Page 28 | Who do you think is the BBC presenter who has been suspended?

broomers · 2023-07-08T09:46:26+00:00

I don't have twitter and haven't seen any theories as to who it is, I'm presuming a man due to the figure outline being used in the press: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66140356.amp

the80sweregreat · 10/07/2023 18:45

Most of Twitter will be in trouble too
They have been posting all sorts of things most of the weekend.

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 18:47

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 10/07/2023 18:39

There are two things going on here.

Allegation that a BBC presenter has behaved in a very sleazy way (at a minimum), which is surely bringing the BBC into disrepute.
A possibility that the BBC presenter broke the law because the young person was a minor when it all kicked off.

The young person, who is an adult now, has said the whole thing is rubbish, but The Sun says the young person's parents handed them evidence of what has been going on. If the young person refuses to co-operate with the police, I assume there isn't much chance of a prosecution. However, that doesn't mean the first point isn't proved. Gross professional misconduct doesn't just mean doing something illegal.

To be precise, the Sun says they have evidence that supports the parents' concerns. That is somewhat open to interpretation. It could support the parents' allegations against the presenter, or it could support their concern that the BBC hasn't investigated.

Note that the young person (assuming the lawyers are representing the right young person) says that nothing inappropriate took place, not just that there was nothing illegal.

Quveas · 10/07/2023 18:50

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 18:39

The Sun's response is very carefully worded. It talks about "two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC" and says their complaint was not acted on by the BBC. It stops short of saying the parents' complaints were true or that they have any evidence that the complaints were true, simply that they have evidence that supports their concerns. Given the way their statement is worded, that could simply be evidence that supports their concerns that the BBC didn't investigate.

We don't have any way of knowing what is true. Even if it is true that nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place, there will always be people who believe it must have been true and that the denials are false.

Show quote history

Actually it was even more carefully worded from the start. I saw it. But there was no point in saying anything. Even after this news posters are still trying to hang someone.

The Sun have NEVER said they had seen evidence. They actually said that they had an affidavit from the mother. In other words, if it turned out to be a lie, they blame her. She swore it was true. They bear no responsibility.

Over the last three days this site has allowed multiple individuals to be named. Reputations of people were dragged through the mud. People vindicated of wrong doing were accused of crimes.

I really hope there is karma.

Zebedee55 · 10/07/2023 18:55

Yes, all the speculators, across social media, guessing at what's looking like a story, need a sharp lesson, if nothing happened.

VeniVidiWeeWee · 10/07/2023 19:02

Does anyone, possibly prh47bridge, know whether a court, at any level, has decided that a social media platform can actually be considered to be a publisher?

kerrycgeorgie · 10/07/2023 19:14

My understanding is that social media are platforms not publishers - content is user generated and the onus is on users although the new online safety bill going through parliament will mean platforms will need to evidence they have adequate content moderation mechanisms in place. Unsurprisingly news publishers are not in scope of the bill,under the guise of preserving freedom of expression but likely because of how politicised our media is

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 19:14

VeniVidiWeeWee · 10/07/2023 19:02

Does anyone, possibly prh47bridge, know whether a court, at any level, has decided that a social media platform can actually be considered to be a publisher?

That has been decided by legislation - the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013. Provided the platform follows the regulations (which set out what they must do when someone complains that they have been libelled), they cannot be sued.

LizzieSiddal · 10/07/2023 19:18

If the young person refuses to co-operate with the police, I assume there isn't much chance of a prosecution.

If there is evidence of photos of a teenager under 18, the police would prosecute anyway.

If The Sun have not got concrete evidence of this, I hope it’s the end for them. They print half truths and even outright lies everyday of the week. I would celebrate if it was the end of them.

justasking111 · 10/07/2023 19:20

Well just about every newspaper and news station could be sued it is a real moneyspinner for the lawyers

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 19:21

kerrycgeorgie · 10/07/2023 19:14

My understanding is that social media are platforms not publishers - content is user generated and the onus is on users although the new online safety bill going through parliament will mean platforms will need to evidence they have adequate content moderation mechanisms in place. Unsurprisingly news publishers are not in scope of the bill,under the guise of preserving freedom of expression but likely because of how politicised our media is

News publishers are only out of scope for those portions of their website that do not consist of user-to-user content. They can, of course, still be sued for defamation for their news content, and they must have adequate moderation in place for any portion of their website that carries user-to-user content.

kerrycgeorgie · 10/07/2023 19:24

Ah that's good to know, so user comments on online articles are in-scope then?

Moonmelodies · 10/07/2023 19:31

How would they prosecute Fannybatter50133 anyway? Send them a DM inviting them to court?

Surgicalnightmare · 10/07/2023 19:33

If what has just come to light is true I hope ALL accused parties take legal action! This weekend has been shocking!

Florenz · 10/07/2023 19:36

How can we ever be sure that nothing happened and the BBC aren't covering it all up?

Inkanta · 10/07/2023 19:39

Florenz · 10/07/2023 19:36

How can we ever be sure that nothing happened and the BBC aren't covering it all up?

Yeah I wonder that.

DoctorWoo · 10/07/2023 19:39

I saw this... very appt.

Who do you think is the BBC presenter who has been suspended?

AutumnCrow · 10/07/2023 19:41

Moonmelodies · 10/07/2023 19:31

How would they prosecute Fannybatter50133 anyway? Send them a DM inviting them to court?

The allegedly defamed will likely go after the people on (eg) Twitter who've got a few bob, and who can be identified. Others will receive DMs/PMs inviting them to remove posts/tweets, say sorry, and give a couple of hundred quid to charity.

That's how these things have worked in the past.

People who have nothing aren't worth suing and it would be highly unusual for the High Court to allow it. The High Court would also expect an agreement to have been offered reasonably, and responded to reasonably.

Surgicalnightmare · 10/07/2023 19:42

Florenz · 10/07/2023 19:36

How can we ever be sure that nothing happened and the BBC aren't covering it all up?

We can't, but we have to go with what evidence there is

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · 10/07/2023 19:43

The wording from the lawyer is odd

"Nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened"

So there was contact? But not the kind of contact the mother/press are claiming?

ThisWOMANWontWheesht · 10/07/2023 19:44

In the meantime, quite coincidentally 🧐, Boris has missed his 4pm deadline for handing over his messages, and is receiving less publicity for this than should have been the case.

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 19:45

kerrycgeorgie · 10/07/2023 19:24

Ah that's good to know, so user comments on online articles are in-scope then?

As the bill stands, yes.

Surgicalnightmare · 10/07/2023 19:47

ThisWOMANWontWheesht · 10/07/2023 19:44

In the meantime, quite coincidentally 🧐, Boris has missed his 4pm deadline for handing over his messages, and is receiving less publicity for this than should have been the case.

The Tories out here casually ruining lives in order to bury news

Quveas · 10/07/2023 19:48

FFS it didn't take long did it? Let's just carry on accusing people of things we can't prove happened, and the people involved say didn't happen. This site gets more dipshit insane be the day.

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 19:49

Moonmelodies · 10/07/2023 19:31

How would they prosecute Fannybatter50133 anyway? Send them a DM inviting them to court?

They would first issue a notice to the website saying they have been defamed. Under the regulations, the website must take down the post(s) concerned unless the user who posted says they want the content to remain and provides their name and address. If the user consents to their details being passed on, the website must hand them over to the complainant. If the user does not consent, the complainant can against the website to get a court order forcing them to hand over Fannybatter50133's details, for which they would have to show they had an arguable case for defamation. Once they have Fannybatter's details, they can sue.

prh47bridge · 10/07/2023 19:55

ThisWOMANWontWheesht · 10/07/2023 19:44

In the meantime, quite coincidentally 🧐, Boris has missed his 4pm deadline for handing over his messages, and is receiving less publicity for this than should have been the case.

What publicity do you think he should have received? It really isn't a major story, no matter how much you want it to be. There are plenty of other stories that would come ahead of this in the headlines. No need for a conspiracy theory suggesting that Boris is somehow responsible for these allegations.