PinkNews bosses accused of sexual misconduct

Oh la la, quelle surprise...

Their statement /defence seems to focus on an individual. They seem to suggest that the seizing of the computer indicates guilt. Yet the BBC article suggests that there were many witnesses to the allegations. Perhaps the suggestion is that a single person is saying that there were multiple witnesses and complainants when this isn't true.
However, I would expect the BBC to have done some due diligence and not take 1 persons word!

It sounds a lot like they went to the police because someone was complaining about them.

Just because Prick News can't comment, doesn't mean the BBC can't cover the allegations. Their statement is nonsensical and repeats itself.

Miss! Please Miss! Miss! Miss! Can I be needy and immature too?😄

MarieDeGournay · 10/12/2024 10:30
... it shows that they know there is a difference between men and women, that biology matters, and that the differences between the sexes are real.

I proudly align myself with NotBadConsidering.. and let's see.. someone else.. can't quite remember who...

They have a statement today.

Interestingly when you select text to copy on their website, it goes all pastel candy colours instead of the usual blue.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/12/17/pinknews-statement/

It is with regret that we have been forced to issue this statement following serious allegations first published by the BBC.
In August, we made a criminal complaint to the police in relation to alleged offences committed against us that are connected with these recent reports. As we told the BBC prior to its initial broadcast, a police investigation was ongoing and we were advised not to make comment. We are now aware that devices had been seized with forensic investigations continuing.
Despite the BBC being aware of the police investigation, it chose to broadcast and misled the public about our response. We have consulted lawyers in respect of these false, inconsistent and malicious allegations.

We had explained to the BBC, that the stage of the police investigation meant that it was not possible for us to comment on the specific allegations even though they were strenuously denied. The BBC disregarded the police investigation and then misled its audience about our response.
The impact of the BBC’s reporting on our family life has been significant and it has caused extremely serious harm to us, PinkNews and our colleagues.
Benjamin Cohen & Anthony James

To be fair I'm more surprised that James

• is an Associate NED rather than a NED
• needed to be suspended rather than tendering a decision to step away to avoid reputational harm to the Trust etc. while the claims were investigated (that's normally expected if you're even tangentially within shouting distance of a governance issue).

I really dont know why they bother. the only honest thing to do now would be to hold your hands up and say "it's a fair cop, guv. you got me bang to rights and no mistake" Even Gregg Wallace appears to have lately grasped this with, arguably, less damaging allegations against him.

I didnt realise James was a doctor. He's been suspended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce908k1z8r3o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmn4kwpkydo

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

This ✔️

It's always the most effeminate and outgoing men that are the most creepy.

Dark rumours that could spell the end for LGBTQ media's power couple https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14186355/LGBTQ-media-power-couple-PinkNews-claims-Prince-George.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
More trouble at mill

This comment was v apt too:

Can't say I'm particularly surprised, if I'm honest. PinkNews always seemed to me to be quite self-righteous, in a "anyone who disagrees with us is a bigot" sort of way. It never even seemed to occur to them that anyone could have an honest disagreement with them on a topic.

And self-righteousness invariably leads to corrupt behaviour, in my experience. The chain seems to go from "our cause is just, therefore we are just" to "because we are just, anything we do is just". And if you believe that, then just about anything can be defended in the name of the righteous cause, and standards start to slip. We've seen this within the church, various charities, and it's a big part of what caused Labour's antisemitism crisis - always be wary of people who are utterly convinced that they're the good guys, and everyone else is evil.

I especially liked this comment from that thread:

They lost all credibility when they started reporting Iranian forced castration of gay men as “trans rights”

I’ve just had a look at the Pink News website. No mention anywhere of the BBC investigation.

JKR is just awesome isn't she. I wish I had half her ovaries. JB is also awesome and the world needs more women like them. I was told last week that JKR was a hateful woman who hated the LGBTQA etc and it's just bollocks. Big, hairy bollocks. What she hates is misogyny and rightly so.

I'm glad Pink News has destroyed itself. Nobody should be subjected to sexual assault and I hope they wipe the floor with them.

There were no big surprises in the report on The Media Show. Josh Parry (LGBT and Identity correspondent) at the BBC is behind the investigation. The instigation for this was the (now deleted) Pink News Whistleblowers account on Twitter. An additional more than 10 Pink News staff have come forward since the story broke yesterday.

Crikey so it's a documentary too.

Ooh thanks, listening

Pink News is being discussed on The Media Show on BBC R4 at the moment.

edit: it’s from about 16:17 to 16:23.

I wonder if Andrew Doyle will have something to say about this on Sunday? Looking forward

Pink News is finished

Pinknews have lost Reddit. Biggest UK politics sub and look at the comments lots of people pointing out not just the dodgy nature of the bosses, but questioning the entire agenda of the site.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1hay7t3/pinknews_bosses_accused_of_sexual_misconduct/

Indicative of a major shift.

I can see how it reads funny to civilians but it's a reflection of the fact that the BBC gave Pink News owners a right of reply and they chose to hold that convo off the record (source: I own my own PR business, 35 years experience).

So when an investigation like this happens, the BBC will give the subjects a right of reply: 48 hours (24 if you're unlucky) before publishing they'll send the subjects an email outlining the allegations and ask for their right of reply, either on or off the record. Usually the subject then spends those 48 hours in a panic, consulting with lawyers and people like me. Usually when I'm advising clients, I'll recommend they lay out a brief response on the record, but in this instance it looks like the couple's representatives (probably PR rather than legal) chose to have an off record convo with the BBC journo (which is in itself a sign of panic about future lawsuits and revelations).

The off record conversation would have gone something like this:

Journo: "So these are the allegations, do you have an on the record statement you'd like to provide us?"
PR rep: "Not at this time no"
Journo: "OK but can I at least put what your position is on these allegations - are they true or false?"
PR rep: They're false
Journo: OK so you're saying that the allegations are false?
PR rep: Yes

And then, because they answered Yes but the convo was off the record, that's why the response was framed that way by the journalist.

I'd like to reiterate that it's extremely unusual for a decent media org not to be able to come up with an on the record statement refuting the allegations, and does suggest to me that there's more/worse to come. And that lawsuits are cranking u behind the scenes.