Dan Wootton trending on Twitter...

[LookItsMeAgain]

I was wondering why this name has been popping up on my "Trending for you"on Twitter over the past while

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/gb-news-star-dan-wootton-unmasked-in-cash-for-sexual-images-catfishing-scandal/

Wow is all I can say.

Just wow!

He wasn't offered a reduced sentence when he gave up information, he was told he wouldn't be offered anything. The judge believed he did what he did because he was trying to do the right thing. Nobody else cooperated. Not sure what information you're privy to that the judge wasn't.

Jesus wept, the defence of Wootton is extraordinary!

The judge believed....

A judge believed Amber Heard when she said she'd given $7m to charity.

Judges are just people, as fallible as everyone else.

I think I prefer to listen to someone who has met him and read relevant information, who also happens to be a judge, than random person defending odious tabloid journalist.

I know!

There's some big fans on here hiding under the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantle by not criticising one thing he has ever done.

SerafinasGoose
Wootton has been involved in acrimonious litigation on numerous occasions - including with Flack's former fiance.

'acrimonious litigation with Flack's former fiance'?

The former fiance of the late television presenter Caroline Flack has been jailed for a campaign of harassment against the journalist Dan Wootton.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/04/andrew-brady-caroline-flack-ex-fiance-jailed-harassment-dan-wootton

Shameless. Utterly and completely shameless.

The judge didn't meet him. He just listened to testimony. Same as the judge did to Amber Heard.
Both judges made decisions about their motivations and veracity.
Turns out the judge read Amber Heard completely wrong.
Dan Evans was a drunk and a drug addict who hacked people's phones for a long time. He didn't stop. He didnt blow the whistle. He got arrested and gave up info to get a lighter sentence. All of that is recorded fact from Dan Evans himself. Judge can read him how he wants.

Iwantcakeeveryday
He wasn't offered a reduced sentence when he gave up information, he was told he wouldn't be offered anything.

January 2014
A key prosecution witness at the phone hacking trial has admitted his main motivation in co-operating with the police inquiry was to try to secure "immunity from prosecution".

Dan Evans, a former reporter at the News Of The World, was not given immunity, but the Old Bailey was told he did strike a deal for a reduced sentence if he testified on behalf of the Crown.

https://news.sky.com/story/key-hacking-witness-wanted-legal-immunity-10419474

I’m sorry I don’t get it?? I think it’s all lies against him

So you think a number of people (at least a dozen apparently) have lied about him, including by making formal complaints to the police? Why would they? Or that Byline Times made the whole thing up and only pretended that it had taken 3 years to investigate? Again why ?

So do you think that it's just a conspiracy against poor Dan ?

We’re not tetchy, we trying to point out everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

You’re entitled not to like Wootton but not entitled to convict him.

We are not convicting him but given how he drags anyone in for vitriolic criticism, there is some karma going on

Absolutely - I don’t give a shiny shite what he has or hasn’t done with regard to the nude photo thing, it’s the poetry of him having to take what he constantly dishes out. Could be the making of him as a person, he’s got away with being a ducking aunt for far too long.

Again, innocent before guilty.

you don’t know how many people have made allegations or how strong the evidence is.

remember how everyone thought they knew the allegations against Leon Britain were true

But public opinion isn’t a court of law. There is no innocent or guilty, but people are entitled to opinions on others actions legal or not. That’s just society.

Maybe it will come out that DW has broken some sort of law or maybe not, that just leaves peoples own moral judgement (which they’re entitled to have) and isn’t subject to laws.

Bullying isn’t illegal, it doesn’t mean opinions of a bully aren’t valid.

Fuck yes. This is clearly not a man who's ever applied innocent until proven guilty himself.

StarbucksSmarterSister
So you think a number of people (at least a dozen apparently) have lied about him, including by making formal complaints to the police?

But none of the victims mentioned in the Byline Times article have identified Dan Wootton as 'Martin Branning' have they?

And let’s remember, the industry he’s in targets people without consent, legally but without invitation or alerting his subject. It’s not like being bullied by someone at work where you have some sort of recourse. DW comments on others with no right of reply offered or consequence to himself.

And what role did the five 'co-conspirators' play? Were there six people identifying as 'Martin Branning'?

Doesn't an Executive Editor carry any responsibility for the paper of which he editor if there are other people described as editors, then?

Part 2 is out

No, that's a frequent misconception. There is a presumption for criminal law purposes that people are innocent until proved guilty. Simply a presumption, not a fact. Clearly people can be and actually are guilty before they are proved guilty; no-one would claim, for instance, that Fred West or Jimmy Savile were innocent even though they were never convicted of the offences for which they are best known; or that Ian Brady was innocent of the murders of Keith Bennett and Pauline Reade, even though he was never charged with them. Indeed, objectively, no convicted murderer was ever innocent of murder, even though they may not have been convicted until months or years after they killed their victim.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/20/dan-wootton-was-a-serial-bully-at-the-sun-but-bosses-promoted-him-as-complaints-were-silenced/

Would anyone risk reporting this if none of it were true ?

He sounds like an awful bullying boss from that article, but I’m sure his defenders will be along in a minute to explain how I’ve got it all wrong.