. If that is the case, how do they screen and assess them? Have they been complacent or is the risk based approach they would have to take fit for purpose? That's what I want to know but neither the BBC or The Sun can provide an objective account. I'm in no doubt the government will be demanding some kind of independent review once the criminal aspect is sorted.
That's all fair and reasonable. What I'd say is complacent is that the top man at the BBC claims he hasn't spoken to the presenter despite him having been suspended. He may wish to avoid being 'guilty by association' but he's being paid a fortune to address this kind of situation quickly and thoroughly. 'Dear BBC, please please please stop fannying about and get it sorted, Yours Mrs H Edwards, Glamorgan."
Criminality isn’t the main issue, for me. It’s somebody potentially abusing their power and fame to bully (allegedly) and coerce a young person into something they might not be comfortable doing otherwise. If it is a man in his 60’s going after 17 year olds, he might not be a nonce by its definition, but boys and girls aren’t fully formed at that age, so I would still view him as one.
