BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 271 of 435 < 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 >

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Jul 23 9.22am
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!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Jul 23 9.22am

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!

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Jul 23 9.27am
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!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 11 Jul 23 9.27am

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!

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 11 Jul 23 9.39am
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
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

11 Jul 23 9.39am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 10.04am
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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 10.04am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 10.16am
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. For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out. People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 10.16am

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.
For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out.
People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 11 Jul 23 10.43am
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. For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out. People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc 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
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 11 Jul 23 10.43am

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.
For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out.
People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Lanzo-Ad Lanzarote 11 Jul 23 10.46am
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. For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out. People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc 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
Alert a moderator to this post

Lanzo-Ad

Lanzarote 11 Jul 23 10.46am

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 Jul 23 10.59am
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. For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out. People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 Jul 23 10.59am

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.
For all the threats, and the fact people are obviously intimidated by this 'name', they will be outed. It might take quite a few more weeks, but it will come out.
People don't want another situation with Savile or King, etc, etc

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 12.37pm
"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.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 11 Jul 23 12.37pm

"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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Jul 23 12.49pm
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?
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Jul 23 12.49pm

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?

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 11 Jul 23 1.06pm
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
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

11 Jul 23 1.06pm

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

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 Jul 23 1.07pm
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
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 Jul 23 1.07pm

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

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Page 271 of 435 < 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors