Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Think about that. When the BBC allowed Russell Brand to swear at Andrew Sachs, and when Blue Peter was found to have been a little dodgy when awarding prizes, those papers were complaining about the BBC for weeks (in fact, the Russell Brand thing was front page news on the Daily Mail for over a week). Now, there is a chance that staff (or ex staff) at the BBC have been involved in something actually illegal, and we have relatively few stories.
|
I think it's probably because they are on dodgy ground making accusations at the moment. They don't know who knew and if the BBC had any complaints. As has been mentioned there is probably quite a lot of complicity to go around but, again, we need to make the distinction between rumour and fact. Hearing a rumour doesn't mean you knew it was true. Legally the BBC, 2nd hand accusers, and newspapers would have to be careful labelling someone as a child abuser.
The best they have at the moment is that the BBC story was pulled from Newsnight but the leaked e-mails don't show a cover-up, they show a difference on opinion on if the story was strong enough without an admission from the CPS that they had decided not to act on the allegations because of his age.
More may come out in time. At the moment it's best to reserve judgement until we have some more substantive evidence of a BBC cover-up.