Fao Bbc Presenter Paying £35k For Photos

Well, what evidence does the Sun have? As UEA says, it seems not much.

I also buy Moose’s argument about the parents and the unwilling child/adult.

 

Good story though. And it did the job of keeping attention away from old Gideon Osbourne's reported indiscretions.

 

I have a good friend who works in the Press Office at the Met Office and somewhat surprisingly she names the Telegraph as her least favourite newspaper to deal with. She says the Express’s weather stories have become so silly, nobody believes them, whereas the Telegraph often write nonsensical weather/climate stories under the guise of serious journalism and they also distort badly what the press office actually says to them.

 

Yes, easy to retract. You’d think they must have been given something tangible though to risk the story ? I guess minimal risk if they didn’t name anyone …

 

I think that’s it, yes. Totally different if they had splashed the name.

Anyway, there may yet be further twists…

 

My money is on; Look at this untrustworthy woke warrior from the LGBTQ community making up stories about a nice family man. They do a bit of climate activism on the weekends too.

 

So now we can't believe what's written in the Sun. This country really has had it

 

Looks like the BBC did the right thing in the end by not naming the accused.

Still lots of 'no smoke without fire" speculation on Twitter. Hopefully this person has the opportunity now to continue their career. If their name had been published their career would be over, guilty or not.

 

Doesn’t much depend on whether it is completely false or whether it is true but the “victim” has no objection to the actions?

I’m not very comfortable with the idea that an individual whose salary is funded by us all should be using their position and money in such a way. Especially if it someone whom the BBC explicitly projects as trustworthy.

I’m not sure the BBC will be either.

 

True, but I also not very comfortable about moral judgements made by employers on their employees private lives if they have not committed anything legally wrong.

 

It feels like an abuse of position to me.

The BBC isn’t an “ordinary” employer, it is publicly funded and has an obligation to use that funding responsibly. To my mind, that extends to its employees.

Do we know anything about the “victim”’s relationship to the BBC? If s/he is an employee, then surely it would be an internal disciplinary matter?

Is it all that different from the Philip Schofield case? Nothing illegal there either (supposedly). Although no question of use of taxpayers’ money.

 

The sheer depravity.

 

And what was the evidence for that then?

 

Surely it ceases to be licence payers money at the point at which the BBC pays him it as a salary? Seems like a pretty slippery slope otherwise.

 

Again, I agree. The Schofield case was an abuse of power.

If the "victim" in this case was a subservient employee to the accused in this case then the BBC's position would be straightforward. The accused's contract should be terminated with immediate effect.

But if the "victim" had nothing to do with the BBC then I can't see why it is anything to do with them, even if the relationship, if their was one, is morally unacceptable to some people.

In my opinion, if it was legal then it's nothing to do with me or the BBC.

If the consensus is that his behaviour was something that should be illegal then that is a different discussion imho.

 

A former colleague's Dad was very high up in the Royal Astronomical Society or Royal Observatory, yes, higher than the Moon, and he used to get journalists phoning him up from The Sunday Sport asking him if it would be feasible to have a B-52 on the the Moon among other things.. Obviously, it's highly unlikely but not absolutely impossible. This would be enough evidence for the Sport to then publish its sightings.

 

Honestly astonished they actually checked at all!

 

Isn't it more to do with the fact that the BBC hierarchy were told in May and, rather than suspending him pending an investigation, allowed him to carry on presenting and allegedly partying with BBC bigwigs at an Awards ceremony. Whatever happens, it's yet another black mark for Tory Boy Davie who's fast running out of nine lives.

 

Then you can partially quote eminent scientist. The hacks obviously enjoyed how outlandish they could make the story. Just a different sort of w@nk compared to the rest of the paper.

 

All seems a bit iffy, 35k for pictures doesn’t seem plausible

my completely uneducated guess would be the underage kid was blackmailing said presenter (for what god only knows) , mum found out about the money, kid freaks out concocts crap story, starts getting out of control , kid back tracks - this is probably completely wrong

If it a bit iffy, can’t see it being anybody other than mr tumble

 

True, although Davie claims he knew nothing about it until last Thursday.

I'm certainly not defending the BBC hierarchy or their general performance in this matter, but I think the fact that the accused name was not released is looking like the right decision right now!

 

Parents alleging the money was used to subsidise a crack habit. That'd definitely be a motive for the subject of the photos to lie, but with everyone's identities shielded and no evidence at all it's a bit of a fruitless effort making any sense of things.

 

A whole new meaning to the Bouncy Ball routine.

 

You're certainly damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Davie has been a walking disaster as DG. Beyond hopeless.

 

I'm really uncomfortable with anyone having a go (even in jest) at Justin. His 'Something Special' did an awful lot of good in bringing kids with intellectual disabilities 'out' from the fringes of our society to the mainstream and his work in promoting makaton meant he fully deserved his 'gong'.

 

*there

 

I suppose. I still feel uncomfortable though, and while UEA is right about the “slippery slope”, I suspect my discomfiture has something to do with a feeling that this is “my money”.

Anyway, be that as it may, I am really not sure that the presenter will be able to carry on as if nothing had happened, especially if it is the person who was rumoured yesterday. They just won’t be taken seriously by the public.

 

Starting to question the loving motives of these parents who seem determined to destroy their child's reputation to prove they're right.

 

Didn't he also make an absolute (deserved) fortune as his programmes broke new ground and got sold internationally?

What I'll never understand is where he found all those near identical actors to play the rest of the Tumble family.

 

Phwoar Aunt Polly though eh lads?

 

I'm not sure who you are referring to but that is why I think the accused's name should not have been made public.

Obviously, in the modern world of social media, that was unlikely to be sustainable. But the fact that the "suspect" has already been judged and their career threatened goes against the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I am certainly uncomfortable with the notion that accusations and social media tittle tattle are enough to ruin a person's life. But I realise that the horse has probably already bolted on that one!

 

Yes, I agree with all that.

 

Does the right to privacy law apply to those accused of rape and other misdemeanours far more serious and ruinous to a person's reputation than paying over the odds for some dirty pictures?

 

Summary of the ZXC case from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8f723540-f162-4bad-aa49-55c39387edd4

The Supreme Court concluded as a “legitimate starting point” that a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation. However, whether such an expectation in fact exists is an objective question which will be subject to a fact-specific enquiry, requiring an evaluation of the circumstances of each case. Amongst those circumstances would be:

• the attributes of the individual;
• the nature of the activity in which the individual was engaged;
• the place at which it was happening;
• the nature and purpose of the intrusion;
• the absence of consent and whether it was known or could be inferred;
• the effect on the individual; and
• the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher.

Whilst the Supreme Court noted that the status of ZXC as a businessman actively involved in the affairs of a large public company meant that the limits of acceptable criticism of him were wider than in respect of a private individual, the effect of publication of information that an individual is under criminal investigation is that damage will occur, whatever the individual’s characteristics or status.

Any reasonable expectation of privacy would cease once an individual is charged with a criminal offence, the principle of open justice meaning that such information is of a public nature.

 

Goes on:

Balancing exercise

Whilst the Supreme Court did not have to consider this element, assuming that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, the second stage in determining whether there has been a misuse of private information involves a balancing of the individual’s right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights against the publisher’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10. Relevant factors when conducting this balancing exercise would be:

• how well-known is the individual concerned and what is the subject of the report;
• the prior conduct of the individual concerned;
• the method of obtaining the information and its veracity;
• the content, form and consequences of publication; and
• the severity of the restriction or interference and its proportionality with the exercise of the freedom of expression.

The extent to which publication is in the public interest will be of central importance.