Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
With an outstanding investigation by the BBC into the Sun allegation, the lockdown breach, threatening behaviour confirmed by BBC News and - as reported by the BBCs own Victoria Derbyshire - multiple allegations of misconduct from junior employees.
One can only wonder how anyone being bullied or harassed at a major news organisation by a more senior member of staff feels at this very minute.
|
All of it is, at present, allegations with no proof that it actually happened.
Time will tell whether these things actually happened or not.
Quite possible his friends and colleagues are coming out and supporting him at the moment because the guy is ill in hospital and also because he is innocent until proven guilty.
If we had trial by media, the S*n would have ensured the whole of Liverpool was in jail in 1989. Now I do not like Liverpool fans much, but the way the S*n treated them and perpetuated, even amplified the lies coming out of SYP at the time regarding the disaster, was an absolute disgrace and should never have been allowed.
It's also no surprise that it is the same publication at the centre of these allegations, which let us not forget the legal system has investigated and dismissed.
I am not saying whether HE has done what is alleged or not, I have little interest in making a judgement on this myself, partially because we have a legal system which decides this. If he has broken internal BBC procedures then this should again be down to the BBC to decide. Nor am I suggesting what he allegedly did was morally right or not because that isn't my position to judge either. But he is also not going to be guilty of it because the S*n says he is.
As for the 2nd paragraph, one would hope the BBC would have a respect charter or similar for employees, with the facility of raising any concerns or allegations about bullying to either a senior manager or member of the HR dept (and yes, I know the latter is primarily to protect the ER from being sued if they don't follow correct processes with the EE, but bullying/constructive dismissal cases could well come under that banner). Some larger companies even have anonymous hotlines for this kind of thing.
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The problem is this got so much attention because of the suggestion of illegal activity. If they came out and said there was legal, but morally questionable, sexual activity between consenting adults then it's not clear it would be published. Likewise 'BBC Presenter broke lockdown rules to have an affair' might be a story that people would be angry about if it had been the initial story to break.
Prince Andrew was accused of sexual assault by the alleged victim.
|
Matt Hancock may well beg to differ on the affair question. Like Johnson and the party lies, it basically finished him as a politician.
You're spot on, though Damien.
There was only interest in this because not only did the S*n whip it into a frenzy that a senior BBC presenter had asked a young teen for pictures to fund his drug habit, but there was also the mystique that said person couldn't be named, and the question as to whether any laws have been broken.
This was allowed to carry on for a few days simply because details couldn't go out.
But now the police have decided there is no illegal activity to answer (why is this - if he has been getting naked pics off a 17 yr old this is clearly off the face of it illegal, so there is potentially either the case it didn't happen at all, or the kid said he was 18, or there was reasonable belief they were etc etc), the person has been named, there's no aura over it now.
It might not be in the best interests for anyone to produce any more details. If they turned round now and said, for example, that yes the kid was 17, but that he told HE he was 19 and his social media profile was aged up, then OK that's technically not allowed but how far is one meant to go? There's still also the implication there that a man in his 60s was interested in sexual pics of a teen lad which seems a bit icky on presumably most people's moral compasses, even if the lad is 18 and it's technically not breaking any laws.