Sick of social media kangaroo court

[Minerva38]

Not here to discuss specifics of BBC presenters case or get on my high horse about the morality of it. Bottom line is no crime is deemed to have been committed and so far allegations have come vía the gutter rag that is The Sun and endless speculation on social media.

Before the police had even looked into things, the Sun and social media were already rife with speculation and it seems this is now the modern Court where we judge and condemn anyone famous who might have had something happen in their private lives. It's a sick feeding frenzy and everyone has to have an opinion.

Now the family are forced to identify the man and news and social channels are feasting on this endlessly.

Caroline Flacks death clearly hasn't taught us anything and I won't be surprised if this or other cases go that way too.

Agreed.

Yes It's for the police, employer, those involved to hold people to account, not Joe Public behind the keyboard on Twitter.

I listened to the Newsagents podcast. They had an ex-Sun editor. He was talking ALOT about blackmail. Also people are talking about naked-ish photos of newsreader on twitter. How did those photos get there?

No-one knows the truth. There are so many angles and layers to this. The knitting-needle / guillotine feeling makes me feel slightly sick. It's like so many people get off on the sensation of righteous indignation (both ways) instead of just waiting, or even accepting that we'll never know the truth.

But it's human nature. We are evolutionary hard-wired for gossip and drama. Both helped us to survive in caveman times. The internet and mobile phones have caused these instincts to go rampant.

I don't know the answer and admit that i'm as bad as anyone for engaging with this horror show.

(Although do believe it is politically driven, so should not be ignored.)

I agree.
It's also pretty grim to have a name that aligns with vaginal flatulence.

Agreed. His employer should have done it. But they didn’t even ask him about the behaviour until the sun got involved.
the BBC still too deferential to « the talent », I’m afraid

Perfectly sums it up.

@MrsPapadopolis I think you're reaching if my username, about an innocent process that affects no-one, that all women do.. can in any way compare to the grimness of seedy old men.
Nice try 😂

I remember posting a similar thread to this about five years ago. I was robustly told that people wouldn’t have to worry if they didn’t do anything wrong would they? I said at the time, just you wait and see how bad it’s going to get, and here we are.

Here we are what?? A man gets called out by the press for his sordid sexual behaviour? That's been going on for a lot longer than 5 years...

This is true. The difference now, as far as I can see, is developments in privacy law meant he couldn’t be named; so the absurd circus developed, which didn’t help him, his family or his colleagues who had to deny it was them

I absolutely agree. It's modern equivalent of the mob.

Whilst not saying he has commited a crime, it's not surprising the MET can't find any wrong doing, they can't find it within their own force nevermind elsewhere.

Good God.

Talk about wilful ignoring of facts & apologism

👏

The only reason I can see that he's done wrong is use licences payers money.

Has he? Hasn't just spent his wages? Doesn't matter who he gets paid by. He can spend his money how he likes.

This is an old-fashioned sex scandal. But we like to think we have moved on from that and so are reaching for new angles to justify outrage and interest.

Have we learnt nothing from Caroline Flack.

If you're sick of social media kangaroo courts, you might want to close down your MN account.

There are countless threads about MNs' partners, siblings, parents, in-laws etc in which the MNer is totally blameless while the other person is toxic, abusive, unreasonable etc. The MN chorus then chimes in, agreeing with the OP about how terrible the other person is.

When the real courts wont act tgis is the result

She was a deeply troubled individual who would have ended her own life whether she was on TV or working in waitrose. She was ill.

I was fully against the frothing speculation of who the presenter was, before he was named. The threads here, the rabid SM naming - completely wrong.

Not however because of Huw Edwards, but because of all the innocent named individuals who had to publicly deny the allegations. It's disgraceful that thanks to an action of another, that these men get placed in the position.

I'm shocked by the volume of high level, well-known personality support of someone who at a minimum has exercised really poor judgment and behaved unethically, with particular reference to his public role. He may have done more than this, in terms of his treatment & engagement of young vulnerable people. I'm shocked at the 'private life' 'not criminal' line of defence that's being trotted out. If you enjoy the privileges of a public role, your right to utter privacy in every matter cannot be guaranteed. Equally, behaviour can be shameful, damaging & wrong, without being criminal.

Finally, the hiding behind MH defence is wrong for those who genuinely experience such issues and for whom their exposure in the public eye is a cause of MH difficulties. Huw Edwards' problems are directly of his own making.

I wonder what his contract of employment says. Something about not bringing the BBC into disrepute? If I were the Beeb I think I’d want that in exchange for the thick end of half a mill