This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
The arrival of a lawyer threatening legal action against speculation, has only added petrol to the fire. It's someone big and powerful ala Saville was.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
I'm replying to myself. The young person has been paid off and given a lawyer, and no doubt continuing money. There is only one person I can think of that big. Plus, the youngster is now constantly person. This makes me think, firstly, avoid homophobic backlash as in Schofield, secondly this is someone more powerful than the BBC. Their own Oprah as it were. That leaves only one person in my opinion.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
secondly this is someone more powerful than the BBC. Their own Oprah as it were. That leaves only one person in my opinion. I have absolutely no idea whom you are referring to
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
I have absolutely no idea whom you are referring to Timmy Mallet. does he need to spell it out ?
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
There seems to be a concerted effort to keep a name from being 'outed'. There were rumblings among MP's yesterday that someone might use the HoC privilege to put a name out there during discussions.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
There seems to be a concerted effort to keep a name from being 'outed'. There were rumblings among MP's yesterday that someone might use the HoC privilege to put a name out there during discussions. The person deserves some anonymity until the BBC has concluded its investigation. As for the Sun it will reach a point in the next few days when it's put up or shut up time. If the Sun believes that some or all of these allegations are true they should print the name and face the possibility of legal action by the individual.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
There seems to be a concerted effort to keep a name from being 'outed'. There were rumblings among MP's yesterday that someone might use the HoC privilege to put a name out there during discussions. BBC, Old Bill, Lawyer, all Freemasons, conspiracy, i heard it was Kermit the Frog
“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
There seems to be a concerted effort to keep a name from being 'outed'. There were rumblings among MP's yesterday that someone might use the HoC privilege to put a name out there during discussions. As there should be. Just because the public is interested doesn't mean it's in the public interest to reveal anything. Let the police do their job and establish whether anything criminal has potentially taken place. Then let due process establish guilt or innocence. Behaving immorally or unwisely is not a crime. The BBC are between a rock and a hard place. They need to avoid both being guilty of defamation and of reputational damage, whilst not being directly involved at all. Any MP using Parliamentary privilege to name the person would take a very big risk of reputational damage themselves should it later emerge that there was nothing but a shakedown going on.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
"We need to run a fair process and navigate the course fairly and transparently," the BBC chief said. The Sun newspaper also asked Davie if the corporation has "ascertained who paid for the youngster's lawyer" but the director-general said "that's not something corporately for the BBC".
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
"We need to run a fair process and navigate the course fairly and transparently," the BBC chief said. The Sun newspaper also asked Davie if the corporation has "ascertained who paid for the youngster's lawyer" but the director-general said "that's not something corporately for the BBC". If this is a disciplinary review then the lawyer will not be allowed any involvement. Likely there may be a Trade Union rep to support the individual. The issue is that this has not been a normal process, it has become a media circus involving potential defamation of the young person in question in multiple media. That is not an issue for a disciplinary review, nor is there a specific duty of care to that person unless 'they' are a BBC employee Are you implying that the individual doesn't have the right to get professional help when apparently being defamed by one of the most powerful businesses in the country?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Are you implying that the individual doesn't have the right to get professional help when apparently being defamed by one of the most powerful businesses in the country? Purely as a matter of interest can you be defamed if no-one knows who you are as we don't even know if it is male or female
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As there should be. Just because the public is interested doesn't mean it's in the public interest to reveal anything. Let the police do their job and establish whether anything criminal has potentially taken place. Then let due process establish guilt or innocence. Behaving immorally or unwisely is not a crime. The BBC are between a rock and a hard place. They need to avoid both being guilty of defamation and of reputational damage, whilst not being directly involved at all. Any MP using Parliamentary privilege to name the person would take a very big risk of reputational damage themselves should it later emerge that there was nothing but a shakedown going on. No, but it can have life-changing consequences..... just ask the Duke of York
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.