Trouble at the BBC.

[Sm5]

With regard to pension funds, is the proposed legislation not just a product of the age old problem of the sort of UK investors who should be taking more of a risk, not investing in British business ?

Why “should” they ?

if the oppourtunity was the better advantage than those of its competing peers, then it should win on it’s own merit, not because “they have to invest it”.

what could happen is a grouping of high, medium and low risk investments into a portfolio to spread the risk, and seek investment slices in those portfolios from multiple investors… makes it safer and more predictable… assuming everyones done their maths right and due diligence first…. But if those are starting to be fudge packed with an excess of “should haves” that are rated higher than they “should” be, to meet certain criteria.. the risk could be ignored for compliance… then suddenly they become a high risk exposure hidden in a low risk packet… and when they explode.. they all do at once because confidence in them is lost, unless they are government backed…

anyway we are OT…

The question is why is the BBC not talking about a story affecting the largest pension market outside the US funded by every working employee every month in the UK… it affects us all, do you want to know whats happening to your mandatory private pension pot every month ?
The UK seems to have built up quite an admiral savings pot, but now politicians are starting to suggest how it is spent.

It was always going to be, that once politicians maxed out the govt credit card, they would look to start using its peoples..

several other countries are seeing this as newsworthy, and seem to think theres a route to taking money out of that pot for themselves too.

But we are more interested in a scandal between 3 unknown parties and not knowing what if anything, they actually did.

Someday we may have a news stories of £bns being lost on yak farms in Africa compulsory funded by UK Pensions because it met the criteria of being registered in a rundown terrace in Luton, by two IT entrepreneurs who since left the country….
or
Another successful UK start up losing £bns in r&d that sold nothing, was ripped apart by the press resulting in the IP being sold to a US corp for a £1 who subsequently mass produced it in China and exported it globally making $bns.

The difference now being, its your own pension pot thats going down… not the governments.

At least in the soviet union they openly admitted giving away cheap vodka, to make them drunk, to stop the masses asking too many questions.

 

[dosxuk]

Any particular news that this is distracting from?

You might remember a bit of a thing going on for the last few weeks where the Sun was accused of illegally hacking multiple celebrities - that was supposed to be coming to a head about now. Lots of talk last week about whether Murdoch was going to be requested to appear at the hearing.

 

[westv]

The question is why is the BBC not talking about a story affecting the largest pension market outside the US funded by every working employee every month in the UK…

Every employee? This only affects this with defined benefit pensions. A large number (the majority??) have a defined contribution pension and can invest their funds (within reason) wherever they want.

 

[Gloster]

Is it just me who wonders why the BBC is insistent on making this the leading news item day in and day out? I can only think it's an editorial decision either to force the person's identity to be revealed or to put pressure on Director General Tim Davie, or maybe a combination of the two. If the latter, it's also playing into the Murdoch Sun's hands, of course, bur both sides might be happy with Davie's defenestration. His interview by Sarah Metcalfe on radio 4 was truly execrable.

Or because they are worried that if they treat it as a fairly minor news item there will be screams from the hostile parts of the media (almost all of it) about the BBC trying to hide its dirty washing under the carpet. These will immediately be taken up by Conservative MPs and later (not much later) by the government, and used then and later to justify ‘putting the BBC in order’. The BBC has to be transparent, even if this is being taken to a ridiculous extent.

 

[AlterEgo]

You might remember a bit of a thing going on for the last few weeks where the Sun was accused of illegally hacking multiple celebrities - that was supposed to be coming to a head about now. Lots of talk last week about whether Murdoch was going to be requested to appear at the hearing.

Johnson’s WhatsApp messages as well.

The BBC presenter story is a ridiculous charade given its scale.

 

[nlogax]

The BBC has to be transparent, even if this is being taken to a ridiculous extent.

It is exactly this. The amount of coverage is utterly daft but from all aspects this looks like the BBC trying to do right thing by being as open as it can. Unfortunately the end result is a massive overreaction or overcorrection. Not a total surprise when half of the UK's political establishment and much of Murdoch and his empire is rooting for the BBC's demise and are willing to use any perceived weakness to make it happen.

 

[Lost property]

It is exactly this. The amount of coverage is utterly daft but from all aspects this looks like the BBC trying to do right thing by being as open as it can. Unfortunately the end result is a massive overreaction or overcorrection. Not a total surprise when half of the UK's political establishment and much of Murdoch and his empire is rooting for the BBC's demise and are willing to use any perceived weakness to make it happen.

And therein may well be the reason why this news item, and the source, is getting such prominence.

To save any confusion, I am a supporter of the BBC, I just change channels when they engage in "luvvie" interviews, or pomp and pageantry saturation coverage, because of the sheer range of services and quality of reporting...which would you prefer to listen to if overseas in a troubled / conflict area...the World Service, or, the equivalent of untreated effluent discharge such as Fox / GB "News"...

Alan Rusbridger made a very good point in his recent interview ...BBC bashing is very popular in the UK...same as the infamous BR catering and cheese sandwich once was...and there are aspects about these accusations which don't quite add up...at least, if you don't take everything at face value.

 

[43096]

It is exactly this. The amount of coverage is utterly daft but from all aspects this looks like the BBC trying to do right thing by being as open as it can. Unfortunately the end result is a massive overreaction or overcorrection. Not a total surprise when half of the UK's political establishment and much of Murdoch and his empire is rooting for the BBC's demise and are willing to use any perceived weakness to make it happen.

When these stories appear, it seems like the BBC likes nothing more than a bit of self-flagellation.

 

[ainsworth74]

When these stories appear, it seems like the BBC likes nothing more than a bit of self-flagellation.

And is perpetually scared of the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun, et al accusing it of dodgy dealings or a cover up so then turns around and dials it up to eleven. No matter their own dodgy dealings of course (such as the Sun's history of paying sixteen year olds to go topless on Page 3 or their own boozy lockdown busting parties).

 

[jon0844]

GB News presenters have been salivating over this story and on at one occasion pretty much outed the individual by showing the outline of a person who was easily identifiable.

They've demanded the person is outed, just as I am sure they would if it was a scandal involving their own station (of course not - it would be a witch-hunt and privacy would be paramount, even though the same station had an incident involving a member of staff only last year).

The BBC has been a target for some time, since even before the furore over Gary Lineker daring to give an opinion, so it's hardly surprising nobody wants to let this lie. If it turns out to be one giant nothing burger, there will still have been plenty of harm done - just like when someone lied about systemic abuse and cover ups within the BBC post Jimmy Savile. It's 100% political, although I don't think the timing is to hide other stories from the news - as there will be something almost every day that the current Government would like to bury.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The more that I hear about this story, the less clear it becomes... as a few have said upthread, it doesn't quite add up. I've heard various different details that contradict each other, so I'm not going to draw any conclusions. Though a certain former broom cupboard inhabitant is probably quite pleased that this story has got so big.

 

[adc82140]

The more that I hear about this story, the less clear it becomes... as a few have said upthread, it doesn't quite add up. I've heard various different details that contradict each other, so I'm not going to draw any conclusions. Though a certain former broom cupboard inhabitant is probably quite pleased that this story has got so big.

Like the Schofield case, the question is whether any law has been broken. What Schofield did was ill advised and seedy, but not illegal. He rightfully lost his job, but was wrongfully torn apart by the media to the point of contemplating suicide. There must be an element here of trying to avoid a repeat, but I'm now of the opinion the person concerned shpuld out themselves and control the narrative.

 

[12LDA28C]

It was quite amusing to hear Victoria Derbyshire appear to name the presenter involved in an apparent slip of the tongue on Newsnight on Monday night. Great entertainment.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The media like nothing more than talking about themselves, particularly the BBC talking about the BBC

Although I think the story is been given too much headline prominence that doesn't reflect its actual importance, I actually think it's good that the BBC are reporting it: To my mind it demonstrates not self-obsessiveness but a degree of impartiality that the BBC are willing to report a story that is damaging to themselves. After all, if (hypothetically) these allegations been made against - say - a senior Sun reporter, do you imagine that the Sun would be carrying a headline about it, questioning whether the Sun had acted correctly? Or if it had been a senior Daily Mail reporter, would the Daily Mail have been doing likewise? That the BBC will do so even when they are the ones being criticised reflects well on the BBC, to my mind.

 

[DarloRich]

This is all red meat to the right wing media/influencer ecosystem:

• Sun has a story and waits to find the right time to publish ( helpful in hiding the Boris Johnson whatsapp story?)
• Story is amplified by right wing "influencer" types on social media ( often coupled with calls to defund the BBC)
• GB news types hype up the story ( often coupled with calls to defund the BBC)
• Other news outlets pick up the story and push it ( many of course right wing and on the defund the BBC bus)
• BBC goes over the top in trying to deal with the story
• Tory minsters can appear in thier favourite PR rags demanding action and showing how much they hate the BBC
• Right wing influencer types and GB news types continue to push story to attack BBC and complain they havent gone over the top enough ( more defund BBC stuff)
• Simpletons eat this stuff up and regurgitate on command on social media
• Media cycle becomes entirely driven by right wing influencer types.
• More important news lost in the noise.

If you cant see what is going on you don't have eyes! What is the real story they are trying to hide? Why do the likes of Murdoch want to "defund the BBC?". Why are you making common cause with these people?

PS - Don't buy the Sun.

 

[dosxuk]

After all, if (hypothetically) these allegations been made against - say - a senior Sun reporter, do you imagine that the Sun would be carrying a headline about it, questioning whether the Sun had acted correctly?

You only need to look at the complete lack of reporting by the Sun about the celebrity hacking hearings to know the answer to that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Like the Schofield case, the question is whether any law has been broken. What Schofield did was ill advised and seedy, but not illegal. He rightfully lost his job, but was wrongfully torn apart by the media to the point of contemplating suicide. There must be an element here of trying to avoid a repeat, but I'm now of the opinion the person concerned shpuld out themselves and control the narrative.

I've seen a few comments elsewhere saying that it would appear no laws have been broken as the "young person" was over the age of consent... however they were allegedly under the age of 18 which is too young to view or take explicit images, so if that is indeed what happened then that's where a crime may have been committed. As I said though, it feels like the more you hear the less you know- initially the first "young person" was suggested to be male, but later reports have suggested a female. It could be multiple alleged victims of both sexes, or simply that the lack of concrete information has allowed speculation to be treated as fact.

On the Schofield one, it was suggested that he met the individual involved when that individual was below the age of consent, but no evidence that a "relationship" began at that point. Some have suggested that could still constitute "grooming", but I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've seen a few comments elsewhere saying that it would appear no laws have been broken as the "young person" was over the age of consent... however they were allegedly under the age of 18 which is too young to view or take explicit images, so if that is indeed what happened then that's where a crime may have been committed. As I said though, it feels like the more you hear the less you know- initially the first "young person" was suggested to be male, but later reports have suggested a female. It could be multiple alleged victims of both sexes, or simply that the lack of concrete information has allowed speculation to be treated as fact.

Though of course it is unclear when exactly the photographs were taken and paid for. If they were 18 then that's not a crime (just extremely seedy). Obviously if they were 17 then ironically the person in question could have had sex with them completely legally (but again, seedy as all get out) but the photographs (paid or otherwise) would be illegal. It certainly seem like that might be case seeing as the legal representatives for the young person themselves have claimed nothing illegal occurred! I'm also highly suspicious that the Sun haven't published bank statements or similar evidence showing these payments at all let alone at a period of time when the recipient was aged 17. I believe the Met have also dropped it for the time being as well?

Whatever the truth of the matter it certainly seems like extraordinarily ill advised behaviour by the BBC presenter and quite possibly career ending even if they didn't break any laws. Similar to Schofield to be quite honest in that regard.

It does, as an aside, feel like there's potentially a slight gap in the law there. An 18 year old and a 17 year old can have sex completely legally, but if either of them send explicit photos to the other then a crime has been committed. I absolutely do not think the law should be changed to allow you to pay someone under-18 to take explicit photos of themselves, I'm purely thinking of what might happen in a normal relationship, should that be a crime? I'm not so sure personally.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It does, as an aside, feel like there's potentially a slight gap in the law there. An 18 year old and a 17 year old can have sex completely legally, but if either of them send explicit photos to the other then a crime has been committed. I absolutely do not think the law should be changed to allow you to pay someone under-18 to take explicit photos of themselves, I'm purely thinking of what might happen in a normal relationship, should that be a crime? I'm not so sure personally.

It is odd. I suspect that what's happened is that a well meaning law is targeting the wrong thing. What arguably should actually be illegal is paying (or bribing) a 16 or 17 year old to engage in any sexual activity (including taking photos): That should cover the situation that it's alleged has occurred, but without preventing people in a relationship from taking consensual photos of themselves. (You'd probably then open a bit of a can of worms about what is sexual vs. what is artistic when it comes to pictures and videos that are commercial but border on being erotic but I'm sure that can be dealt with)

 

[MikeWM]

It does, as an aside, feel like there's potentially a slight gap in the law there. An 18 year old and a 17 year old can have sex completely legally, but if either of them send explicit photos to the other then a crime has been committed. I absolutely do not think the law should be changed to allow you to pay someone under-18 to take explicit photos of themselves, I'm purely thinking of what might happen in a normal relationship, should that be a crime? I'm not so sure personally.

Yes, this has been the case since Labour raised the age of consent to explicit images from 16 to 18 sometime in the mid-00's. Not only has a 'serious crime' been committed in this scenario, but the 18 year old is then legally viewed as being in possession of child pornography and can be charged and convicted as such, which will pretty much ruin the rest of their life. Which I'd hope anyone should be able to see is a totally ludicrous situation which clearly needs some degree of modification. Either the age of consent for sex and the age of consent to explicit images should be equal (at whatever age we decide) - as it was before Labour changed the law - or we should put sensible caveats into the law to explicitly exclude scenarios such as the one you outline.

 

[yorksrob]

Why “should” they ?

if the oppourtunity was the better advantage than those of its competing peers, then it should win on it’s own merit, not because “they have to invest it”.

what could happen is a grouping of high, medium and low risk investments into a portfolio to spread the risk, and seek investment slices in those portfolios from multiple investors… makes it safer and more predictable… assuming everyones done their maths right and due diligence first…. But if those are starting to be fudge packed with an excess of “should haves” that are rated higher than they “should” be, to meet certain criteria.. the risk could be ignored for compliance… then suddenly they become a high risk exposure hidden in a low risk packet… and when they explode.. they all do at once because confidence in them is lost, unless they are government backed…

The whole point of the City of London is to raise capital to fund business, otherwise how else is British enterprise going to be funded ?

The other alternative is some sort of state backed development bank as West Germany had after the war.

 

[adc82140]

It is odd. I suspect that what's happened is that a well meaning law is targeting the wrong thing. What arguably should actually be illegal is paying (or bribing) a 16 or 17 year old to engage in any sexual activity (including taking photos): That should cover the situation that it's alleged has occurred, but without preventing people in a relationship from taking consensual photos of themselves. (You'd probably then open a bit of a can of worms about what is sexual vs. what is artistic when it comes to pictures and videos that are commercial but border on being erotic but I'm sure that can be dealt with)

It's similar with the age of consent laws. They are obviously there to prevent peadophilia, but at the same time it would criminalise a 16 and 1 day year old sleeping with a 15 and 364 day year old. Difficult.

 

[Sm5]

The whole point of the City of London is to raise capital to fund business, otherwise how else is British enterprise going to be funded ?

The other alternative is some sort of state backed development bank as West Germany had after the war.

London is a global market (and as much as Europe and New York likes to think they are more “global”, London it is).

New York is a US predominant market, the Dutch Bourse is a predominant Dutch market, as is the French and German markets, Singapore and Hong Kong are also strong regional markets.

But Londons global position equally makes it harder for British businesses, because they are competing against the global best and it raises the threshold, but equally it exposes them to more global investors than a regional market would too.

However theres no stopping anyone from anywhere investing in anything…. The Uk is benefitting from a lot of bored Irish investors currently for instance… none of that relies on London.

But investors should be allowed to choose what they invest in, its their money afterall.

what we could see is companies setting up shell companies in the UK to access compulsory funding from UK pension funds.. that doesn’t help genuine British companies at all, nor does it help pension funds, though quite a few in the city could make a short term living off it, i’m not sure about average joes monthly contributions.

We could see the caribbean in Luton…a shop window in a deprived area with a 100 business plaques on the wall and a simple letter box to recieve and forward all the mail for those registered companies.

 

[nlogax]

We could see the caribbean in Luton…a shop window in a deprived area with a 100 business plaques on the wall and a simple letter box to recieve and forward all the mail for those registered companies.

You've either just described the Cayman Islands or Wilmington, Delaware. I know which one of those Luton reminds me of.

 

[yorksrob]

London is a global market (and as much as Europe and New York likes to think they are more “global”, London it is).

New York is a US predominant market, the Dutch Bourse is a predominant Dutch market, as is the French and German markets, Singapore and Hong Kong are also strong regional markets.

But Londons global position equally makes it harder for British businesses, because they are competing against the global best and it raises the threshold, but equally it exposes them to more global investors than a regional market would too.

However theres no stopping anyone from anywhere investing in anything…. The Uk is benefitting from a lot of bored Irish investors currently for instance… none of that relies on London.

But investors should be allowed to choose what they invest in, its their money afterall.

what we could see is companies setting up shell companies in the UK to access compulsory funding from UK pension funds.. that doesn’t help genuine British companies at all, nor does it help pension funds, though quite a few in the city could make a short term living off it, i’m not sure about average joes monthly contributions.

We could see the caribbean in Luton…a shop window in a deprived area with a 100 business plaques on the wall and a simple letter box to recieve and forward all the mail for those registered companies.

Shell companies have been a problem for decades, yet they are still here. Perhaps its time something was done about them ?

Ultimately, the City neglecting British business is bad for the rest of the country, particularly if all our companies end up being run from abroad. Look at the Kraft/Cadbury or the P&O debacles.

Why should British companies be hobbled by having a disinterested stock market compared to their American and Dutch counterparts ?

 

[tomuk]

You only need to look at the complete lack of reporting by the Sun about the celebrity hacking hearings to know the answer to that.

Which hearings the Prince Harry vs the Mirror Newspapers?

 

[Sm5]

Shell companies have been a problem for decades, yet they are still here. Perhaps its time something was done about them ?

Ultimately, the City neglecting British business is bad for the rest of the country, particularly if all our companies end up being run from abroad. Look at the Kraft/Cadbury or the P&O debacles.

Why should British companies be hobbled by having a disinterested stock market compared to their American and Dutch counterparts ?

Nothing stopping British companies seeking overseas funding.
indeed that has all kinds of other benefits, not least saving the £, keeping inflation down, inwards investment….
All those promises made by Brexiteers.

its a global market, waiting for British companies to exploit.
if these opportunities are that attractive, overseas investors will be falling over themselves to pitch in….surely ?
if overseas arent interested, isnt that a warning flag ?

 

[adc82140]

The person concerned has been named on the main news outlets. It all seems rather sad. They are now receiving inpatient mental health treatment, it seems to me they have had some sort of breakdown in the most public way. I hope the media take a long hard look at themselves after this, but I doubt they will. They will probably try to out the young person involved next.

 

[Sm5]

The hue and cry is over. A most appropriate phrase, as we shall see....

He who cannot be named, has apparently not done anything criminal.

will all those berating those on the last few pages for daring suggest innocent until proven guilty is wrong, and trial by media is right, now step back ?

Our foreign owned Media now has some questions to answer, starting with how much revenue globally through all outlets, apis’ partner channels, affiliates, networks, subsidiaries and 3rd party sales have they generated from this story ?
Followed by how much damage have they caused to the individuals, the BBC and the British people globally.

On one hand Jeremy Vines reponses are uncalled for, on the other hes been an innocent incorrectly linked to it… this shows what is wrong with the media on both sides… one for hounding the individual, and second for being falsely linked. This kind of news story should not be permitted… IMO Vine should be able to sue the Murdochs in the US for the indirect damage caused by their approach to him that falsely implicated him in public opinion, whilst similarly he should not himself have been commenting on the actual individual to come forwards and respect his privacy… though you can see the stress its caused him and why he would say that.

if allowed to pass theres nothing stopping anyone creating a myth about anyone anytime, hiding behind anonymity and simply walking away with the rewards afterwards.


ps. Now its out, can he who must not be spoken of, be named now ?

 

[Gloster]

The person concerned has been named on the main news outlets. It all seems rather sad. I hope the media take a long hard look at themselves after this, but I doubt they will. They will probably try to out the young person involved next.

Oh, they will. They will learn the lessons so that next time they can sail even closer to the wind and cause even more damage.