Trouble at the BBC.

[1D54]

It would be interesting to hear if she got paid by The Sun for her story, though...

Sun has denied making any payment to her.

 

[Gloster]

I believe the law was changed in the early 2000s, so that possession of sexually explicit photos of someone under the age of 18 is an offence, despite the age of consent being 16.

Samantha Fox was 18 in 1984, so this wouldn't have applied to her.

Samantha Fox was 16 when her first topless photos appeared in the S*n.

The fact that the mother of the person in question is prepared to make accusations will absolutely be enough for The Sun.

However, as sad as this may sound, the reality is not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart; we don't know if this mother does, or doesn't but it would be interesting to hear if she got paid by The Sun for her story, though...

But there are plenty of ways that papers can get around that: keeping your source hidden away from other papers for a week in a luxury spa resort, some new clothes so that they will look good in any photos, etc. Of course, that is not payment.

 

[brad465]

If there's to be a comparable case to this, it's Sir Cliff Richard being investigated as part of Operation Yewtree: no wrongdoing was found, but the BBC's intensive/intrusive coverage led to Richard feeling humiliated/distressed, apologies being made and ultimately Richard successfully suing the BBC for £210k in damages.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Many of the initial statements made it clear that she hadn't. Whether that's true is another matter.

Maybe I'm over-analysing it, but didn't the Sun say that the mother didn't ask for payment. That form of words might mean there was no payment, or might mean the Sun offered and she said yes

 

[Sm5]

Sun has denied making any payment to her.

How about her other family members, relatives etc ?
was that confirmed too ?

Sun are journalists, of a sort, wordsmithing is their forte.

Nothing short of a full denial by all routes inc businesses or charitities associated both parties would convince me of a truthful statement by the sun, even then i’d be looking for gaps in their statement.

 

[Cowley]

The Sun should have named him eight days ago. Edwards sat back while fingers were being pointed at his colleagues. He now lies in a hospital bed suffering with depression and few will have any sympathy for him.

I do actually have some sympathy for him and I’m sure I’m not alone. If he’s done something illegal then he’ll have to be dealt with for that and no doubt there’ll be more to come out which won’t paint him in a good light either.
However he has destroyed his life here and quite probably his family life too. I don’t think anyone comes out of this looking good.

 

[deltic]

Whatever you may personally think of The Sun, the reality is this is a story of legitimate public interest.

The BBC's safeguarding processes, once again, appear to be inadequate and that's a very serious matter. Compare and contrast with ITN / ITV's dismissal of Alastair Stewart who quoted Kipling in a Tweet.

This story would have been in the public interest if a criminal activity had occurred. The police have found no evidence that it had. Even the Sun printed that the step-father of the alleged victim said no crime had been committed. The alleged victim has said nothing untoward happened. No-one employed by the BBC other than the presenter was, as far as we are aware, involved hence its not clear how BBC safeguarding can be regarded as inadequate. In the words of Phillip Schofield what appears to have taken place was unwise but not illegal.

While I was never a fan of Tony Benn his view that you should question who benefits from every news story that appears in the media holds true here. Murdoch has been trying to undermine the BBC for many years and often uses the Sun to attack it.

 

[Purple Train]

I do actually have some sympathy for him and I’m sure I’m not alone. If he’s done something illegal then he’ll have to be dealt with for that and no doubt there’ll be more to come out which won’t paint him in a good light either.
However he has destroyed his life here and quite probably his family life too. I don’t think anyone comes out of this looking good.

Agreed. The idea that someone lying in a hospital bed suffering from severe depression with this story raging like an inferno shouldn't be due at least some sympathy is horrific. What he has done, if anything - and no wrongdoing has been proved - doesn't mean that he deserves to be in the horrible place he is mentally.
I hate to repeat it on here given the contempt some people have for the principle, but I shall - hate the sin, love the sinner.
It is not that I think that he should be let off whatever the gravity of his actions, but that the place he is in is one I wouldn't wish on anyone.

 

[MikeWM]

In a case such as you describe, there would almost certainly be no charges brought as it wouldn't be in the public interest to pursue (assuming no other factors such as violence or duress).

While you're correct, and the same applies to the scenario I referred to earlier, I think it rather better all around if the criminal law is clear and explicit about what constitutes a criminal offence, rather than having this type of law where we say 'well, it is illegal, but it probably shouldn't be in those types of cases, so you'll probably be let off anyway, unless the case crosses the desk of someone in a bad mood that day who decides to prosecute anyway.' That really doesn't constitute a good legal system.

 

[Butts]

Looks like David Dimbleby may have to come out of retirement for next years General Election.

Whatever Edwards has or hasn't done, it does not detract from the fact that the BBC is still in my view the finest Broadcaster in the World.

"BBC you make it what it is" - anyone remember that tagline ?

 

[alex397]

Yet again the media has proven itself to follow the “guilty before proven innocent” principal. This should have been thoroughly investigated before it was revealed. When, as a society, will we learn?

Now social media is awash with people deciding if he is guilty or not. It is the BBC and the police who should be investigating, not the general public. In many minds, just hearing that someone is being investigated for something immiediately makes them think they are guilty.

 

[crablab]

The Guardian have an article on the publication of the original allegations:

The Sun finds itself in line of fire over report on Huw Edwards

Days after publication, the newsreader is in hospital with mental health issues and the paper is rapidly backtracking

www.theguardian.com

The Sun has faced many major controversies in its time. The tabloid’s reporting on Huw Edwards could soon be added to that list.

Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper is facing serious questions over its reporting and ethical standards, after it alleged Edwards paid a 17-year-old for explicit images – only for police to conclude there was no evidence to support this allegation of serious criminal wrongdoing.

Days later, his wife said Edwards is in a hospital dealing with “serious mental health issues” and the newspaper is rapidly backtracking on its original story. Extraordinarily, on Wednesday night the Sun insisted its initial claim that the presenter had given a young person “more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images” was not a suggestion of criminal activity.

Instead, the newspaper blamed other media outlets for misinterpreting its reporting and leading to the police getting involved, saying: “We must also re-emphasise that the Sun at no point in our original story alleged criminality and also took the decision neither to name Mr Edwards nor the young person involved in the allegations.”

Even before the police had cleared Edwards of illegal behaviour, doubts started to emerge over the Sun’s key allegation that he bought pictures from a 17-year-old. The young person in question, now an adult aged 20, issued a statement on Monday their lawyer saying the allegations were “rubbish”.

They also insisted they had told the Sun prior to publication that the story was wrong and no illegal behaviour took place, yet the newspaper had failed to flag this denial in any of its reporting.

Five questions for the Sun on its story about the suspended BBC presenter​

Read more

The Sun, which normally defends its stories to the hilt, soon began to backtrack. One source at the Sun said on Tuesday they had been “very careful” to not suggest images had been exchanged at that age.

The Sun sources instead tried to shift the blame other outlets – notably the Sunday Times, a fellow Rupert Murdoch newspaper – for suggesting there could be a criminal inquiry. Instead, they said readers should have interpreted the story as a piece about concerned parents trying to stop payments to a vulnerable person with a drug habit.

The same people even suggested that it was not the Sun’s inquiries into Edwards that prompted the BBC investigation – and that the newspaper had merely helped the parents with an existing stalled investigation.

It is also unclear whether the Sun has seen much of the underlying evidence for its allegations in terms of bank statements or other hard evidence. The newspaper’s reporting has instead been based on anonymous interviews with the mother and stepfather of the 20-year-old at the heart at the story, interviews it says have been backed up by signed legal affidavits.

On Wednesday night the Sun said they have no plans to publish further allegations but would provide the BBC corporate investigations team “with a confidential and redacted dossier containing serious and wide-ranging allegations which we have received, including some from BBC personnel”.

They insisted they had simply been reporting the concerns of a mother and a stepfather: “From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person. We reported that the parents had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help. The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon. It is now for the BBC to properly investigate.”

In a sign of its growing defensiveness and nervousness, on Tuesday the Sun published a lengthy editorial stating the story was “squarely in the public interest” and insisted its reporting was always about “alleged abuse of power”.

One issue throughout the past five days is that the rest of the media were unable to independently verify most of the allegations and had to rely on the Sun’s reporting. The BBC also dedicated enormous resources to chasing the story, covering it across many of its bulletins.

Since the Sun’s original story, other allegations have been made against Edwards, albeit anonymously. The Sun claimed he travelled across London during lockdown restrictions to meet a person he met on a dating app, while another individual said they exchanged messages with Edwards on Instagram while a child.

BBC News also deployed its investigations team to work on stories about Edwards, publishing a story about the presenter talking to a person in their early 20s on a dating site. When the person publicly talked about naming Edwards online, they allegedly received abusive messages from the presenter.

Shortly before Edwards was named, one BBC journalist questioned whether a flawed story had been used as a battering ram for other pieces. They said: “We could get into a situation where there is a story in the Sun about a BBC presenter that is not what it was billed as at the beginning – and turns out to be not criminal. But it has set the hare racing to see what other people can find out about the presenter.”

There may still be more to learn about the case, with other journalists still working on investigations into Edwards.

But it is the Sun which is now facing serious questions – and a potential legal risk: Edwards has used his Twitter account to like a tweet suggesting the Sun could now “face the mother of all libel actions”.

 

[CardiffKid]

Yes, and I can imagine what would have happened if a Conservative MP had been accused of the same things as Huw Edwards has, and the Conservative Party had investigated the allegations in a similar manner to the BBC.

It would have been all over the BBC and The Guardian, and no doubt a Labour MP would have named the suspect under parliamentary privelege.

A Conservative MP is currently accused of a lot worse and has been asked to stay away from Westminster since May 2022 and is on bail from The Met. This was widely reported by the broadcast and print media and indeed the renewal of their bail was covered in recent weeks.

An MP regardless of party would be a complete idiot to name them, even though it’s an open secret who it is and very easy to work out who has been absent since May 2022.

 

[Mikw]

Roger Boulton was on Channel 4 news tonight, he's hosted programmes for both. He said the BBC had acted properly on this one (apart from getting a bit carried away in an attempt to match the mood of the nation) but it's The Sun who should be answering the most questions.

The man in question has said that the allegations are "Rubbish" and the police say that no crime has been commited.

 

[tomuk]

The man in question has said that the allegations are "Rubbish" and the police say that no crime has been commited.

The Sun has reported also reported allegations from three other 'young people' and the BBC itself if now reporting that young colleagues felt there was an 'Abuse of Power' in his interactions with them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469

‘Abuse of power’
Victoria Derbyshire & Luke Jones

BBC Newsnight

BBC Newsnight has also spoken to one current and one former BBC worker who said they’d received inappropriate messages from Edwards, some late at night and signed off with kisses.

 

[Yew]

The Sun has reported also reported allegations from three other 'young people' and the BBC itself if now reporting that young colleagues felt there was an 'Abuse of Power' in his interactions with them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469

Factual reporting is not a strong suit of The Sun.

 

[DarloRich]

Could I just repeat for the benefit of the tape: DONT BUY THE SUN

( and dont click on it's links! Stop giving them money and they will die. Then we will all live in a better world)

 

[nlogax]

Could I just repeat for the benefit of the tape: DONT BUY THE SUN

This should be a sticky. Worthwhile evergreen advice for everyone, unless of course you're the type to buy into hackery, lies and hypocritical BS design to lure in simpletons. The biggest failure of all of this is that The Sun will continue to exist because there are - amazingly - still people buying it.

 

[A0]

Could I just repeat for the benefit of the tape: DONT BUY THE SUN

( and dont click on it's links! Stop giving them money and they will die. Then we will all live in a better world)

Ah - I always love the voice of "tolerant liberals" who in one breath think they are tolerant, but then want media outlets they don't like to go out of business - no contradiction there, no sirree...

This should be a sticky. Worthwhile evergreen advice for everyone, unless of course you're the type to buy into hackery, lies and hypocritical BS design to lure in simpletons. The biggest failure of all of this is that The Sun will continue to exist because there are - amazingly - still people buying it.

And another who clearly feels they are superior over lesser plebs.

Factual reporting is not a strong suit of The Sun.

Try harder - because this particular case is a bit of an example that your statement is wrong. Was a 50/60 something man soliciting somebody who was a late teen, possibly a vulnerable late teen, on line and did he pay them alot of money - the evidence seems to be that he did. Now if you think all of that's OK and if a public figure is allowed to do that unhindered, fair enough. But most people won't agree with you.

Roger Boulton was on Channel 4 news tonight, he's hosted programmes for both. He said the BBC had acted properly on this one (apart from getting a bit carried away in an attempt to match the mood of the nation) but it's The Sun who should be answering the most questions.

The man in question has said that the allegations are "Rubbish" and the police say that no crime has been commited.

I'd treat some of Roger Bolton's comments with the contempt they deserve. For the benefit of younger viewers who don't remember his earlier career as a TV producer, he ran programmes which were more concerned about the welfare of IRA terrorists than the victims (both civilian and forces) of their bombing campaigns. There was also a small matter about being sympathetic to the Argentinians over the Falklands. Now he's trying to defend a presenter when they've behaved badly - speaks volumes about his moral compass.

 

[DarloRich]

Ah - I always love the voice of "tolerant liberals" who in one breath think they are tolerant, but then want media outlets they don't like to go out of business - no contradiction there, no sirree...

it is a corrosive influence on British society and offers nothing of any value. It is a vehicle for it's mega rich owner to drive his own agenda and influence successive governments to give him what he wants via a credulous readership. It wants blasting into the er sun.

You defend it if you like. Why you would waste your time to do so is beyond me.

PS while there MAY be a public interest defence in this story ( and with no apparent criminality that gets harder to make) you cant be naïve enough to miss the subtext of this story: Attack and defund the BBC.

Why does Murdoch want a diminished BBC?

 

[A0]

The Guardian have an article on the publication of the original allegations:

The Sun finds itself in line of fire over report on Huw Edwards

Days after publication, the newsreader is in hospital with mental health issues and the paper is rapidly backtracking

www.theguardian.com

Ah, as ever the Grauniad being a little too pious for its own good.

On Monday it ran the story on its front page under the headline "BBC to talk to police as presenter suspended", on Tuesday it's main headline was "Young person at centre of BBC scandal say's claims are 'rubbish'", on Wednesday on the front page "Met asks BBC to pause inquiry into presenter" and then today "Huw Edwards named as BBC presenter at centre of allegations".

All front pages can be viewed here https://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/the-guardian/front-pages-today.cfm?frontpage=71429

So it ran the story, ran it on the front page, albeit tried to put its own spin on it. If anything the Telegraph's headlines were far more factual and objective: Monday "BBC calls in police over star sex scandal", Tuesday "BBC sex scandal presenter’s conduct ‘not inappropriate", Wednesday "BBC sex scandal presenter faces new allegation" and today "Huw Edwards named by wife as presenter suspended by BBC".

The Guardian isn't some high-minded moral crusader in the way its followers would like to pretend - it's every bit as salacious as The Sun, Mail or Mirror.

 

[railfan99]

I do actually have some sympathy for him and I’m sure I’m not alone. If he’s done something illegal then he’ll have to be dealt with for that and no doubt there’ll be more to come out which won’t paint him in a good light either.
However he has destroyed his life here and quite probably his family life too. I don’t think anyone comes out of this looking good.

Being a foreigner I can't relate to the story, but ironically, media in Western English-speaking nations has become judge, jury and even perhaps executioner.

We had a famous case in Oz where police advertised for complainants when there had not been any, the person was charged after a police interview in a European country, eventually in a second trial found guilty by a jury, the media bayed not far short of suggesting he be hung, the judgment was confirmed 2-1 by a Supreme Court but the dissenting reasons were powerful, served more than 400 days in gaol but the High Court in a unanimous 7-0 decision quashed the convictions. The person, who'd served many others humbly throughout his adult life lived a couple more years before passing away after receiving much disgusting vitriol on social media such as Twitter.

Be careful what we wish for: in similar circumstances I bet we'd like relatives, friends or ourselves to be 'innocent until proven guilty.'

 

[Bantamzen]

it is a corrosive influence on British society and offers nothing of any value. It is a vehicle for it's mega rich owner to drive his own agenda and influence successive governments to give him what he wants via a credulous readership. It wants blasting into the er sun.

You defend it if you like. Why you would waste your time to do so is beyond me.

PS while there MAY be a public interest defence in this story ( and with no apparent criminality that gets harder to make) you cant be naïve enough to miss the subtext of this story: Attack and defund the BBC.

Why does Murdoch want a diminished BBC?

Aren't most media outlets just vehicles for owners / editors / writers agendas these days? The Sun is out there in the Premier League of utter BS for sure, but honestly agenda peddling is far from theirs or the right's exclusive territory. Its hard these days to gleam out the facts from opinions and lies.

I seem to remember that there are paid-for sites / apps that offer news articles but also show where in the media spectrum they are being reported, to in some way try to offer a balance. I'm half tempted to give one a go.

 

[A0]

it is a corrosive influence on British society and offers nothing of any value. It is a vehicle for it's mega rich owner to drive his own agenda and influence successive governments to give him what he wants via a credulous readership. It wants blasting into the er sun.

You defend it if you like. Why you would waste your time to do so is beyond me.

PS while there MAY be a public interest defence in this story ( and with no apparent criminality that gets harder to make) you cant be naïve enough to miss the subtext of this story: Attack and defund the BBC.

Why does Murdoch want a diminished BBC?

Simple - because I believe in a diverse and pluralistic media - which is what we have in this country. Because the media have uncovered wrong-doings by various people in positions of authority and power. I don't want to live in society where the state regulates the media - in that sense I agree completely with Ian Hislop when he gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and used the example of France, best viewed here

from 14m 46 s.

Bit in bold - just because the Met have said there doesn't appear to have been a criminal act doesn't mean there isn't a story of public interest and that something wrong or highly inappropriate hasn't been done. That's far too crude measure. The BBC has questions to answer because a member of its staff - a highly paid member of its staff - was the subject of serious allegations which were reported to the BBC and the BBC didn't appear to have acted on them. The BBC isn't beyond a bit of salacious gossiping - the coverage of the police raid on Cliff Richard's house over Yewtree being a prime example - and one for which the BBC lost a case at the High Court which led to them having to pay £2m in costs and damages. This is a simple question of safeguarding and the processes the BBC has and is following - and after the various well publicised scandals of BBC stars you might have thought they'd have addressed that and been swift and robust - except they clearly aren't.

Murdoch's an old man - the reality is the BBC hasn't exactly been helpful to the UK and it's been given a privileged position for the best part of 100 years. Whilst I accept the position in the 1920s and 1930s it made sense for a single, national broadcaster, that it was put in place without any other broadcaster being licensed was utterly wrong - and was the reason why 'off shore' broadcasters such as Radio Luxembourg or Radio Normandie set up. By the 1950s things did start to change - but don't overlook the fact the first commercial radio station in the UK wasn't licensed until 1973 and even then only 'local' stations were licensed, it wasn't until the 1990s that national commercial radio was licensed and even then it was given 'cast off' frequencies that the BBC didn't want in order to hobble it. Only now with digital radio, digital TV and streaming are we starting to see some form of parity. So I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the BBC - and don't support a 'flat fee' TV licence which you have to pay regardless of whether or not you want to consume BBC content. If you believe the BBC wants a pluralistic media landscape any more than Rupert Murdoch does, then you'd better DM me your bank details, because I've got a relative who died in Africa recently and left a couple of million dollars for me to disburse.......

 

[dangie]

‘What is in the public interest’ and ‘What the public are interested in‘ are totally different.
I feel this story fulfills the latter.

 

[A0]

‘What is in the public interest’ and ‘What the public are interested in‘ are totally different.
I feel this story fulfills the latter.

And I disagree - the question here is about safeguarding. Is it OK for somebody in a position of authority to abuse their power over somebody who may be vulnerable.

The BBC should have robust safeguarding procedures - it appears it may not or they aren't properly being implemented. Do I need to remind you about Yewtree and how many BBC presenters were tied up in that ?

And before any comments are made about 'right wing conspiracy' or other such nonsense, Angela Rayner, Labour deputy leader who I would disagree with on pretty much everything has been on Times Radio this morning making much the same point, reported on by the Telegraph here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-scandal-latest-news-hospital-wife-statement/

Speaking to Times Radio, Ms Rayner said: “It’s right that the BBC look at their processes, and see if their complaints process works properly. Because people have to have confidence in those processes, that they can come forward if there’s issues in the workplace, and that there’s policies and procedures that will deal with it there.

“Every workplace in the country has policies and procedures that deal with these issues.

“The problem is, whether people have confidence to come forward, and when they do come forward, are they going to be treated fairly? And are they going to get the issues dealt with swiftly? And I think that’s the question, are the BBCs policies and procedures correct and are they being applied in the correct manner as well?”

 

[dakta]

I'm probably a bit late to this one, but it's never sat right with me. This morning Yahoo posted an article about it (yeah I know, yahoo... but still - https://uk.yahoo.com/style/full-list-allegations-against-huw-064557201.html)

I note the article makes four key points:

1. Teenager ‘used presenter’s cash to fund drug addiction’​

On Saturday, July 8, The Sun published an anonymous interview with the mother and stepfather of an apparently vulnerable youth who had been exchanging messages with the unnamed BBC presenter.

The parents alleged that their child was 17 when the relationship started and had been sent £35,000 over a three-year period for explicit images. But on Monday, a lawyer acting on the young person’s behalf denied these claims.

So... the ...adult complaintant it seems... is not a complainant? Have I got that right?

2. Young person ‘felt threatened by abusive messages’​

A second individual, understood to be in their 20s, claimed to BBC News that they had made contact with the unnamed presenter through a dating app. At the time they did not know who he was.

The young person said they felt pressured to meet up with him but never did. When they hinted online that they had contact with the presenter and may name him, he is claimed to have sent them abusive messages.

So basically, this presenter abused his power...somehow without stating to this person at time who he was. There was no meeting, but a threat to identify (I presume they must have twigged who it was), and were surprised to get a negative response?

3. Presenter ‘broke lockdown rules to meet youth’​

A third young person came forward to claim in The Sun that the BBC presenter allegedly broke lockdown rules to meet with him.

It was claimed that a 23-year-old travelled across London to another county to meet them at their flat in February 2021 after first meeting on a dating site the previous year.

If I understand this right, the presenter broke lockdown rules by allowing someone to travel across London to meet him? Was this not wanted, was it under duress, was there a gun?

4. Presenter ‘sent creepy Instagram messages’ to teenager​

A fourth young person claims they were contacted on Instagram by the unnamed presenter, who sent love hearts and ‘x’ kisses, it is claimed in The Sun.

The unnamed fourth person, who said they were 17 at the time, called the messages “creepy”, “looking back now”. They said they were “taken aback” by the sending of a love heart emoji.

So a legal adult was mortified by the sending of love hearts...it could be inappriate. Did they block them, did they report them, did they distance from them. Loads of creeps on social media and dating sites.


So that's yahoo's rundown of this chap, he seems to have made some very dubious choices, but we've had it confirmed he hasn't broken the law, or at least the police have had a look and aren't interested - and it seems anyone he has approached has been an adult in being in a space to consent or otherwise?

I may be oversimplifying this but if the above is supposed to be a comprehensive rundown of what the chaps done wrong I'm not surprised he's in hospital...

 

[nlogax]

And I disagree - the question here is about safeguarding. Is it OK for somebody in a position of authority to abuse their power over somebody who may be vulnerable.

And you know for a fact that's happening? Because you read it in The Sun?

 

[DarloRich]

Simple - because I believe in a diverse and pluralistic media - which is what we have in this country.

I would prefer an HONEST, diverse and pluralistic media in this country. The Sun does not have a history of honesty.

I don't want to live in society where the state regulates the media

I did think this but I am not so sure now. The media, especially the tabloid media, often don't seem to know how to behave and need a spanking. Phone hacking?

Bit in bold - just because the Met have said there doesn't appear to have been a criminal act doesn't mean there isn't a story of public interest and that something wrong or highly inappropriate hasn't been done. That's far too crude measure.

But that "crude" measure is the one the courts will have decide on the next time the Sun or other media is sued for this kind of thing. There is, of course, a difference between " in the public interest" and "what the public might be interested in" which has long been the subject of our learned friends time.

For the avoidance of doubt I think there is a story in this BBC case. I am just not sure it has quite the foundations the Sun have tried to suggest. It increasingly looks like a "fishing trip" designed to "out" someone famous for doing something distasteful and, helpfully, bash the BBC. The Sun have been very reluctant to talk about this story or what evidence they hold to substantiate it which I find a bit odd.

I notice the stance underneath the story has changed from a position of yet more disgusting BBC noncing to a safeguarding issue that the BBC havent dealt with quickly enough. The first is certainly front page news. Is the latter?

Murdoch's an old man

and powerful. He still wields incredible influence on government. Is that influence used for good? I am not so sure. It is also interesting who takes over once he shuffles from this mortal coil - they will not be old but will still wield that power and influence.

This is a simple question of safeguarding and the processes the BBC has and is following - and after the various well publicised scandals of BBC stars you might have thought they'd have addressed that and been swift and robust - except they clearly aren't.

Whilst the Sun, of course, has utterly clean hands in this regard. Have a look at Private Eye for some stories that you might be interested in! Thier track record of dealing with internal HR matters associated with "safeguarding, values and behaviours" is not very good either.

There are also stories of bacchanalian lockdown parties that make the Tories look like choirboys!

 

[dosxuk]

The BBC has questions to answer because a member of its staff - a highly paid member of its staff - was the subject of serious allegations which were reported to the BBC and the BBC didn't appear to have acted on them.

The BBC get hundreds of complaints and allegations raised against it's staff every month. Most of them, after a brief review, are found to be unfounded or irrelevant. If they immediately suspended every employee at the first report of something improper then they would have basically nobody to front their programming.

In this case, the BBC received a complaint, which we now know to not involve any criminality, about the private life of a member of staff's. They attempted to follow up the complaint, twice, but were unable to get in contact with the complainant. Significantly the complainant was not directly involved in the alleged activity. Furthermore, they had left contact details which did not work - never a good sign for a complaint which is actually valid.

Nobody will directly say this in the media, but if you go to basically any company and complain that a well known employee has acted inappropriately to someone you know, but you have little more than circumstantial evidence, you don't then provide details to allow that complaint to be followed up, and the person affected is not willing to complain, your complaint is going to go in the bin.


In this particular case, the story only blew up because The Sun insinuated that explicit photos of an under 18 had been exchanged for money. They are now back pedalling from those claims and trying to tell us that their reports were never about anything illegal, but about the genuine concerns of a mother about their child. If the original story had been "Joe Blogs has a Pornhub subscription" then it wouldn't have even made the gossip section. The public interest argument also completely falls apart because The Sun refused to name the person the story was about.