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!

Maybe they are just reporting what had happened and the actual evidence of each incident has been handed over to lawyers/police.

'Yes, that's right. I called him the C-word. The C-word is often a lovely warm and beautiful word when we're talking about women's vulvas and vaginas but it is also the best and worst swear word going when we need to express just how low and disgusting we think a.n. other person is. Wootton is that a.n. other person. Wootton is a cunt. '

Oh well done you said cunt a few times. Round of applause for Mouse.

You are comparing 2 similar situations. Men on telly have allegations made about them. Now it doesn't matter if you like 'decent' Huw and hate 'Dan The Cunt'. What matters is evidence and we'll have to wait and see it. Nice Huw still hasn't found time to tell his spokes people to deny anything yet. I wonder why that is.

Jesus, this reads like a practical interview for newsgroup. Your points barely represent a thing I posted and clearly have your projections all over them. Maybe you’ll get lucky and they’ll headhunt you through mumsnet 🤞

Why on earth don't you question this stuff, young vulnerable people being allegedly exploited by rich privileged older blokes is not ok

Thats what this whole thread is about. Why are you defending that?

As for calling me dear it wreaks of misogyny but if you've been conditioned to think men can do no wrong and women pointing it out are the baddies then I can't help you

Yup. That’s obviously where I’m coming from. 🙄interesting change of tactic though, dropping the blatant hypocrisy in favour of attacking and seizing on an argument to try and gain some sort of moral high ground.

Do better

I presume you’re holding yourself up as a benchmark here? Lol 😁

I’m perfectly happy as I am. thanks but no thanks.

'I presume you’re holding yourself up as a benchmark here? '

Yep I wouldn't ever minimise alleged depraved, predatory behavior as 'horny men' or 'it's just their sex drive dear'.

'it's just their sex drive dear'

literally never said that. You have because for some reason you’re desperate to twist words so you can be outraged about something that was never written. Rupert Murdoch would be proud.

Is it an incompatible position to despise Wootton and want him to be brought down whilst at the same time thinking this explosive 3 part expose Bylines has put together is, so far, very underwhelming?

I find it shocking personally.

It all depends where it ends up doesn't it?

I don’t think so.

The point is, as far as I can tell, to expose his hypocrisy as indisputable fact. Is it really tenable to have a reporter whose bread and butter is whipping up moral outrage exposed as someone who engages in the same, and worse, behaviours.

The staffing of the byline times makes me hopeful they’ve understood the legalities of what they’re trying to pull off because any legal judgement against them for defamation/slander would collapse the whole thing.

Shocking? That he was a bully. That he offered money for sex photos. I'd say par for the course.

They've had three years investigating it. Are you saying they're unsure of whether what they're publishing is true or not? That hardly inspires confidence in the quality of evidence they've got.

I’m not saying anything with that level of certainty. I’m not privy to what goes on at the byline times behind closed doors.

Logically though, it would be daft to run the report if they weren’t certain they weren’t going to be smacked down legally. So far it seems they’ve called it correctly.

And you wouldn’t be alone, however you probably wouldn’t get very far trying to make that a public factual statement.

As a comparison, plenty of high profile people said outright what people like Saville and Weinstein were up to but were gagged legally. I’m absolutely not saying that Wotton has done anything in the same league as those two I’m just trying to illustrate that there is a value in establishing a character as fact instead of allowing them to shield behind legalese through lack of certainty and credibility.

If you're going to make a big thing about your extensive and in-depth three year investigation, I'd expect you'd come up with more than they have done.

Logically though, it would be daft to run the report if they weren’t certain they weren’t going to be smacked down legally. So far it seems they’ve called it correctly.

I don't even know what this means. Are you saying they're correct not to publish anything of real factual content because they haven't been slapped with some sort of injunction? Is that the state of British investigative journalism? We won't publish facts so we'll avoid being held to account? No wonder Dan Evans stuck so long to hacking rather than actual journalistic endeavours because, honestly, he doesn't seem that good at it.

I personally do think it is a major story if he has had several bullying claims made about him and that they were paid off and signed agreements not to say anything. When it was Schofield being discussed as a bully, it was huge news that a similar number of former colleagues were making the same claim. I don't think any were paid off by ITV.

'What are you reading? Facts dear. If horny offends your sensibilities then just replace with ‘driven by sexual desire'

Driven by sexual desire is actually the same thing .

You said it, not me. I'd be embarrassed too.

Now I’m not sure what you’re saying?

I’m saying they can’t publish anything they can’t back up because that’s when they’ll be forced legally to retract what they’ve published and then lose any credibility in their claims. For the claims to remain credible they have to be able to defend them against lawyers attempts to remove them. There’s little point in publishing reports that at a later date have legal holes punched in them as it discredits the whole thing.

It remains to be seen if there is anything that constitutes law breaking by Wotton, but publishing the allegations could constitute law breaking if they’re not sufficiently backed up. That’s not a new phenomenon, defamation and slander have been taken seriously in journalism for eons surely?

'it's just their sex drive dear'

So I didn’t say that ^^ then? We’re agreed? Because your changing around of the words completely changes the context, as you well know.

I’m not embarrassed (other than for you). You’re clearly desperate to paint me in a certain way for your own reasons, maybe try and be a bit cleverer about it if that’s the tactic you’re trying to take.

Presumably the editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief (at least) were both senior to Wootton? Part 2 of Bylines' expose confirms that Victoria Newton (mentioned above) was Wootton's boss from Feb 2020.

On any interpretation an Executive Editor has a senior role and must carry responsibility for what happens within the organisation.

'DW - Routinely treats people like shit and makes his living encouraging people to treat others like shit too. May or may not have broke the law. So far not illegal but undenied evidence of a hypocritical shyster and behaviour that again is morally ambiguous and depends on how sanctimonious you are about bullying'

Allegedly.

It's not "allegedly". We can all see that he treats people like shit and encourages others to do so, simply by reading what he writes. When you start from a character base as low as that, it is hypocritical to start slinging around allegations against other people, particularly allegations that are primarily supposition.

That's an awful thing to say Janiie.

@Cornettoninja has always been a respected poster on MN, you are just trying to score points, whilst mounting a fierce defence of anything Wootton may or may not have done.

'has always been a respected poster on MN, you are just trying to score points, whilst mounting a fierce defence of anything Wootton may or may not have done.'

Not defending him. I am saying why aren't we sticking to the same rules we had with Huw Edwards and await for proof rather than allegations?! I don't think it is 'awful to say' that saying it's 'their sexual desires' is not ok despite someone reporting it and getting it deleted.

Glad to see it was deleted.

I, personally, was not involved with rules on Huw Edwards. I didn't know there were any.

A PP upthread has a valid point when they say a real dark force in the media establishment is Rupert Murdoch. This is true. No one person should ever have been allowed to grab the amount of media power this man has - which brings with it a likely unique opportunity to influence others on a mass scale.

But you can bet on it that as far as establishment dark forces are concerned, he isn't the only one.

In the media, broadcasting and film industries, the protection of male sexual proclivities at all costs - including at the expense of women and children - is one such, particularly if revolting practices like the 'casting couch' are common knowledge.

A few have fallen in their swords - and they don't have to have gone so far as to commit a criminal offence to be deemed unfit for post and dismissed. But persistent rumours have swirled around certain names, and as 'national institutions' they are still being supported and protected. Once these men cark it, only then will the right questions be asked alongside the inevitable protestations: 'I never trusted him, he always gave me the creeps'.

Pointless ruminating when it's too late. This rot needs flushing out from the top down.

I don’t think anyone’s that fussed about the allegations, @Janiie . What I’m enjoying is seeing a disher-outer getting it back in spades. A decent person would learn lessons from this, let’s see if Wootton does. Given his career and wealth are entirely based upon him being an arsehole for money, my hopes aren’t high.